User talk:Trappedinburnley/Archives/2022

Lancashire parishes
Back years ago you created new parish articles such as Goldshaw Booth, Old Laund Booth and Worsthorne-with-Hurstwood, I have listed some more at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2) that are still missing that you might be interested in.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm cringing to see I've not noticed the Worsthorne with Hurstwood redirect problem for six years! I'm currently focused on finishing Scheduled monuments in Lancashire, but it's nearly there. I could put a little time into this over Christmas. I've had a quick look at the Lancashire ones and I have a question and I've been unable to find the answer. As I'm sure you know it is common in situations where a CP contains a settlement with the same name, to have one article for both subjects. In the case of Roughlee Booth and Higham-with-West Close Booth both contain villages with slightly different names and the rural area surrounding them. At the moment the CP names redirect to the village names. This could be reversed if it is felt the CP is more significant than the village. It doesn't seem entirely sensible to be replacing redirects with dedicated articles purely because their names are not identical. Maybe I'm missing something? TiB  chat  20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed you fixed Goldshaw Booth, Lancashire a few months after creating the Goldshaw Booth article but indeed the Worsthorne with Hurstwood was not fixed until 2018 (by me). Its usual to have 1 combined article when the settlement and civil parish have the same name such as Slaidburn as well as usually when the CP name is an alternative name such as Ellesmere Urban redirecting to the town but in the cases of Roughlee Booth and Higham-with-West Close Booth are these alternative names? The former may well be but the latter doesn't seem to be if the name "West Close" is included in the CP name just like the name "Hurstwood" is included in "Worsthorne-with-Hurstwood", see User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "alternative names" is the best term to describe the situation. One is the name of the CP the other the name of a settlement. Searching for Ellesmere Urban on Google Maps, it appears that the situations are similar. So I guess I'd agree. When I expanded Worsthorne with Hurstwood, I'd already created Hurstwood, and had content that didn't fit into either that or Worsthorne. In the case of Higham-with-West Close Booth, West Close today is only a farm a little way south of the village. The origin of the names of these parishes can be traced to the medieval period, there is more info at Forest of Pendle. on the other hand I'm sure I could create articles for both. There are six houses that arguably form the western end of the village of Higham that are in Ightenhill, Burnley. Roughlee Booth contains an area called Thorney Holme which as it is across the river from Roughlee village (hamlet?) proper, is arguably a distinct settlement. Currently my inclination would be to improve the articles we have.


 * Again looking at the map, Gisburn Forest, Hesketh-with-Becconsall, Ingol and Tanterton,, Mearley, Saint Anne's on the Sea, and Stalmine-with-Staynall all look like they could arguably be expanded into articles. I'm not sure if I'll actually do them all, but I'll ponder it further. TiB chat  20:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems the best way of describing them, "Ellesmere Urban" is kind of an alternative name in that it has been named to distinguish from Ellesmere Rural, meaning we may not need a separate article. I see West Close is indeed a small place near Higham its self but given its in the parish name it quite clearly indicates a distinct name unlike Ellesmere Urban.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, that's 2 of them done, note that for Lytham St Annes I created drafts at Draft:St Annes, Lancashire and Draft:Lytham, Lancashire which were deleted but you can request them to be restored at WP:REFUND/G13.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the draft space and haven't tried the restore process yet. I'm unsure how to proceed with Saint Anne's on the Sea as it is a modern creation with fewer available sources. It seems you may have been considering splitting the Lytham St Annes article? I can see the problem with the Towns and districts section, but it appears it could be reorganised into geography and history sections. Adding info about the CP to a Governance section would have been my preference. Along with your content removals from Stalmine-with-Staynall and Inskip-with-Sowerby, I think I should pause to understand your thinking. In both these cases I don't agree that the content is only relevant to the village articles. With the exception of RNAS Inskip (HMS Nightjar), the content all relates to the origin of the name or in the case of the CofE churches is relevant background info. Regarding the military communications centre it is near, not in, the village of Inskip and a large part of it is actually in Treales, Roseacre and Wharles parish. Mentions in all three articles would seem appropriate. Obviously I'm still working of these (Happy New Year BTW) and I wonder is the level of repetitiveness perhaps triggered your actions? TiB  chat  19:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my removal of the content in Stalmine-with-Staynall and Inskip-with-Sowerby, indeed I though repitition wasn't good but if you think the content belongs in both it can, I'll request undeletion of the drafts. St Annes does appear to have quite a bit of history as you'll see from the draft but if something is a modern creation then that tends to mean its more likely to get a separate article since there will be a firm point of coverage but that doesn't matter anyway since its got older usage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft:St Annes, Lancashire and Draft:Lytham, Lancashire have been restored, I posted a comment at Talk:Lytham St Annes back in 2020 but didn't get a reply, also at Talk:Lytham St Annes this was suggested back in 2010.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
 * Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Clayton-le-Moors
"This article generally could use improvement. I'd help if you are interested?"

I'm interested and would like to collaborate within my limitations. I could review the article, making obvious fixes. Then we could jointly document areas that we think need attention. That gives a checklist for any editor. Filling the gaps would depend on what each of us is able to do. Is that a workable plan for you?

I was born a Londoner, but I now live halfway round the world. So I can't do anything that requires a physical presence. Even so, I would like to work on some UK articles with someone who is there.

My skills are writing, editing, and research. My main interests lie in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, especially the technical and social effects of the industrial revolution and the Napoleonic period. Wanting to know more about John Mercer took me to Clayton. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As I am fairly local and also have an interest in local history we should get on just fine. My previous work on the Leeds and Liverpool and also Burnley Barracks has taught me a little about the period you are interested in and I'd like to know more. Mercer seems like an interesting chap. I've just added a few links to his article. It also could stand some improvement, but perhaps a place we could start is Oakenshaw. I've been meaning to expand it with info on the Print Works for quite a while. I've just found an online copy of E. A. Parnell, The life and labours of John Mercer (1886), which looks to be very useful. The establishment of this factory was effectively the beginning of the modern Clayton-le-Moors. I don't have a huge amount of free time, but I'm happy to work on any of these articles. What do you think? TiB chat  19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt if anyone who dabbles in Wikipedia has a huge amount of free time, TiB !

The Oakenshaw article is certainly thin. And there isn't all that much more about John Mercer. The book you have found would be a good source for both.

What I could do is search the book for anything to do with Oakenshaw and the print works, and also pull out anything about Mercer that is useful. I could write the text with simple referencing. You could review it and do the actual coding of the references. (Since you have much more experience than me, I am presuming that you can do that task much faster than I could.) How about that? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Your plan should be fine, give it a go. I'm watching the article so I'll see your changes. I've just spent the last couple of hours trying to find more sources. It's been very interesting, but I've not been able to find anything particularly in-depth. Here are some of the better ones:


 * The Industrial Archaeology of North-west England Owen Ashmore
 * Grace's Guide Several brief articles
 * Broad Oak Printworks also started by Taylor, Fort, Bury & Co
 * Maps 1840s 1890 partial


 * Also some WP articles to link to John Fort (MP), Parsley Peel, Read Hall and Park, Richard Cobden, Richard Fort (Liberal politician, born 1822). Don't feel you have to use all this, but I may as well share what I've found. TiB  chat  23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added the historical information I derived from "The life and labours of John Mercer". Unfortunately, the book didn't say much about Oakenshaw, the print works, or even John Mercer. It was more a history of inorganic dyes. My progress has been slow because I have taken on too much and faced more limitations. I will try to assess what is needed next. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello The history of your area is very interesting and I wonder if it has already been compiled by someone. So I will look for more sources.

I have come up with a map of Clayton-le-Moors from about 1790; it looks as if there was no industry at that time. By 1826, there were calico printing works, cotton factories, soap works, corn-mills, brick and tile works and engineering works. And riots.

In 1844 there was a printworks at Oakenshaw and a mill at Henfield (note the spelling). By 1892, the area had Oakenshaw Printworks, Madder Clough Mill, Hyndburn Printworks, Henfield Mill, Albert Mill, Sabden Printworks. Then there is the Broad Oak shop and who knows how many others in the surrounding towns. It is easy to forget that they were powered by waterwheels to begin.

There is a lot more to put together but I think it will be worthwhile as an example of development. However, I will only be able to tackle it a bit at a time. I have found myself bogged down in Wikipedia so I will limit myself to essentials for a while. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
 * Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
 * Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
 * PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
 * Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
 * Pirate Flag of Jack Rackham.svg Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
 * Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
 * Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
 * Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)