Talk:Wigan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions. | |
| This article has been rated "start" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale. | ||
|
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Greater Manchester WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive guide to places in Greater Manchester. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother projects; UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject. |
|
||
|
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find suggestions on how to improve related articles. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. |
||||
Contents |
[edit] Archives
- /archive1 23 January 2005 - 19 December 2006
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
-
-
- 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)
-
-
[edit] Stop
 This behaviour must stop. Continuing to insult, provoke or otherwise disrupt will likely result in accounts being blocked.Please read Wikipedia's polciy on civility, personal attacks and blocking accounts. |
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 ......
[[1]]
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
[edit] 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 ..... [[2]]
-
-
- 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 : <D.Barton@wiganmbc.gov.uk> >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.
- The 'verifiable source' provided clearly displays contrary facts and figures to other editors claims. The verified source, as displayed [[3]] 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!
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.
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)
[edit] The Latest 'Spiteful Reversions' by Jhamez
- What a shambles. Created by an 'editor' who has called Wikipedia' his own. First he contacts my talk page, telling me this .... '
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.
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.
