User talk:Man2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

  • When I was little, I always wanted to be first to piss in the snow! 80.193.161.89 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyactingthegoatH.

[edit] Stockport

No problem. Was just about to confirm it with you! You might be interested in this also. Jhamez84 11:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd raise this with JemmyH and at the Wigan Borough talk page. At a first glance it seems the terms are interchangable, but then-again, parts of Wigan Borough still use Townships, so may mean something else.
A district to me suggests a populated, or built up area - it may be best used for those kinds of areas, whilst component area may be better for rural or more obsure areas. Jhamez84 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Contact User:MRSC about creating a Wigan postcode area page - He has some source material that will get you started. It worked well for the OL postcode area. Jhamez84 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to pass comment at this deletion proposal page. Or talk a look at this debate. Jhamez84 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population Boom in Wigan?

Come on, Man2, you know where the population figure covers, it's your 'speciality subject', and it's not Wigan (which is the place the article is about). That number needs replacing with a true figure, but where do we find one? the only 'census' being the one taken for the 'Wigan Urban Area' by the NSO. 80.193.161.89 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Thanks for the reply, in which you ask for a citation to show that Wigan covers three and a half square miles. Did I not send you a list of all the component parts of Wigan Metropolitan Borough, showing the sizes of all the towns and settlements that make up that borough? Did all the areas not add up to the seventy seven square miles that is claimed by the council? Of course it did. Where is the list which I sent? 80.193.161.89 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. PS more news to follow ....

  • I took one of my bikes for it's MOT today. Whilst it was waiting it's turn, I had a stroll around Wigan and took it upon myself to call in at the planning and regeneration office where, amongst other things, I asked about the 'population figure' for Wigan. The person I asked asked someone else, who disappeared upstairs and returned ten minutes later with some info.. This is what he said ......... "It's the 2001 Census for Wigan Borough this is, nowt to do with the statistics office, they're 'down south', don't know what they're talking about, how can you call Skelmersdale Wigan, it's full of scousers". We looked at the screen and a map, ten areas prominently marked. "Borough's divided up into these bits and there's ten of 'em". ... "Ashton but not the Garswood or Downall Green parts, Atherton, Golborne and Lowton are one, Hindley Abram and Platt bridge are one, Leigh, Shevington, Tyldesley and part of Astley are one too". "OK?". "Now then, Pemberton, Wigan and Ince are split into two, that bit's (points on map) called Wigan North, that bit's (moves finger) called Wigan South".

The 'Wigan South' section covered Worsley Mesnes, Goose Green, Pemberton, Newtown, Marsh Green, Kitt Green (in fact, Pemberton township). The 'Wigan North' section covered Ince, Whelley, Wigan and Aspull. So, 'Wigan', the place called 'Wigan', the town of the name 'Wigan', was 'in' 'Wigan North'. I say 'in' Wigan North because it was not the only place there, there was Ince, Whelley and Aspull too. The POPULATION FIGURE given for Wigan North (a combination of Ince, Whelley, Wigan and Aspull) in the 2001 Census, shown on the screen, in a Wigan MBC office, was ..... 35932! When I asked him what he thought the figure for Wigan alone would be, he replied, "Well, Aspull's not so big, so it's all between Ince area and Beech Hill and Springfield half of Wigan innit, I'd say about half of that figure".

These are the figures given .......

Ashton in Makerfield (23173) ... Atherton (19859) ... Golborne/Lowton (23438) ... Hindley/Abram/Platt Bridge (36121) ... Leigh (44122) ... Orrell/Billinge/Winstanley (21174) ... Shevington (35987) ... Tyldesley/Astley (24371) ... Wigan North (35932) ... Wigan South (37252).

Add them all up and you'll get ... 301429 which is the figure quoted by the council for the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan Population. Man2, you can change the figure on the Wigan article if you want. Those Americans sure know their stuff, they know more about the population of Wigan than the population of Wigan. 80.193.161.89 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH

Oh, heres the citable link, put it on the article ... http://www.wigan.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D5DA1AA7-B094-45EE-941D-9C11895A643B/0/agetownship23Kb.pdf


  • Man2, you're wrong again mate. The River Douglas marks the boundary where Wigan stops. 80.193.161.89 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
            • My mistake, you're NOT wrong at all. Scholes and Whelley have been added on to Wigan. Congratulations! 80.193.161.89 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS. ... The roadsign in Pemberton will be from the 1904 joining of Pemberton with Wigan Borough.

  • The population figure in 2001, of Ince, Wigan and Aspull was 35932. How could the Wigan, alone, figure have been 60754 in 1901? Those census results I was shown by the council are 'official'. There is no doubt that Pemberton is part of Wigan 'borough'(along with several other towns). It's also part of Greater Manchester (along with several other towns). It's in England (along with several other towns). Chorlton is regarded as a town. Manchester, the part which IS Manchester and is known by no other name apart from Manchester, is 2.6 square miles. 80.193.161.89 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Pemberton is not 'in' Wigan, it's 'next door'

  • A borough is a self-governing (to some extent) township, ie. has it's own council. A metropolitan borough is created by a joining together of several local councils to form one body, for administrative purposes. Pemberton council joined together with Wigan Borough council, in 1904, and formed a partnership which was still the Wigan Borough. It consisted of Wigan and Pemberton. Two places. If the same partnership had been called 'Pemberton' Borough, Wigan wouldn't have been 'in' Pemberton. That's because they are two separate places. The River Douglas DOES separate Wigan from Pemberton. All this 'council' lark that you lot are into really is ridiculous. Council areas are purely for organisational purposes. Take Astley for instance. Half is controlled by Wigan Borough council and the other half by Salford council. Take Ashton. Part of it is controlled by St.Helens Borough council, most by Wigan Borough council. Astley is neither 'in' Wigan or Salford. Ashton is neither in Wigan or St.Helens. They are merely governed by a 'unified council' that happens to carry the name of the head town. Is Wigan 'in' Manchester? Of course not. Was Wigan ever 'in' Lancaster? Of course not. Is Golborne 'in' Warrington? It has a Warrington postcode. Is Garswood on the banks of the Mersey? It's in Merseyside. Is Pemberton 'in' Wigan? Of course not, it's 'in' Pemberton! 80.193.161.89 23:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
  • Swinley, Beech Hill, Poolstock etc. are all settlements within the outskirts of the township of Wigan, built on land within Wigans boundaries(I'm not 100% on Poolstock though). Pemberton is NOT a settlement within the township of Wigans boundaries. Pemberton is a seperate place. It has 'officially recorded boundaries' and it contains other settlements within these boundaries.

You already know that the ONS include Skelmersdale and Upholland, as well as Ince, in their population figure. At least the councils census was taken using a more local area, only including Ince and Aspull, and the figure they came up with, including Ince and Aspull, is 35932! 80.193.161.89 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. PS ... and NO I'm not calling you a liar, I just think you don't know much about your surrounding area.

[edit] Administrative centres

I presume you mean with reference to the table on the Greater Manchester article? I should imagine it's because these settlements were large and important county boroughs prior to the Local Government Act 1972.

In the case of what is now the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, the County Borough of Oldham (Oldham now) was an autonomous local government district, because of it's size, population and industry. Crompton Urban District, and other such surrounding districts were not under Oldham's justriction at this level, though they formed part of the Oldham (UK Parliament constituency), and so civic infrastructure was based there for Westminster.

These issues meant that Oldham had the largest infrastructure, civic buildings and capability to be set as the administrative centre of a metropolitan borough.

This would be simillar in Bolton (county borough surrounded by urban/rural districts), Rochdale (same), Stockport (same), Warrington (same) and across the country.

Why Swinton, Greater Manchester was chosen for Salford, I do not know. Though it was a large local government district with a significant town hall.

Tradition in Action: The historical evolution of Greater Manchester is the best source I have (its really comprehensive); I'll take a flick through and try to find some answers. Any reason you ask? Jhamez84 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Man2, I believe that if you read the available history books on England, Lancashire and Wigan, everything would fall into place.

Regarding the area of the 'original' Wigan Borough. Before 1904 the county borough of Wigan consisted of Wigan. It was granted in 1246. Then Pemberton joined up. I think it remained Wigan and Pemberton up to 1974.

Wigan was 'important' to the surrounding towns as a 'central place' for the meeting/getting together/dealing etc. of the business people/traders of the time. A 'common ground' if you will. It was where the church was built.

You mention Chorlton being a 'village', before being 'integrated' into Manchester. Maybe Chorlton is integrated 'with' Manchester, but in the same way as Manchester is integrated 'with' Chorlton and not 'into'. Chorlton is nowadays classed as a town. It's still called Chorlton and Manchester is still called Manchester. However, Manchester has 'city status' and people generally refer to anywhere around there to be 'Manchester', even Salford, which is also a city with city status. Wigan is a town in itself albeit an administrative centre. It doesn't include Pemberton. Or Ince. Or Orrell. It doesn't have 'suburbs' in the officially recognised sense of the word. It is, relatively small, covering 3.5 ish square miles. Food for thought. London is smaller than Wigan, but much more important in the great scheme of things!

80.193.161.89 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

--Sources guys please! We have to get this sorted sooner rather than later! Jhamez84 12:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've checked through your points on Jemmy's talk page. With regards to historic populations, www.visionofbritain.org.uk can provide figures, as well as supportive text.
If Chorlton became part of Manchester in 1904, as did Pemberton to Wigan in the same year, under what terms was this made? Why was it this specific year (was it an act of government?)... I think if we know the answer to this we may be onto something. Jhamez84 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


  • I've never heard a taller tale in my life than your last message. You're dreaming again. All you want to talk about is 'political areas'. An 'urban district' is a political control area, so is a 'borough'. Try to forget council areas. Pemberton is a different place than Wigan. Pemberton has smaller settlements within it. Wigan has smaller settlements within it. Wigan's smaller settlements do not include Pemberton. Pemberton's smaller settlements do not include Wigan. Pemberton is not 'in' Wigan, that's why it's called Pemberton. Ince isn't 'in' Wigan either, neither is Aspull, so the population figure you are replacing is wrong. If you look at the 'evidence' I provided, you will see that the population figure for Wigan North and Wigan South amount to 73184. That figure is for Ince, Wigan, Aspull and Pemberton. Wigan is less densely populated than both Ince and Pemberton. Wigan is listed in Wigan North, Pemberton is listed in Wigan South, so Pemberton is not included in the Wigan North population figure of 35932. You don't know what you're talking about! 80.193.161.89 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Your edits to Wigan

I accept that 80.193.161.89 is being very abrasive, but please remember WP:3RR with respect to this article, and figure out the problem on Talk:Wigan. Michaelbusch 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems I missed quite a debate. Though having read the evidence from all sides, I would've been, and still am, overwhelmingly inclined to agree with you. Don't let this stop you however, more sources would only help in this instance! Jhamez84 02:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Google Maps sometime... Why is Pemberton shown in as large a font as Manchester? Just a point! Jhamez84 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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 ..... [[1]]

      • 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 2007 09:32:45 >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 2007 17:09 >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.

[edit] Conflict of sources

If there is a conflict of sources, and both qualify as reliable, then we need context.

An approach could be:

Some/most sources indicate that Pemberton forms part of the town of Wigan <ref>SOURCE1</ref>, reflecting the 1904 Local Government Act (????) which amalgamated Pemberton into the County Borough of Wigan. This approach is taken by some local government literature which includes the population of Pemberton as part of Wigan.<ref>SOURCE2</ref>
However, other sources indicate that Pemberton constitutes a settlement in its own right,<ref>SOURCE3</ref> being seperated from Wigan by the River Douglas. Pemberton for centuries formed as its own township<ref>SOURCE4</ref> ... etc
Regardless, Pemberton is a component area of the much wider Metropolitan Borough of Wigan.

This could be adopted if there is no likely resolve in the short-to-mid term. However, this 1904 link appears to be a good lead. I must state that using personal e-mails won't qualify as reliable sources, as they have not been published, so this may be a dead end for both you and JemmyH. Jhamez84 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the right way forwards. This way we are not saying what Pemberton is, we are saying that sources say this, and that its status is ambiguous.
I've passed comment at the Wigan talk page about sources. But I am really pleased and impressed that you are both now using sources to counter each other, and showing a willingness to research and engage with reference materials. It's the only way to solve this.
I've also created a County Borough of Wigan article, which may need reviewing and expanding as appropriate. Jhamez84 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Man2, how could you explain this load of garbage from the same Wigan MBC site page ..... 'The firm of Marks and Spencer was founded in Wigan when Michael Marks joined forces with Thomas Spencer in 1894 and for 3 years after this date the town was the company's headquarters.' TOTALLY FALSE, and Marks and Spencer have already told Wigan MBC about it. But that's another story. 80.193.161.89 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Thoughts? Moi?

Hi Man2! Good to see you again back on the scene! I'd noticed you'd reduced the amount of editting time a little lately (a blasphemy for any upstanding Wikipedia addict I'm sure), which is a shame!

With regards to the coments left on my talk page - yes; until conclusive, reliable, contemporary, published sources are found, we should adopt the approach that Pemberton forms part of Wigan - the evidence is too great.

Assuming this is resolved, any plans to move other sections of Wikipedia forwards? I've identified several issues with which several quality editors could get their teeth into (some possibilities posted here). Any luck with the geograph thing? Jhamez84 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • What 'evidence' is that then? No-one has provided ANY evidence to say that Pemberton is 'part of' the town of Wigan. Pemberton HAS clear boundaries. It is definately 'part of' the Wigan Borough and 'part of' the Wigan Parish but not a 'part of' Wigan. The boundaries on this map remain unchanged ....[[2]] 80.193.161.89 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Formal mediation

I'm tired of this issue about the status of Wigan and JemmyH's daily barrage of comments - I believe it's breaking the spirit of Wikipedia for the related articles.

He's constantly misquoting me, addressing me in talk page headings, sending messages to my talk page, using contradictive and ancient source material all for an absolutely trivial matter that has been verified several times over.

I think we should take our case to the Wikipedia:Mediation committee. They would naturally agree with us, and would possibly place resrictions upon JemmyH and the Wigan articles. I think it is the only way to stop this, as it's not fair to us as contributors, or the articles themselves. Jhamez84 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little research. This guy has done this on other webspaces, namely WiganWorld, and is a self-styled retired gangster, trolling in the same way, with nobody agreeing with him.[3]. We can use this for evidence. Jhamez84 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
He was blocked today for 48 hours (see here). He brought a case against me at the administrators notice board, but administrators checked his and my editting history and instantly enforced a block.
I'm not rejoycing, as I think it is a shame. Next time (assuming this may happen again) I think it will be a much longer block, if not indefinate.
On another note, I'm really sorry you are feeling bored of the Wikipedia project. Please don't! Hang in here, you've made some real good contributions and it would be a shame to loose a quality edittor such as yourself. Things are changing, and I'm keen to see your knowledge capitalised upon. Jhamez84 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still around?

You still around? Your edits seem to have reduced (much like mine). Would be a shame to loose you as an editor! Hope all is well, Jhamez84 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WPGM New Monthly Newsletter

Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage

[edit] WikiProject removal

Hello again Man2,

Your contribution history suggests you've not editted Wikipedia since around April of this year, which is a great shame. As such, I'm going to remove your usership of the Greater Manchester WikiProject - purely for cleanup purposes.

Should you rejoin Wikipedia again in the future you are, of course, more than welcome to rejoin the project. All the best in the meantime, Jza84 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry I missed your reply amongst some other messages I'd left! Great to see you back! Hope to see you around soon! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wigan

Hello there!

Great to hear from you! Yes I'd lost all hope of seeing you around again. It would b great if you do return, Wigan has been really neglected of late and we really need a local to help with a push to improve it. The problems of the past seem to have disappeared thankfully, so your usership should be much more productive and enjoyable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again!
I've left some comments at Talk:Wigan about distances. When it comes to Jemmy H/Colin/C.Thomas/Tonker, I think WP:DENY is probably the best page for advice. I think it's safe to say that he is an internet troll.
I will re-add you to the WP:GM project if you wish? Hope to see you around more often :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back
Hello, Man2, and welcome to Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian!

As a project we aim to have all our articles compliant with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline.

If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

--Jza84 |  Talk  02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GM Newsletter

Delivered on April 9th, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on May 1, 2008 by Basketball110. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.