Talk:Mellor, Greater Manchester
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. | |
Question time. It would seem to me that having too much information in a web page just makes it cluttered and unreadable. The page is about the right length at present, but more could really be added. (There are only brief mentions of the Industrial Revolution, for example. The geography commonly referred to as Mellor also includes Townscliffe and Moor's End, so maybe more on the internal structure of Mellor would be good. A link to Mellor's involvement in the University of the Third Age might be appropriate under activities, as well.)
So why don't I just add this information? Because I feel that it could make the page too long and too diverse, which is why I'm calling for thoughts on this. Does it matter if the page is long? If we split the page up, do we split by topic (as per the arcaheological section, which is almost inescapably a unified unit, but is something of a special case), or by some other means?
Images are somewhat lacking - my lone photograph is looking somewhat isolated - but too many would make the page slow to load and would cease adding value. How many images would feel "right" and what of?
I agree that certain entities warrant their own pages. Suggestions would be the church, the school, the sports club and the golf club. I am willing to get Started on one or two of these Horizontal 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Brierley of Mellor
Thomas Brierley is actually a distant ancestor of mine (although not directly as he died without kin). I have read at least a dozen detailed accounts of his grave but think I actually know the full story (or at least a fairly complete model story). I will update this section and upload my photograph of his grave when I have time. My only question is that the explanation of his burial and grave would probably run to 3 x the current length of the whole article. Should I simply create a new page solely for him and refer to it? Any advice would be good. Planning to update in April 2006.
Candy 10:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I split off the Mellor archaeology for the same reason. It puts too much in one place, making everything less readable. I don't agree with the other extreme of having one or two lines in an article, either - that smacks far too much of "See Spot Run" than a useful repository of information. On the other hand, you're talking closer to a couple of sides of A4 or more - a very respectable article length IMHO, and far far too much to be tagged onto an existing article.
I certainly urge you to create a page for him (with all the photos you have), based on your best research. This is purely a personal taste thing, but I'd consider adding a small section that mentions alternative claims. but only briefly mention those claims. Have a second index specifically for counter-claims and speculation, so it does not get confused with primary sources for the real story.
(Depending on how many sources there are, and of what kind, you might even want a third index for interesting references that are otherwise neutral. I would guess "Glimpses of Mellor"'s piece on Thomas might fit into this category, but I'll only know that when you've finished the article!)
Feel free to adjust the main page on Mellor to make it more of a reference to Thomas' page, perhaps (again) as I did with the archaeology. I guess I don't need to say that, since Wikipedia is a free-to-edit system, but it feels better to be up-front.
An article of that length would probably work best split up into logical sections, but I suggest you think on what those sections would be. If there are lots of events in parallel, for example, you might want to have the events in paragraphs, rather than to put things in sequentially. Pictures are good. If you've sketches of Thomas himself, that would be wonderful too. I don't know if he left any writing, but a signature or a single line of text from him (scanned in, not typed) would be awesome.
Dunno if you've written articles before. If so, ignore any suggestions I've given that conflict with how you want to do it, including this suggestion, if you want to create a temporal paradox.
- Anyone who has an interest in local history or accurate writing and referenceing may wish to look at Thomas Brierley and make suggestions, comments and changes. Please read th discussion page about my current problem with the article. Thanks Candy 12:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
