Talk:Ellesmere Colliery

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for starting this article, it would be a shame to loose the image and this seems like the way to keep it. Now I've found Ellesmere on an old map, I can see issues with the prose. The site was next the Bridgewater Collieries Railway, which terminated at the canal several miles to the south. This railway appears to connect to both the L&NW and L&Y lines, but doesn't (directly) connect to the Station. Also I can see the Walkden Yards, but no evidence of pits there. Could you re-check the Davies sources, I'm wary correcting things so significantly without viewing them. All the best. TiB chat 19:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

CITEVAR

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Serial Number 54129, would you care to make a call on either of these: [1] vs. [2] as we don't want John going off into another histrionic rant and getting blocked again.

I've no great attachment to {{sfnp}} (although it gets a tedious job done for least effort), but as it was, this article is presenting three copies of an identical page citation as if they were three entirely separate references. Also {{sfnp}} is useful here, over {{sfn}} (if that's the root of John's Unnamable Horror), as the two sources are the same author and differ only in their year. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic