Talk:List of mills in Oldham

Couldn't something be added about the way that that particular type of Oldham district mills invariably had their names built into them on the tower part of the structures. this seems pecular to those around Oldham and immediately adjoining areas.

This seems like a homework question to me. Good on you, your research technique show real flair. Assuming you need som information quick: Look at the section Stott and Sons#Edwardian mills. Potts and the the Stott dynasty were the leading mill architects when Oldham was the leading mill town- producing more yarn than all of the rest of the world- this article gives the list of mills in Oldham and Chadderton- but you will find more detail in the link I have given you- and in the description of individual mills or the Cotton mill article. To get details of the owners motivation to name their mills look at some of the books written by Tristram Hunt the propoposed Secretary of State for Education in an incoming Labour government.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Restructure

I would like to restructure the list so it accurately shows mills in their respective towns, with a list of standing and a list of demolished in each section. The Oldham lists, both standing and demolished, should logically only show mills with the borders of Oldham town, not the whole borough. Otherwise having the separate lists for Chadderton, Shaw etc. makes the whole thing confusing and, in some cases, repetitive. If there are no objections or better ideas I will happily do this. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Rethought this and think it would be best to have 'List of mills in Oldham Borough' (there's already one for Tameside) which is broken into sections: Oldham, Royton, Shaw and Crompton, Chadderton and Saddleworth. In each section there would be a link to the main article (including this one for Oldham and we'd make one for Royton and Saddleworth) followed by one list of all the mills that have existed in that town with no notes and no photographs just the main details. Standing mills would be highlighted by using the darker blue. The main articles would continue to show images and notes for each mill. The 'List of mills in Oldham' article would only be for the town of Oldham and therefore mills in other towns (Chadderton, Royton etc.) would be moved. Again, if there are no objections or better ideas I will happily do this. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Try it- the template now looks complex today- but when these lists were started the aim was to have a template to show we were serious about documenting the mill. It had to be versatile enough to handle OCR read files from Farnie etc, to save the data in a format that was identical to Infobox mills. It was intended that an article would be worked up to stub standard with in the template- then it would become an article in its own right. Some mills got there! If you have fresh ideas go for it. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. I remember starting the first list about 10 years ago for Shaw and Crompton mills. I wanted to elaborate on local history but didn't want to bloat the Shaw and Crompton article so I split it. I suspected that it would be marked for deletion but that didn't happen, instead I remember having some very reassuring support for the idea and, better still, people contributed to it themselves. I think you were one of them. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while but when I came back I was very pleased to see that the lists have not only have their own set of templates but have spread across the whole of Greater Manchester and probably further and, as you say, whole articles exist for mills. The hard work people have done with this is immense. So if that's where fresh ideas and being serious gets us then I'm always happy to help keep pushing it further. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of mills in Oldham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301022514/http://www.mcrh.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/pdf/mrhr_10_moore.pdf to http://www.mcrh.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/pdf/mrhr_10_moore.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)