Talk:Mellor, Greater Manchester

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)

The sports and/or golf club would be great. Be warned, those seem to be the sections that get the most sabotage. Jcday (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanip

There are ugly warnings at the start of the article, asking for the article to be cleaned up, citations to be put in place, etc. Y'know, the stuff we really should have been doing all along. :) I've begun with the cites, but this is now a fairly beefy article and I will need help. I'm also unclear on the verifiability request, as the discussion mentioned is not linked to. I will assume, unless further information is forthcoming, that some of the external links are inadequate as a "trusted source". Please, please, please help with identifying these. I'm not egotistical or anything, but I want this to be the best damn small town/village wiki page in the system, and if that means beefing up the verifiability of the information, then beef it up we will. Please use the best link (or links) for "trusted" sources of verifiable data for the inlined cites, use the external links for everything else. Jcday (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no harm in a little pride, plenty of editors main interests lie around where they live, so those are the articles they edit. There should be plenty of stuff online (which is lucky, as I don't think I have any relevant books about Mellor) so sourcing shouldn't be too hard. I'll take a closer look later today. If you're interested in getting more help, there's the Greater Manchester WikiProject which is a collection of editors who are interested in improving Greater Manchester related articles. We've had a lot of success with settlement articles, so should be able to lend a hand improving Mellor. Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a brief demography section (fully sourced) similar to those that can be found in many other Greater Manchester settlement articles. For idea on how to improve the article (eg: what more needs to be added and how to format it) I'd recommend checking out something like Oldham or Sale, Greater Manchester. There aren't any article in Stockport that have under gone peer reviews on wikipedia to ensure quality, but Cheadle Hulme is a good (and improving) article about somewhere fairly close by. Also, there are a lot of good article at WP:GM#Successes and examples. This website should be useful for sourcing and expanding the history section; I've not read through the page yet, but I've found British-history.ac.uk very useful in the past. I wouldn't use it for the earliest history though (ie: Iron Age and Roman) as recent developments mean it will be out of date (especially since it was written in 1911). It turns out that I do have a book that might be useful for Mellor's earliest history, but I'm spread a bit thin on wikipedia at the moment and it might be a while before I try adding anything. I'd recommend looking at WP:UKCITIES, wikipedia's guidelines for writing about UK settlements for pointers. Also, references should ideally be formatted using something like Template:citation. It gives you fields for the author of the source, the title, the publisher, the web address (where appropriate), and the date accessed (if it's a web page) and many others. Using the template formats everything consistently and makes it look nice and tidy.

If you want more input, the Greater Manchester WikiProject's talk page would be a good place to look for help. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Merger proposal

I propose that Moorend be merged into Mellor, Greater Manchester. Historically they may be separate settlements but they are now more or less contiguous. I live nearby and I contend that Moorend (which I'll admit, I'd never heard of, despite being interested in local history and a keen map user) is seen by most as simply part of Mellor, and I doubt an article about the settlement could ever amount to anything longer than a stub. Per WP:UKCITIES: "Some hamlets and neighbourhoods should have their own articles but if there are no more than a few paragraphs that could be said about them it is considered best practice to merge the articles, weight being given to the above factors." Moorend would seem to be a perfect example. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can see anything here to merge- probably delete.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mellor, Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107060328/http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/Archaeology/Features/page_168.php to http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/Archaeology/Features/page_168.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mellor, Greater Manchester. 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/20090107060328/http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/Archaeology/Features/page_168.php to http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/Archaeology/Features/page_168.php

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) 05:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)