Wikipedia

Talk:Wigan

Latest comment: 10 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Learn more about this page
Former good articleWigan was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2009Good article nomineeListed
December 30, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Town of Wigan / Wigan Town / Town named Wigan

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Is this article about the 'town' called Wigan? If it is, why is much information included about other towns which just happen to be under Wigan Council? Surely, these other 'towns' shold be included in the 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough' article as some of them are many miles away from Wigan. Also, much information contained in this Wigan article is wrong. ie: Orrell RUFC is not 'based in Wigan'. It's based in Orrell. Out of all the schools and colleges listed in the article, only three are actually in Wigan. Pennington Sailing Club, at Pennington Flash, is not in Wigan. Wigan is not divided into 5 council wards. Wigan is not the largest settlement in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. It's nowhere near as large as Leigh.

etc. etc. etc.

We know who you are and you've tried to make this argument before, however these districts have been considered part of the town of Wigan (not the Metropolitan Borough) for over a century (Since 1904 when Pemberton Parish was absorbed into Wigan Parish). To reiterate basically goes like this:

1834 (then population 20,000) was divided in to five wards Scholes, St Georges, Queen Street, Swinley, All Saints. (An area of Shevington to Blackrod and Boars Head to Smithy Brook including Poolstock), in 1904 Pemberton was absorbed into Wigan, because Orrell was contiguous with Pemberton it was absorbed in to the town of Wigan as well as was Ince and New Springs when the town grew and enveloped the former villages/townships. There have been numerous suburbs sprouted up or matured within these borders over the last century such as Kitt Green around the Heinz Factory, Beech Hill, New Springs, Whitley, Whelley. Today the population of Wigan stands at just over 100,000 dwarfing the 46,000 of Leigh and its had approx. twice the population of Leigh since the late 19th century after being the same size at the start of the 19th century. Yes Pennington Sailing club in Lowton is not in Wigan but it appears in the article more a reference to sporting and cultural activity of sailing enjoyed by residents.

Same thing happened elsewhere, Manchester for example was originally just what today is considered the city centre, the Ancient Parish of Manchester, but it grew and absorbed neighboring parish's of Cheetham, Beswick, Ardwick, Chorlton upon Medlock, and Hulme by 1838 and then more than a dozen more and is now everything in the City of Manchester except Wythenshawe. WatcherZero (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply


Orrell is not, and never has been, classed as being in Wigan Town. Leigh is not, and never has been, classed as being in Wigan Town. Pemberton is a totally different township to Wigan. Only the local governments joined forces to form Wigan County Borough. There was two towns in the county borough, with two different names. The map of Wigan Parish, shown on British History Online, confirms this. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/pubid-288/images/fig15.gif In reality, Wigan is a small town. Wigan Council themselves refer to Wigan and Pemberton as 'the former county borough of Wigan'.

Your comparison of Wigan with Manchester is ridiculous. Indeed - "Manchester for example was originally just what today is considered the city centre", likewise, 'Wigan for example was originally just what today is considered the Town Centre'. Wigan is a small town within a Metropolitan Borough. Manchester is a city within a city area. Wigan is a town in a Metropolitan Borough of the same name. That Metropolitan Borough has a Wikipedia article about it. Let the TOWN of Wigan have a correct Wikipedia article about it.

And, what you say about Pennington Sailing club in Lowton not being in Wigan but appearing in the article as a reference to sporting and cultural activity of sailing enjoyed by residents, is utter bollox. What about all the other 'sporting and cultural activities which may be enjoyed by residents of Wigan? Why not claim EVERYWHERE is part of the town of Wigan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.129.132 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No idea what your talking about with two towns whilst showing a map of the churches manor houses within the parish, though you are rather undermining your argument showing the geographic extent of Wigan Parish. Your Manchester argument that its special because its a city is also unfortunately bollox, it didn't become a city until 1853, the growth and absorption of other towns and villages happened before that. As you bring up townships this is the list of wards the council uses of Townships.

Ashton Bryn Ashton, Bryn

Atherton Atherton

Hindley Abram Abram, Hindley, Hindley Green

Leigh Atherleigh, Leigh North, Leigh South, Leigh West

Golborne Lowton Golborne and Lowton West; Lowton East

Orrell Billinge Winstanley Orrell, Winstanley;

Standish Aspull Shevington Aspull-New Springs-Whelley, Shevington with Lower Ground, Standish with Langtree

Tyldesley Astley Astley-Mosley Common, Tyldesley

Wigan North Ince in Makerfield, Wigan Central, Wigan West, Wigan South, Douglas, Pemberton, Worsley Mesnes

Of note is Whelley a part of the town centre being lumped with distant Aspull to raise the ward population to average and Orrell is thrown in with Billinge despite being contiguous with Pemberton to balance the population there. https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Docs/PDF/Council/Strategies-Plans-and-Policies/HealthAndSocialCare/JSNA/JSNA-PopulationProfile.pdf

WatcherZero (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply


I'm not "undermining your argument showing the geographic extent of Wigan Parish" AT ALL. I am, in fact, strengthening it (although you may not see that). You see, you hit the nail on the head by stating 'Wigan Parish'. You can clearly see, on that map, the TOWN of Wigan. The TOWN of Wigan is the subject in question, not the PARISH of Wigan, or the METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIGAN, the WIGAN URBAN AREA, WIGAN POSTCODE AREA, or the WIGAN TELEPHONE NUMBER AREA. So, please base your side of the argument on Wigan TOWN.

Re: Wigan being the 'largest town' and quoting population figures - do you consider the UK to be 'larger' than Canada due to the UK having almost twice the population of Canada and disregarding the fact that Canada is 30 odd times the size of the UK?

If everywhere is in Wigan, why does the other towns' names exist? Don't forget, Spain is 'contiguous' to Portugal, so is Portugal part of Spain? Wales is 'contiguous' to England, is Wales in England? or is England in Wales?

Wigan is described in the History of Lancashire. The History of Lancashire should be used as 'verifiability', as required by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.129.132 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Any Town or City has suburbs and neighbourhoods, place names will always exist to provide a frame of reference appropriate to the size of the area invoked. Again the map your showing isn't of towns, its a 1630 map of Wigan Parish showing the estates, the accompanying text is a list of fines that the landholders received for Recusancy, not attending Anglican services. Henry Lance, Abram £10, Richard Ashton, Ashton £15, Ralph Haughton, Aspull £6 13s 4d, Edmund Bispham, Billinge £3, Roger Anderton, Billinge £21 12s. 4d, Thomas Bank, Dalton £2, John Rescow, Haigh £2, William Bradshaw, Hindley, £3 6s. 8d, Abraham Langton, Lowe £10, Thomas Gerard and Thomas Ince, Ince £40 and £8, Edmund Winstanley, Pemberton £2 10s. The demesne of Wigan was of course held by the Church and you can see on the map billinge being split in two between the different landholders and Strangeways Hall which was sub-tenated from the land of the lord of Hindley. WatcherZero (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The figures here are all to cock. First you quote Wigan as a town, then you give figures for (what Wigan council refer to as) 'the former county borough of Wigan'. Then you quote for 'Wigan Urban Area', followed by Wigan Metropolitan Borough. Make your minds up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.249.162 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not really, the only figures on the page are for the town and the borough, there arent three sets of figures. Latest ONS datasets; "Understanding towns in England and Wales, Population and Demography" Published in 2021 with population estimates for towns in 2019.

"Mid Year 2020 Estimates of the UK Population by Local Authority Boundaries" Published 2021 estimates for local authorities in 2020, 107,732 and 330,712 respectivley. https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fpopulationandmigration%2fpopulationestimates%2fdatasets%2funderstandingtownsinenglandandwalespopulationanddemography%2fcurrent/datadownload.xlsx https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fpopulationandmigration%2fpopulationestimates%2fdatasets%2fpopulationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland%2fmid2020/ukpopestimatesmid2020on2021geography.xls WatcherZero (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA check

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.

In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.

My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able or willing to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y No concerns. Article seems fine. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good Article?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can you class anything which is full of lies as a 'good article'? The article is full of shite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.129.132 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

To be fair to Jemmy, the article is very unclear as to which areas are "Wigan". The list provided as "Douglas, Pemberton, Wigan Central, Wigan West and Worsley Mesnes" should indicate the only content within this article is that which matches to those boundaries (with a bit of lee-way of course). Subsequently the article mentions several other areas that are not obviously part of those 5 wards (e.g. Orrel) or businesses where it is unclear if they are in fact within the borders of the town. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Wigan. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Wigan. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wigan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wigan. 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:

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) 01:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Salford Borough

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To be clear there were four boroughs in Lancashire at the end of the medieval period established by Royal Charter. Salford was given a Royal Market charter in 1230 along with a charter granting the formation of a court but its establishment as a borough was from a 1228 charter granted by the Earl of Chester.

Salford, c.1230 by Ranulf, Earl of Chester (Page XXXII)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Qc2l3vpLagC&pg=PR87&lpg=PR87&dq=royal+borough+charter+salford&source=bl&ots=83tP1AbLqt&sig=AqXIcmfFfPpjO7fE1OVsdy5y0NE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgoMeQ16LSAhWBqxoKHQQoBLAQ6AEIRDAH#v=onepage&q=salford&f=false 

WatcherZero (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wigan. 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:

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) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wigan. 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:

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) 02:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply


Needs update

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking through mainly the Economy section much of it is out of date. I have tried to improve some of this myself but further improvement is needed so I have tagged this for needing an update. I would imagine there are other sections too that have not been properly updated for years as this one has. Any help is appreciated, thanks --Voello (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Domesday Book

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"It is wrongly claimed that the mention of a church in the manor of Neweton, which actually refers to the church of St.Oswald (Winwick), is Wigan Parish Church." This statement must be wrong as St Oswalds is specifically mentioned in the Domesday Book. Wigan, being the only other major settlement at that time in the manor, must therefore be the other unnamed Church. Bill Aldri (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

They mostly skipped over Lancashire when compiling the Domesday book (apart from the Derby hundred covering Merseyside and western West Lancashire which was very detailed), the hundred of Newton is listed as containing just 15 manors and two churches all directly owned by Newton so its indeed unlikely that its referring to the Wigan parish church distant from the seat of power. WatcherZero (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Believe"?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#What's the root of the "Believe"/"#Believe"'s association with the town of Wigan? any ideas? Bogger (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wigan

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This 2007 listing has not been adequately updated, especially in the "Demographics" section, which relies on data from the 2001 census, and the "Economy" section, which has been tagged with an update banner for over four years. There is also uncited material in the "Geography", "Sport", and "Transport" sections. GA criteria 2b) and 3a) are thus not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wigan&oldid=1212344560"