Shaw and Crompton is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted December 10, 2022 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Low‑importance 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.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greater Manchester High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

Archives

/Archive 1: March to June 2006 /Archive 2: June to December 2006 /Archive 3: January to June 2007

Why is it ok for this article to have a "see England demographics" link but not ok for the Sale article to have a "see Greater Manchester#Geography" link? Surely Greater Manchester info is more relevent and focused than England info. Epbr123 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"United Kingdom".... I do not think that either are ideal here. Yes Demographics of the UK is very broad, but then again, the rationale is that in that section we have figures that are compared with a national average. On the contrary, the problem with "see Greater Manchester#Geography" is that that section (and it is only a section, not an article), does help elborate much (if at all) beyond that that was on the Sale article. It's not an article in it's own right either, and does little to establish broader context.

I think there is an opportunity here however; to create two very useful articles which would solve this problem:

• Geography of Greater Manchester
• Demographics of Greater Manchester

With these I think we'd have a good balance and good case to use the "see also" function linking to these. Jza84 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sale article originally had quite a detailed geography section. It was then thought that there was no point having so much detail when all the surrounding area articles would have exactly the same info. We therefore moved the info from Sale to Greater Manchester#Geography and added the "see Greater Manchester#Geography" to the Sale article. If the "see also" is removed, the detailed geography info will have to go back to the Sale article. It was always expected that Greater Manchester#Geography would eventually expand and form its own article. Epbr123 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a Geography of Greater Manchester article - hopefully this can aid our efforts here. Jza84 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's an ideological problem: does that article need to contain the political and demographic info, seeing as they are human geography. It probably needs the climate info. Epbr123 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes climate is a must if you ask me; I think it'd be nice to get multiple tables from multiple sources here, but I guess it depends on the source material. We need a "Geology" section too, but its not something I'm familliar with. The metropolitan boroughs should have a mention yes, but I'm concious of not duplicating the content of the mainGreater Manchester article just yet. I've just started a stub class Demographics of GM article - I hope to work on that over the next few days and draw some contributions from the GM WikiProject. Jza84 00:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I did agree somewhat with the comment that User:DrKiernan made in this article's ongoing FA review, about some of the phrasing being "a little strange". I also don't think that it's right to ask a reviewer to point out every instance of something like that, and then make corrections in some sort of a fire fighting exercise. Examples, yes. Exhaustive list, no.

So I've made a few proactive copyedits today, where the phrasing looked strange to me. My phrasing may look strange to you of course, in which case feel free to revert it. But there's so much good information in this article that it would be a shame for it not to be promoted just for the way something's phrased. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Great improvements, Jza84 02:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new guidelines I'm sure will be a great help.

But I'm a bit alarmed by the Toponymy subsection in the history section of this article. The word is intimidating to a reader, and the information that can be provided hardly seems likely to justify its own subsection in many articles does it?. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology was used prior but Toponymy is the correct terminology for the origin of a placename. I don't think it does any harm as a subsection. WP:UKCITIES just asks for a note on Toponymy, not necessarily a sub-section, but if you feel strongly about it you could raise this there. Jza84 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm quite happy with including information on toponymy, it's just the appearance of a subsection with that name that alarms me. But, as you say, the new guidelines don't ask for a sub-section anyway, just the information. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"this name aptly describes the appearance of the place, with its uneven surface, its numerous mounds and hills, as thought it had been crumpled up to form these ridges

Has this been quoted accurately? Should it be "... as though it had been ..."? --Malleus Fatuarum 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! That'd be my mistake - yes you're right! Jza84 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Crompton family gives the name as "De La Legh", but ought it not to be "de la Legh"? The reference given initially talks about "Hugh de la Legh", but does go on later to use "De La Legh" admittedly. I'd have thought that "de la Legh" would be correct though?

I've just checked how The Changing Face of Crompton uses it, and yes it's "de la Legh"! Well spotted! These mistakes are all mine of course... sorry! Jza84 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still bothered by the statement in the lead that "... at its zenith, according to the national press, had more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world." If I understand correctly, the lead is intended to summarise the article. So everything written in the lead is corroborated somewhere else in the article, hence there should be no need for citations in the lead.

But the body of the article makes a much bolder claim, unqualified by "according to the national press". It says "As part of the post-war economic boom of 1919–20, in part due to the high-productivity of the local townsfolk, and financial prudence of shareholding millowners, Shaw and Crompton had more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world."

I'm not disputing the fact, only the way that it seems to me to be inconsistently presented. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make valid points... I know you won't have the benefit of local history books with you, but the problem stems from the slight inconsistency in the source material; some assert the millionaires were actually a myth, others a fact. Truth is it was once reported in a national newspaper, though unlikely it was actually verified by them.

I'll write the quotes here:

• • "In the post war boom of 1919-20, investors did not have time to build new mills and paid vastly inflated sums for shares in existing companies. Many mills were refloated at valuations of up to £500,000 or five times what they had cost to build before the war. Shaw was nicknamed 'The Golden City' as the scramble for shares intensified." Looking Back at Crompton, (pages un-numbered, but would be page 6).

• • "Further expansion took place between 1901 and 1911 and the population of the town increased to a staggering 14,750 with reputedly "more millionaires to the square mile than any other place on earth." The Changing Face of Crompton, (page 8), and almost identical quote here.

• • "In its heyday Shaw was said to have more millionaires than any other area, mainly because of the share dealing associated with many of its cotton mills." spinningtheweb.org.uk

• • "By 1913, Shaw had one-sixth of the spindles in the district, and its enthusiasm to float and refloat cotton companies in the following decade gave rise to myths about the `millionaires of Shaw' in the national press." oldhamadvertiser.co.uk

I have also read a further book (the title escapes me - it may have been "Shaw Church in Bygone Years" which I borrowed from the library) which also elaborates that it was this floating and refloating of Cotton mills and cotton companies, particularly by the local Crompton and Milne families (who were one of the biggest cotton milliner families in the world, but lived locally), that provided them with this huge wealth. It was reported on in a national newspaper that this small town "more millionaires to the square mile than any other place on earth" (quote), but it was never actually quanitified and verified.

It seems to me that the "in part due to the high-productivity of the local townsfolk, and financial prudence of shareholding millowners" should be removed, and replaced with a note about the shrewed shareholding that went on. Re-reading these books I'm also surprised myself and User:Peteb16 haven't included mentions that the town had electric light rail trams well over a century ago! Jza84 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever you and User:Peteb16 decide to do, I'd suggest that you make a consistent statement about Shaw and Crompton's millionaires. It does seem to me to be a myth, but nevertheless still worth mentioning. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change that I outlined above. Hopefully much more satisfactory, Jza84 11:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have done the job nicely. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Saxon King of Northumbria sent an army across the Pennines into Mercia. As they marched they founded a string of hamlets ending in '-ton'- Royton, Ashton, Clayton, etc. Crompton was one of these ..."

"The first recorded use of the name Crompton for the township was discovered in legal documents dating from the early 13th century ..."

I may well be misunderstanding what's meant here, but are these two statements consistent? How do we know that the Saxon king founded a hamlet called Crompton if it isn't recorded? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peteb16 added the former of the statements, and I've asked him to pass comment, just for clarification.... What I think is meant here, is that "The first recorded use" was in the 13th century, but looking at the Timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion & takeover of Britain and the toponymy of the settlement - it must have been founded earlier in the 7th century. Jza84 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that toponymy proves anything does it? It's an after the fact explanation, one of a number of possible alternatives. What's the evidence that the Saxon king did indeed found a hamlet called Crompton? Is it simply that the name ends in "ton"? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree here. I've had a look at the source (Changing Face of Crompton) and there is nothing to support the seventh century. As Peteb16 hasn't responded (yet), I suggest we remove the paragraph; we can always put it, or something simillar, back in if this is indeed supported by some citation. Jza84 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six months later and I've cracked this! It was in A Chronicle of Crompton by E. Ballard. Full details now provided in the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... but is it "cotton-spinning" or "cotton spinning"? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google (sorry!) seems to suggest "cotton spinning"! Jza84 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever is correct, maybe the article ought to be consistent? :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! You've got eyes like a hawk!!! In a good way of course! Jza84 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take as I think it was meant, as a compliment. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if I'm getting on your nerves with my niggley little questions or copyedits, don't be afraid to tell me so. I don't take offence easily. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! Not at all, I think these are really really helpful issues you're raising. The article has sat stagnating for far too long. I'm not an especially good writer by any means, and a fresh pair of eyes are really bringing this up to scratch!... I'm sure you could open a tourist infomation centre in the town by now!... maybe not though! Jza84 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the article will soon get the FA status that I'm sure it deserves. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The parish council comprises 14 locally elected members including three who also act as councillors to the wider Oldham local authority."

Does it mean that 3 Oldham councillors, elected in some other way, are members of the parish council? Or that 3 of the parish councillors are also elected to the bourough council? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time has moved on, and I still don't know what it means either. When I last looked the 14 members of the parish council were elected separately from the 6 (yes, 6) representatives to Oldham MBC, 3 each for the wards of Crompton and of Shaw. Can anyone clarify, please? Jan1nad (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll shift it. Jan1naD - (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has an excellent of passing now that it's been given Yomangani's approval. It would be best to get copy-edits from a couple more people though, as the prose needs to be perfect by the time Tony1 gets around to reviewing it. Epbr123 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where amounts of money are given, as in GB£ 4,000, sometimes there's a space between the GB£ and the number, and sometimes there isn't. I'm not sure what's recommended, I'd guess GB£4,000? But whichever, it needs to be made consistent. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's without the space - I thought I'd fixed that the other day... obviously not! Jza84 17:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second para of the intro there was a statement which stated:'At its zenith, according to the national press, it had more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world.'.....'according to national press' is a vague statement....pls cite references if available.Gprince007 10:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced in the main body of text (and see discussion above). References were in the lead, but moved per steamlining for FA. Jza84 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops !! sorry for the mistake. Gprince007 11:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to know whether the war memorial inscriptions are really written in all block letters at the memorial....because if its not, then we might have to change it in the article..Gprince007 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both inscriptions have been transcribed exactly as they appear on the memorial, block capitals and all. ~~ Peteb16 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the neighbouring locations table, however as Oldham doesn't actually border Shaw and Crompton from the south, I can't help thinking the following would be more accurate.

~~ Peteb16 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derker lies to the south as well as Heyside. I'm happy with either really, or perhaps both. I'm also thinking that "Heyside"/"Derker"/"Moorside" should be piped to link to either Royton or Oldham as I should imagine, at least in the mid-term, there is little scope for articles on Heyside, Derker and Moorside. Jza84 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the outcome of the Featured Article review is known, I will record a spoken version of this article, as per the request left above. Hassocks5489 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have started today. Well done on the FA-status! Hassocks5489 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look forwards to it! Jza84 12:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded today - see the link above. Hassocks5489 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the FAC pass! Epbr123 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about some recent changes to this FA. There have been no inline reliable sources provided in this diff. It is convention that sources are provided where challenged for statement-to-source verification per WP:A. WP:CITE, and WP:RS.

I'm not disputing the content as such, but certainly, to uphold FA standards a source should be provided in full. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that I did was paraphrase part of the content of one of the paragraphs in the article ("Divisions and Suburbs", #3.1 in the TOC) in the lead. The sentence that I paraphrased reads The area of Shaw and Crompton is often called Shaw by local communities (and increasingly in maps and literature); this is in contrast to former times when the area was broadly known as Crompton. I note that this sentence has no "inline reliable sources", so why do I need to provide one?

Furthermore, I added the opera singer Norman Walker to the list of Notable People, and this, too, has been reverted. If an inline citation is required for entry into this para, why has one not been provided for Kevin O'Toole?

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish, it is not a town. The parish council does not call itself a town council or elect a mayor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we need to be accurate and consistent in our use of contested concepts. Can you please provide an inline reference from a reliable source or revert your edit. There are also some extremely stubby sections here (particularly population change and headings under Landmarks, but also others) and deadlinks, eg. Shaw and Crompton Community Pages "Putting unity into the Community"!? Chrisieboy (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state how not having an elected mayor stops Shaw and Crompton being a town? Do you have a source that Shaw and Crompton is not a town? Mayors are only granted by Royal Charter for boroughs and cities, not towns. I think you've confused this. I could get six or seven references (as I've already stated on your talk page) but this is pedantry without scholarly basis.

This issue is so massive however, you're going to need to take this to WP:GM (at very least), or WP:UKGEO. There are hundreds, if not thousands of articles which describe settlements as towns. Removing this means it goes from several templates, categories and articles. Perhaps you should also take this to List of towns in England. Singling this one out in particular (even when sources can be found) and threatening to revert isn't a realistic option.

I will however fix deadlinks now I'm aware of them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment about the stubby sections, the article's FA status does not mean it's finished and nothing can be improved. You're very welcome, as everyone is, to expand these sections with any additional information you have. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a town charter, the LGA 72 s.245(6) refers. Also civic pertains to a city and I'm sure you're not intending to claim that aswell. To clarify, I am not "threatening to revert," I am asking you to revert yourself. In respect of stubby paras., I would suggest removing headings 2.1, 2.2, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.2 and 6.3 altogether, either merging or removing 4.1 and 4.2 and possibly also removing 1.1. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this particular section of the act (the full text of which does not seem to be available on the internet) define Shaw and Crompton as not being a town? Personally I believe the whole thing entirely depends on your definition of what a town is. I think it's possible to read way to much into the word. The dictionary definition simply states 1. a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government.[1]. It's also important to note that as far as road signs go, Shaw and Crompton is treated as a town. For example there are at least two signs which clearly point to a 'Town Centre'. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to a new source, A Chronicle of Crompton by E. Ballard which I intend to read this evening. It will undoubtedly aid in expanding some sections. It's a very comprehensive book, and seems to be the source for the previously removed info on Ash-ton, Roy-ton etc. It also mentions the finds on Crompton Moor, so we can now attribute a published source to this material. Looks promising. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I'll look forward to that. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the first paragraph says the book is about "how the town had developed through the centuries". Don't shoot the messenger! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this when I was looking for info about the new S&C Community Council. Yes, it does mention the elusive "town centre". -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Chrisieboy. Shaw and Crompton is only a civil parish, but some contributors can get around the guidelines, and if they don't like the guideline, well, just rewrite them without any consulation. There isn't conclusive proof to show that "Shaw and Crompton" is a "town". But as I said, its a waste of time with certain contributors who know how to get around things. Cayden (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse people of trying to rewrite the rules as this is far from being fair or accurate. I offered my opinion and what sources I had to prove it's a town, as did Jza84. As yet requests for opposing citations have been ignored. If indeed it is 'only a civil parish' surely this can be cited. I can't find a suitable citation anywhere within the literature I have at my disposal. If you have then print it here and we'll be able to add the citation to the lead and remove the town reference. Remember wikipedia prefers verifiable information above fact. We can verify it's a town, we can't (yet) prove it's not one. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second your point about the unfairness and inaccuracy of the charge of "rewriting the rules". On the subject of the civil parish, I just want to point out that a settlement can be both a town and a civil parish; Middlewich springs to mind as one example. So it is the claim that Shaw and Crompton is only a civil parish that needs to be verified by a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies if I upset anyone with the comments I said earlier. Having said that, I personally find that some contributors do take too many liberties when they suit, but that is my own opinion.

I challenge the GMRO citation in the first paragraph in the lead (and throughout the article) that "Shaw and Crompton" is a town and civil parish. I followed the link and found there isn't any mention of "Shaw and Crompton". Then looked for "Shaw", but again there isn't any mention of that either. The citation link does mention "Crompton" as a former township/civil parish/urban district, but still no mention there of "Shaw and Crompton" being a town and civil parish. So basically the citation doesn't back up the statement in the first paragraph.

On Ordnance Survey maps shows "SHAW" as an individual place. On the same map, amongst other settlements/areas, are "High Crompton", "Low Crompton" and "Crompton Fold". There isn't an individual place called "Crompton". On the OS map does mention in lighter text "Shaw and Crompton CP", but this only to refer the civil parish.

North Turton is a civil parish, but not a town, and within it has several villages and hamlets. I'm sure that some civil parishes take the same name as the largest settlement. It is the same with local authority districts. The Metropolitan Borough of Oldham takes its name from the town of Oldham. Equally some local authority districts have different name from the largest settlement. The Metropolitan Borough of Tameside is different from Ashton-under-Lyne. So the same is with Shaw and Crompton, it is a civil parish which has several settlements within it, the largest being Shaw.

Postalwise there isn't a town called "Shaw and Crompton" just the "Shaw" postal locality. On the subject of Shaw, trying to see the Shaw, Greater Manchester article and it is redirected to the Shaw and Crompton article. The reason to redirect it, in the contributors words, "unreferenced, little scope for expansion and duplicate info of S&C article". This makes sense, the civil parish (Shaw and Crompton) and its largest settlement (Shaw) put together into one article.

I disagree with Peteb16's statement "We can verify it's a town, we can't (yet) prove it's not one". I feel it should be the other way around. Can you back up that verification that "Shaw and Crompton" is a "town"?

The article should clearly state that "Shaw and Crompton" is just a civil parish and that the whole article needs to be rewritten as from that view rather than as a town, which is misleading and incorrect. Cayden (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I challenge the GMRO citation" You're perfectly entitled to challenge whatever you like, but you must provide reliable sources for that challenge to be credible. Do you have a reliable source that supports your opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the challenge that Shaw and Crompton is not a town. I have found on page 73 of this NWRA reference which states that Shaw and Crompton Council has town status. This reference should be replaced or added alongside the vague GMRO one. Cayden (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is incredible that there isn't a clear citation stating Shaw and Crompton is a town, just the vague one. Cayden (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's incredible that you could've just asked, rather than slur me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) I have sought clarification from the NWRA, who have confirmed that this is an error on the part of ER Consulting. I am happy to provide a copy of the correspondence. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Please re-read the discussion, consensus and most importantly WP:V. I certainly do not accept your assertion here. I've supplied several sources now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is not my assertion, it is that of the Director of Strategy (Scrutiny, Europe and Sustainability) for the North West Regional Assembly. Feel free to contact him yourself. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will, maybe I won't, but I'm afraid the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth and not personal opinion. You need to reconsider how Wikipedia works, afterall, God just told me that Shaw and Crompton is a town (mine's bigger than yours), but I'm not asserting this as verifiable on Wikipedia as it's not how the site and community operates. I do not accept you as a reliable published source, and am bound by policy to challenge and revert your removal of cited material. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the logic a little distorted here? If I understand correctly, you have something from the NWRA which states that Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish. So far as I know, that has never been in dspute has it? The more relevant question surely is, does the NWRA say that Shaw and Crompton is not also a town? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue needs to be put to rest. I will gather some evidence and present it. My concern is that Chrisieboy is singling this article out, rather than taking his views to WP:UKGEO or the List of towns in England page. I believe Chrisieboy has a history of making edits to pages that are not considered mainstream or consensual (like moving City of Leeds to Leeds City Council or revertingand misappropriating navigation templates according to his singular preference) and think this is a repeat of this process. His approach was recently described as overly combattive [2] -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the correspondence clearly states it is a civil parish and NOT a town. As I stated on 05 January (above), in the absence of a town charter, the LGA 72 s.245(6) refers. This is an encyclopedia and we need to be accurate.

Incidentally, I am also getting fed up of Jza84s slurs against my character! Chrisieboy (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you moved City of Leeds to Leeds City Council against the will of an entire community, and against procedure causing a minor uproar is not a slur, but a verifiable fact (just see Talk:Leeds#Merge_with_City_of_Leeds). That you edit warred over Template:Cambridgeshire is a verifiable fact. That you've recently been described by another editor as combattive is a verifiable fact. These are just the things I know about!!! Don't shoot the messenger please.

OK, firstly you said a town has to have a directly elected mayor which is downright nonsense (some boroughs don't even have this!), and that it needs a Royal Charter, again nonsense as any parish can call itself a town. Then, discussion outlines that your arguement is not mainstream and is disputed. Then we find a nice satisfactory source and you say you've spoken to the Director of a major government agency over a minor report published three years ago and that it happens to be void and we have to accept you (!?). Next you change the wording (taking yourself upto the brink of WP:3RR abuse) to misappropriate source material that you have not read to assert your point of view!!!!!

So, how is Shaw and Crompton, a former mill town with its town hall in the town centre, known for once being the richest town in the world described in Looking back at Crompton as a town, A History of Crompton and Shaw Pubs as a town, Shaw Church in Bygone Years as a town, A Chronicle of Cromptonas a town, The Lives of the People of Crompton, Lancashire 1580 - 1700 as a town, Oldham From the XX Legion to the 20th Century as a town, The Cotton Mills of Oldham as a town, the Crompton Official Guide and Trader's Directory as a town, parish council literature, the Oldham Evening Chronicle as a town... with its very own town crier and signs pointing to the town centre, with its own council and statutory boundaries, with a source from NWRDA saying that it has town council status do you not understand or accept that this is a town?.... This doesn't even take into account local convention!!... I suppose I'm slurring your character now right?... I have shared with you that refusing to "get the point" could be considered as disruptive. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I said anything about directly-elected mayors? Please try to remain civil and stay focussed on the above discussion. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a posiion, as yet, that section of the LGA 1972 is here, and appears to have been repealed. I don't know what it has been replaced with, but it no longer "applies". My memory (FWIW) is that we don't have legally defined towns, villages and suchlike any more. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give that man a medal! Please can we stop arguing now? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did think that this was put to rest long ago. Mr Stephen's work is excellent however. To consider this from a different point of view that has not yet been considered... what was Shaw and Crompton between 1974 and 1987? If Shaw and Crompton didn't have civil parish status, then what would exactly would it be? Rhetorical questions of course (!), but stated to assert that understanding taken in reliable published materials. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still happy to go for the dicitonary definition of town. 1. a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government.[3]. Shaw and Crompton has had all of this (perhaps more so during 1974-1987) for over a hundred years at least. Of course, it would have to be agreed that a dictionary definition is reliable first (without arguing! :D). ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we are unable to reach a consensus I have referred this to WP:UKGEO, as per Jza84s suggestion, for the views of a wider audience. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that there was not only undeniable citation being used, but we had a consensus here already (looks roughly like a 5 to 1 split). Thanks too to Pete - a great point. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make that about 6 to 1. [4]. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording as used "town and civil parish" is accurate. It is the wording used to describe Pickering, North Yorkshire which is in a similar position.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might find that the example provided is a town, that is why it is described as such in its article. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisieboy, is Rochdale a town? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) It would, on cursory investigation, appear to be a market town by charter of 1251; that however has little bearing on S&C. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now towns are granted by their right to have a market according to millenia old charters? S&C has a market - it has two each week infact, in the town centre. If the charter was not granted, would that mean Rochdale is not a town, but a village or district?

So what about Oldham? Is that a town? Ashton-under-Lyne? Chadderton? Wigan? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. If S&C is indeed a town, as you assert, the town charter or resolution of the parish council would be a matter of public record. You are unable to cite either. It would have a mayoralty and the parish council would be styled town council. This is plainly not the case here. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trade you. You answer my questions, and I'll answer yours. Oh, infact you raise a new one... where exactly has Rochdale town's mayor been hiding? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's significant LGA 1972 s245.6 was repealed... maybe the government was stuck in a recurring loop similar to this conversation and suddenly thought "ah, sod it, it's not that important". *cough* ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to define a Town? As a point of information, it seems that a town used to be defined thus (the article on wikipedia is remarkably accurate in this respect): "In England and Wales, a town traditionally was a settlement which had a charter to hold a market or fair and therefore became a "market town". Market towns were distinguished from villages in that they were the economic hub of a surrounding area, and were usually larger and had more facilities." So, it seems as if it is possible for settelments to be towns as a result of them being granted leave to hold a market or fair, and that this was possibly granted many years ago. Whilst the market and the fair may have lapsed, the place is still called a town (Malpas, in Cheshire is one such example). Later on, Town goes on to say "Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a Town Council, but this will usually only apply to the smallest "towns" (because larger towns will be larger than a single civil parish)." So, a parish council can decide to call itself a town council, whereupon the place becomes a town rather than a village, and the chairman of the parish council can choose to become known as the mayor (this is what happened in the case of Frodsham in Cheshire in 1982.) There are also other places that are neither in civil parishes nor were granted leave to hold a market or fair, but by other means have been called towns (Crewe in Cheshire is one example.) The National Association of Local Councils will have information about this somewhere (here.) This site also contains some useful information, particularly the bit about "self-defining".

In this respect, it seems that the only sure way of finding out whether some settlement is a town or not comes about from seeing whether it has been called a town for a long period of time, whether any civil parish in which it is located is governed by a town council, or whether the settlement is known as a town by people. In short, it seems that if any publications can be found that call Shaw and Crompton a town, then it is a town. There is no clear way of deciding between the relative weights of different sources of information, and wikipedia anyway uses verifiability as a criterion rather than veracity as such.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, although tailored to towns in Cheshire, the following pdf file gives some additional insight into what it took to become a town: PDF file published by Cheshire County Council.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ddstretch for helping to clear up the confusion here. It's very much appreciated. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Richmond, London (or any part of London for that matter) can be described as a "town", I don't see why Shaw and Crompton can't be described that way too. If we want to be frugal with our usage of this term, perhaps something more systematic should be agreed at WP:UKGEO. In the meantime, and under the current framework of writing about UK places, it is acceptable for us to continue to describe Shaw and Crompton this way. MRSC • Talk 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to think of it is that the parish is not a town (as the parish council is not town council) BUT the settlement is a town by nature of its size and features (i.e. fitting the commonly accepted definition of a town). That would support the current wording Shaw and Crompton is a town and civil parish within the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham because it is referring to two notions 1. a settlement and 2. a civil parish. MRSC • Talk 13:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually been my understanding since I've lived here, and, of course, the view taken in source material it seems. The town council is irrelevant not only because of the apparent repeal of LGA 1972 s245.6, but because of custom, local convention, and traditional definitions of towns. It is also possible to be a city and civil parish at the same time, an example being Ely. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The four sources are hardly reliable. (1) A report discredited for our purposes, (2) A 1998 Oldham Education and Leisure publication, (3) A 1907 publication entitled Shaw Church in By-gone Days and (4) A 1967 Crompton Public Libraries publication. This is against (1) legal citation and (2) confirmation from the North West Regional Assembly to the contrary, both of which others may easily ascertain for themselves. Use of the terms town centre or town crier etc. does not make S&C a town.

This is currently a FA, so accuracy is particularly important; while verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, references must be reliable.

That said, User Jza84 is utterly relentless (I seem to recall it being mentioned by an administrator that you should tone down the quick succession of questions, as it can be quite intimidating) and clearly has a dogged attachment to the word. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This is against (1) legal citation" what legal citation please? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious comment? You know perfectly well what I am referring to! Chrisieboy (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is serious and, forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what you're referring to. I'm assuming here that you're not referring to LGA 1972 as it's already been established it was repealed so what other legal citation have I overlooked? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LGA 72 has not been repealed. This information is in the public domain, please feel free to do some research yourself. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refered to section 245(6), at the bottom of the page there is a footnote labelled F3. It states "Words in s. 245(6)-(9) repealed (1.4.1996)". Does this not mean that this part of the act no longer applies? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1994 cap.19 refers to Wales. I was under the impression that S&C is in England. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I'm out of my depth regarding statuate law jargon. Only part of F3 makes any sense to me and that is the repealed bit. If you say it isn't repealed because of what it says afterwards I can't argue. By the same token, I don't believe such obscure and poorly constructed information can be concidered reliable and, above all, verifiable. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Can [not] be considered reliable and, above all, verifiable," but it is the law of the land! Chrisieboy (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that, I'm saying if we want to use it as a verifiable source a version of it needs to be found that doesn't require a degree in law to read. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, while you're at it, is Oldham a town, Chrisieboy? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement The council, which has town council status comprises 14 locally elected members, including three who also act as councillors to the wider Oldham local authority is going too far. The parish council does not have town council status and the three councillors must be separately elected and not on Oldham BC by virtue of being S&C parish councillors as you appear to be suggesting. You are also continuing to use a discredited source here and in the lead. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the source if you like. A overwhelming consensus exists for the claim however and trust you will repect that. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight votes either way is hardly what I'd call overwhelming and this issue will come up again, but I have no intention of removing it now. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether we shouldn't put the contents of this section somewhere else as it would appear nothing has happened with these plans. Although the clinic has had a new fire alarm installed and some blue paint thrown at it... does that count has a 'development scheme'?. :S Today a Lib dem flyer came through the door. It reports (in a POV 'we can't let this happen' sort of way) plans by the council to build on the land at the top of Moor Street. It also tells us why the High Barn... (they mean New Barn) wasteland still hasn't been built on yet. Should any of this information be included in Future developments and, if so, would we need a better reference or is this political flyer okay? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear also about the plans that JD Williams submitted too!? The multi-story carpark and new distribution centre? I've been told about it but haven't seen the reports in the local news. Is it online anywhere? The Chron or Advertiser?... Also, I haven't had a flyer through my door :( -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, didn't hear about that one. Sounds a bit bizarre. A multi-storey car park? I presume we're talking about the staff car park here? Residents of Clough will be pleased(!)What do you think we should do about the old 'future' news and this leaflet?

It reads:

Cowlishaw under threat Four years ago local residents and concillors fought to protect land at Cowlishaw from development. Councillor Ann Wingate says "This hard work now seems to be under threat!" Oldham Borough Council is drawing up a Local Development Framework at the moment. The land at Cowlishaw, 75 of green open space bordered by Moor Street and Edward Road, is being considered for possible housing development. Your local Liberal Democrat Councillors... have objected to the proposal in the consultation process and have taken up the matter with Council officers. "However, pressure from residents against development is also vital," adds Councillor Wingate.

Use the High (sic) Barn waste land now! The former New Barn School was demolished in 2002, and Oldham Council obtained outline planning permission to build new houses on the site in 2003. Councillor Philomena Dillon pressurised Council officers to put the land on the market following complaints from local residents, but permission was not granted until late 2007. By that time planning permission had lapsed on the land! Philomena says , "This is a frustrating situation. This site needs to be tidied up and developed - it has been an eyesore in this neighbourhood for far too long!"

~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The JD Williams thing was in the local press, but I can't find anything on their sites sadly. However, I've found the planning application here. The "High-Bay warehouse" was reported to be of a design as high as Oldham's Civic Centre!! I don't think the planning application is suitable for reference, and so I'll watch for press coverage.

Simillarly with the leaflet, I don't think it meets the reliable sources criteria, and could be a breach of WP:SOAP if we publish heavily politicised stuff. Again, I'd be more inclined to wait for press coverage. What do you think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just needed a second opinion. As high as the civic centre? Are they going to do a Littlewoods and tell local residents it's only one floor?

Anyway, so what of the lapdancing club and the health centre plans which never materialised? We don't seem to have anything to say they will still happen in the future. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the JD williams planning application was refused as also confirmed here. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I know I'm being speculative, but if they can't gain planning permission to expand, are they likely to move somewhere else where they can? Something to watch out for anyway. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have threatened to move out of town if the application is not granted at some point down the line. They argue that they need these changes to remain competative and sustainable.... so I read in the Chronicle a week or so ago.

I hadn't noticed you're point above about moving the lapdancing and health centre stuff. I'd be inclined to removed the lapdancing material now - it's old news as you say. The health centre stuff still seems to be verifiable. I'm hoping to create a new Public services section shortly (per WP:UKTOWNS) and hopefully that could be merged into that. What do you think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't call the lapdancing club a public service... oh I see what you mean. :D Yes that seems to be a good idea, wouldn't a section like that bleed off much of the 'Community facilities' section though? As for the JD Williams thing, we sooo need a cite for that, that's very significant. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read last night that Tara Leisure is to be demolished and replaced with housing too! I'll try to create a Public services section and we can then address the other matters if that's OK? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't realised you were waiting on my response. Yes this sounds promising as an improvement for the article and probably less ambiguous as community facilities may be privately run. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why Crompton Clinic is referred to in the past tense as if it's closed. As far as I'm aware the clinic is still in full use. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably My mistake. I used to be referred there, but now have to go to Royton. I thought Crompton had closed as an NHS facility and is now something else (a private health centre or something). Feel free to amend :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's still got NHS signs outside. I think the redevelopment citation is quite old now and probably doesn't reflect any immediate future plans accurately. Far from building a new clinic, to my knowledge, the following things have happened over the last year or so. Firstly the Village Practice (which was on Collinge Street) was closed and moved into the clinic (technically now there are two receptions sharing one waiting room). Secondly they replaced the fire alarm system (or at least that's what I think they were doing - there were lots of red cables sticking out of everywhere when I went in once) Third, they've painted the outside trims blue And finally they've improved wheelchair access by putting automatic doors in. There's probably more, like buying new stethoscopes but that's all I've noticed. (Me, cynical? Never! :D) ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the ambulance station have some significance to this section? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but I can't find any citation. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 dead links in the article, this is one of the project's outstanding examples so let's try and get rid of them! Ref #22 is from the Oldham Advertiser website but appears to be one of 4 references used to back up one statement: "Because of this highly profitable share dealing, it was reported in the national press that Shaw and Crompton had more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world". I think we could get rid of it and not bother with a replacement since there are plenty of other sources. I've replaced #58 with what is probably a better source anyway (Oldham council). The final dead link was a church website that now appears to be defunct. Since it's not being used as a source, I have removed it altogether. Nev1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to tackle these asap. Actually, once the Royton article had padded out to a B-class, I was hoping to revisit this page and make a few FA-type improvements to keep the article's standard high. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some basic research to start a Philips Park, Bury article, and believe that Thomas Crompton and family may have owned some of the land between 1581 to 1799. I don't suppose anyone could confirm this, using the references in the article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, I haven't read about any connection with Thomas Crompton and the Crompton family. I can have a double check though. Do you have any more clues which may help? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of doing a bit of an update, or improvement drive to bring this article upto speed a bit. Most of the article should be fine to stay as it is, but I do want to make some significant changes in some areas, particularly the history section, namely:

• Try to replace "GENUKI", "1911encyclopedia.org", "British-publishing.com", "shawcam.co.uk" and "web.onetel.com" as sources.
• Cite specific page numbers from specific books.
• Tighten up some of the prose to remove some innocent commentary.
• Reword the Filmography section and bring it into the history section, (I want to create a Post-industrial subsection like Royton's).
• Possibly remove the mills table - I want to convert that material into more solid prose. Still keeping a link the main article.
• Expand the Religion section a bit more.

Any comments? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I thought "1911encyclopedia.org" was an acceptable source? (Although I've not used it in any of the articles I've worked on) If you plan to remove the table of mills perhaps the mills section could be integrated into the Industrial Revolution section seeing as how they're so closely linked? And I agree with moving the content from 'filmography' into history. Possibly something on the history of religion in the area? Not necessarily easy to get hold of though, so maybe not. Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few bites to add. The fact that Shaw had a chapel pre-industrialisation is quite unusual, so I want to expand that. It also had an alternative name. Yes some of the sources used in the article at the time of its FA, I wouldn't really use these days, like 1911encyclopedia.org. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! Looking Back at Crompton has no page numbers! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm making some changes in User:Jza84/Sandbox2. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished the upgrade/rewrite. The History section recieved most attention, but I also added much more depth to the latter sections, particularly historical christianity and education in the area. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work methinks, well done. I was always uncomfortable with the amount of space the mill list took (I can be critical about it because I made it! :D), however I had, some time ago, wondered whether it would be useful in a summary section, or even posing as a TOC in the List of Shaw and Crompton Mills article. Any thoughts? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that a couple of times but I'm struggling envisioning what you quite mean! I was up all night finding those page numbers, so I'm a little frazzled! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel. ;) What I had in my probably-not-quite-as-frazzled-as-yours-but getting-there head was something similar to say... a television series table at the top of an episode list. These are often set up as a quick summary, sometimes in place of a table of contents. Clicking on a series takes you to the list of episodes in that series. Could we not replicate this style by having the list of mills as a summary and, if you click a mill name, the page jumps down to show more information about it? While we're on the subject I think, although I still think it looks smart, we may do better with expanding that article if we put each mill in a section rather than a table split by sections of the alphabet. (P.S. Sorry, I've just realised we're discussing another article, my fault!). ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean now, but could you point to an example article for reference? I presume we now mean changing the main List of Shaw and Crompton Mills article? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is indeed the article I am (shouldn't be) talking about here. I'm afraid I can't find an example now, although I know I've seen that format somewhere... or maybe I dreamt it, I don't know. It's likely what's really happened is that someone, without an eye for creativity, has come along saying "That doesn't conform to the Super duper telly Project guidelines" and removed it. Anyway, I'll try and do a sandbox version as soon as I can to show what I mean. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spotted something strange about the (cited) information about the height of the present day Big Lamp. It says it's 'about 6 feet (2m) high. Now I'm 5 feet 9 inches, three inches shorter than 6 feet, but I swear I'm not 3 inches shorter than that lamp, 3 feet maybe. Do we have anything to cite that sounds more accurate? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check this. Do you still have your S&C books? I'll look in the Frances Stott ones. I think it might be right though by way of the Big Lamp lying on that hill. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Found the referenced book... or at least I think I have - Frances Sott, Changing Face of Crompton, printed in December 1996, page 14 - Problem is, it mentions nothing about the new lamp or how high it is. It just mentions that the old one was 'extra big'. So the 'about 6 foot' bit has come from somewhere else I'm afraid. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although we can't use them for another 40-50 years, I thought it only fair to share these photographs of Shaw in 1947. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, ref 41 (GMP link to the area) is now dead. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the link with one from internet archive. Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger the Poitevin (Roger Pictavensis) was not, to the best of my knowledge a "maternal nephew" of William the Conqueror. The relationship to William, through Roger's father Roger II of Montgomery, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, was much more distant. Nor was he more closely related through his mother, Mabel of Belleme. Zoetropo (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20060511190505/http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=3367920 to http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=3367920
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109141715/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_5.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030325/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030554/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-walking-trails.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-walking-trails.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030325/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060725160239/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422200621/http://www.oldham.gov.uk:80/minerals-waste.htm to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/minerals-waste.htm

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} 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20060725160239/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030221/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw_and_crompton_tc_masterplan_oct06.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw_and_crompton_tc_masterplan_oct06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070818144641/http://www.nbrown.co.uk/contact/pdf/shawmap.pdf to http://www.nbrown.co.uk/contact/pdf/shawmap.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081116115640/http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=6029065 to http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=6029065
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061209213153/http://www.oldham.gov.uk:80/community/libraries/libraries-in-oldham/crompton-library.htm to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/community/libraries/libraries-in-oldham/crompton-library.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20131203033524/http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/records-and-resources/bulletins-published-by-dclg/change---bulletin-1987-1988.pdf to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/records-and-resources/bulletins-published-by-dclg/change---bulletin-1987-1988.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308095128/http://geoplanning.oldham.gov.uk:80/gis/map.aspx?ACTION=PLANNING to http://geoplanning.oldham.gov.uk/gis/map.aspx?ACTION=PLANNING

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geoplanning.oldham.gov.uk/gis/map.aspx?ACTION=PLANNING
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BqYKLTfO?url=http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/biosurvey-gmanchester.pdf to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/biosurvey-gmanchester.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215171525/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1595998_shaw-and-crompton-metrolink-trams-start-this-sunday to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1595998_shaw-and-crompton-metrolink-trams-start-this-sunday
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024201556/http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/105740 to http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/105740
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181543/http://www.genuki.org.uk:8080/big/eng/LAN/Crompton/ to http://www.genuki.org.uk:8080/big/eng/LAN/Crompton/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517232521/http://web.onetel.com/~rgcrompton/origins/1200info1.html to http://web.onetel.com/~rgcrompton/origins/1200info1.html

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) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20061120093532/http://www.british-publishing.com/Pages/OldhamOG/districts.html to http://www.british-publishing.com/Pages/OldhamOG/districts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203032837/http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/parish-orders-from-x-drive/oldham-parish-of-crompton-order-1986.pdf to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/parish-orders-from-x-drive/oldham-parish-of-crompton-order-1986.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/biosurvey-gmanchester.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415031221/http://www.stgeorgesprimarysch.ik.org/ to http://www.stgeorgesprimarysch.ik.org/

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) 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20140222095305/http://www.pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/4353/ to http://www.pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/4353/

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) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20140222154719/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/53539/chronicle-helps-our-suranne-crack-crime to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/53539/chronicle-helps-our-suranne-crack-crime
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113145959/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/65675/crimewatch to http://oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/65675/crimewatch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014201309/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/74196/six-businesses-to-earn-a-crust-at-former-bakery-site to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/74196/six-businesses-to-earn-a-crust-at-former-bakery-site
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428052839/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSM03.html to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSM03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113145958/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/64313/45-new-jobs-as-pub-opens-doors to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/64313/45-new-jobs-as-pub-opens-doors
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311074211/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/96714/deep-end-of-an-era to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/96714/deep-end-of-an-era

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) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20150221233023/http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/RouteMaps/403.pdf to http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/RouteMaps/403.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) 23:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20160113145958/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11128366&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=16&e=62&g=6343559&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1452089205593&enc=1 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11128366&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=16&e=62&g=6343559&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1452089205593&enc=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011638/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=shaw&d=14&e=15&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=shaw&d=14&e=15&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011654/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=crompton&d=14&e=15&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=crompton&d=14&e=15&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011625/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadAreaSearch.do?a=7&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=141&i=1001&m=0&enc=1&areaSearchText=Shaw+and+Crompton&areaSearchType=16&extendedList=true&searchAreas=Search to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadAreaSearch.do?a=7&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=141&i=1001&m=0&enc=1&areaSearchText=Shaw+and+Crompton&areaSearchType=16&extendedList=true&searchAreas=Search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011632/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=Shaw&d=14&e=16&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=Shaw&d=14&e=16&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011642/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=Crompton&d=14&e=16&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=Crompton&d=14&e=16&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789

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) 06:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pingot Quarry Waterfall.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This older FA promotion needs some maintenance. There is uncited text in the demography and public services sections, as well as others. The table of all churches may be WP:UNDUE. Several sections also look out of date, such as Demography, economy, and education. If this article is not improved, it will likely need to undergo WP:FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 22:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Shaw, Greater Manchester be split back again for the BUA and ward or is the overlap with the parish too great? Although being an ONS BUA might not qualify it as a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND it is still likely a strong indicator of being notable. A ward likely counts as being legally recognized but they change a lot and often have separate articles to settlements. Shaw is on 4[15] of my missing article lists namely User:Crouch, Swale/A-Z Mini, User:Crouch, Swale/A-Z bold places, User:Crouch, Swale/Bot settlements and User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs as well as 1 of its subpages, User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the BUA but just a subdivision of the BUA i.e. a BUASD. I do however support a split, we just need good sources on both Shaw and Crompton singular as opposed to treating them together. Eopsid (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the "Shaw" article as the split has been unopposed but more content may need moving from this article to the Shaw article. BUA and data for the "Shaw" ward are now in the Shaw article. This now deals with the parish but still has content for both places as it covers the history of both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]