Talk:Metropolitan Borough of Wigan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education[edit]

This page seems to need more information about education in this area. Is there a university? A population of this size probably should have! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.172.201 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cities of Manchester, Liverpool and Preston have Universities and are within easy reach of the towns within this Metropolitan Borough. Bolton has a University and Warrington has University of Chester campuses. There are many 'sixth form colleges' in the area. Wigan and Leigh have colleges. In fact, our area is swamped with colleges etc., so much so that not many school leavers seek gainful employment!

Sorry, forgot to sign .... JemmyH.

Wigan & Leigh College with the backing of UCLAN, Wigan Council and the NWRDA is putting together an application to become a University. 81.152.187.235 (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

  • Capitals are used in titles
  • Redirected to the more correct Wigan Metropolitan Borough - I knows it, cos I lives in the place, man!
  • Wigan "B"... orough is covered by the article "Wigan", just on Wigan the town.

I have moved most of the Metropolitan Borough articles to "Metropolitan Borough of XXX" as this is their official title. G-Man 21:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge[edit]

Usually when these merges or splits take place with a town that shares its name with a district the end result is a real mess. I'm pleased to say that isn't the case with this one. However, this has implications for other articles and there are bound to be some editors who feel this solution isn't the best. I have two main concerns:

  1. The article should be at Wigan. There is undisputedly a place in the UK called Wigan and I can't see any reason not to have an article there.
  2. The article (if it is to stay merged) should begin with something that explains clearly that this article is about the settlement and the borough.
  • Wigan is a town within Wigan Metropolitan Borough. The town of Wigan already has an article relating to it. This article relates to Wigan Metropolitan Borough (which is not Wigan) and attempts to explain how it is made up.

We probably need to formally agree some proper criteria for which articles should be split and which merged. I don't want to see Croydon merged with London Borough of Croydon. I also can't see agreement for Bradford merging with City of Bradford. We need to be asking why this case is special. MRSC • Talk 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd hesitate at calling it an absolute mess, but the article has some incoherence now. It's bizarre we have people pulling in different directions in Reading, Berkshire and here - possibly because it gets the population figures up! I'd like to see an explanation as to why this was merged, beyond a vague claim that the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan article wasn't terribly long: does that mean it wasn't merged as a matter of principle, and that a further expansion might mean it would be split out again.
But right now this we have no article about the town of Wigan. The intro doesn't mention Wigan is a town, for example. If we were to decide merging was a good idea, a merged page should be at Wigan, and say in the intro that it is a town and a larger metropolitan borough.
However, I would have though Wigan is actually a pretty poor case for a merge, the borough doesn't even make up a single urban area or part of one, but includes several distinct towns within countryside between them. Would anyone say "Leigh is an area in Wigan"? Of course, if someone can provide evidence that people in the Wigan area do not make the distinction between the town and the borough, then the obvious geographical guidelines should be discarded. Morwen - Talk 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leigh is a town to the south east of Wigan. Leigh is not 'in' Wigan, however it is in the same Borough, which just happens to be named Wigan Metropolitan Borough.
Seem as the borough of Wigan covers a much larger area then the namesake town. I can't see much justification for this merge. The big problem here is the inconsistancy this creates with countless other town/district articles. By the same token we would heve to merge most of the other Greater Manchester metropolitan borough articles with their namesake town articles, Oldham, Stockport, Bury to name a few. I dont see any obvious reason why this should be an exception to the format adopted elsewhere. G-Man * 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The incoming links to this article are also split with some for the town and some for the borough. It would be sensible if they targeted different articles with split content. MRSC • Talk 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wigan has no distinct legal or cartographic existance, outside of its historical context of the Metro Borough. Generic Character 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ordnance Survey would tend to disagree with you, noting a settlement called Wigan in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. MRSC • Talk 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be specific, because as I look into the sky - I see no large letters up there. Anyway which map, and how out-of-date is it? I repeat that "Wigan" in itself is not a legal term.Generic Character
Also, the ONS gives figures for a "Wigan urban area", containining subdivisions called Abram, Ince, Orrell, Skelmersdale, and Wigan, the latter with a population fo 81,203. Whilst it is true that the "legal existence" of the county borough of Wigan is terminated, so is that of the municipal borough of Leigh. That doesn't mean it has ceased to exist as a placename. Morwen - Talk 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The case was in fact settled out-of-court, and the Company was disolved anyway. All the little articles for the tin-pot little areas remain, so what is the issue? The upshot is that the merged article is now better than either of its parents. Generic Character 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, no settlement has any existence outside of its local government area. Clearly then Ashton-under-Lyne doesnt exist because it's part of the borough of Tameside, and Nuneaton doesn't exist as a distinct entity because it's part of the borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth. This is getting onto rather silly territory. G-Man * 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain how the article is "better" if it is trying to be two articles at the same time. The map argument is flawed as OS data proves (the current, most up to date map has "Wigan in Wigan" [1]). The "legal" argument is also problematic as other editors have said. If we follow that there will only be 354 places in England with articles. MRSC • Talk 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true, we could still have articles about parishes, and areas with Charter Trustees. But it would rather be a shame to delete Brighton, I feel. Morwen - Talk 21:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the supposed relevance of your uncited legal case to customary geography? It seems a total red herring to me. Please consult any recent (2006 issue even) Ordnance Survey map at the appropiate scale, and you should note "WIGAN" as a place name in one font over the town, and also "WIGAN" in another font, denoting the entire borough. "tin-pot little areas"? Also, does anything make Wigan a special case : most borough articles are split (note this is not an invitation to go around mucking up other articles as well). And no, it's a mess. Morwen - Talk 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you explain the supposed relevance of your uncited legal case to customary geography?" I have,above - and the reference has been wiped - so disregard it, now. Note that I have bent over backwards not to get into personal attacks. Re: “G-Man * 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)” Well exactly, “no settlement has any existence outside of its local government area” (unless it can be distinctly legally or cartographically defined). without the context of the said local government area. So now there is a definition to act on – or can we except a plurality of ways, anyway, if the product is better? Generic Character 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, the Office of National Statistics define an area they identify as the Wigan subdivision of the Wigan urban area. They even have a map of it: here You seem to have an odd top-down view of settlement naming which is wholly at odds with the philosophy of Wikipedians working in this area. Can you please explain what the implications of your view on Brighton is? Also, I am unclear as to what you mean by saying someone has "wiped" your reference. You made no edits to the page between making these odd legal claims and then claiming they have been wiped. Morwen - Talk 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many indents? I have no view on Brighton, and can live without any overarching theory. The single article is still beter here than was its parents. Edit to inprove it here, by all means, and in good faith. Generic Character 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I was a witness to the case. I refered to a web link, now gone from another site. Generic Character 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we note, three Wikipedians deeply experienced in writing articles about places did not like the merge. I'm sure you did this in good faith. Speaking for myself, and I think for the others, we do not accept the article is better for merging, and I notice it has been since split again. I have written some notes explaining why we did these splits in the first place for you, at Wikipedia:List of English districts to disambiguate. If you think these principles are wrong - I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions as a place to discuss this. We recently had a case the opposite way round, where people were splitting articles that were merged in accordance with these principles - again with the effect of inflating population figures, which led to a productive discussion. I feel strongly we need to have consistent principles on this issue that then we apply using local data, rather than just randomly doing things. Morwen - Talk 21:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All editors are equal. Matters of editorial differences in taste, only, are here. Why not live with the plurality? I have no intention to act as an article sentinel through the night. Please feel free to correct any factual errors in good faith, as can any other editor. No case of a reduction in quantifiable quality has been shown in my edits, however. Generic Character 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't do something in one place without it having implications elsewhere. As has also been pointed out to you, to which you have given no reply, Wigan and the Borough of Wigan are clearly recognised both on maps and in official statistics as being seperate and distinct entities, therefore deserving seperate articles. Seem as three editors clearly disagree with you about the merge being an improvement on what went before. I suggest that the two articles be de-merged. G-Man * 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the articles should be split out again. MRSC • Talk 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently making positive, and refernced edits to this (Merged) article in order to do some real edits - so I do not have the time to be forced to reply to each post on the talk page. Sorry, but my time has limits. Generic Character 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. There has yet to be a single word of non-specious reasoning in favour of a merge here - bizarre pseudo-legal arguments that someone apparently has personal experience, sarcasm about maps, and abuse about small places, whilst disregarding the evidence presented about the Office of National Statistics et al;. "quantifiable quality"? Let me know when you work that one out.
Well, actually, no, the merged article is a significant deterioration in quality : in any case it has a section about "The Metropolitan Borough" and "The town of Wigan", so it is not a true merge. Doing a true merge would be very difficult, of course, because these are different topics.
I would ask you to please stop making these edits, they are harmful. I am sure you had every good intention in them, this is not actually an argument in favour of them. "I mean well" is a poor argument in favour of what you are doing - we all mean well. Morwen - Talk 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they "harmful"? I am allowed to freely edit as an editor equal to any other, and thus I will not be intimidated by personal attacks. Generic Character 23:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works by consensus. You are indeed able to participate in this process as anyone else is. Can you please tell me where I have personally attacked you? I hardly think that noting politely that your edits are bad, is a personal attack. Morwen - Talk 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to revert this article back? It currently repeats much of Wigan (although a talk page comment on that article directs reader to come here for a "better" article) and also has some syntax problems that are obsuring half the text. MRSC • Talk 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we being taxed on sin? Anyway, let us go forward and actually edit those error in sintax? Note that, maybe Wigan Councilhave the root problem with sintax? Generic Character 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town and Township[edit]

I don't think these need to have initial caps. MRSC • Talk 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well why not change them? Generic Character 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And they have been reverted back. A councils use of "Town" or "Township" on their website does not change the rules of grammar. We have a clear manual of style to follow. MRSC • Talk 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling edit summary[edit]

This edit with edit summary: "Continuing to edit and add references here (So not 3 revert rule). The last edit was simple vindictive and personal vandalism by another editor" is somewhat troubling. In what way was the previous edit "simple vindictive and personal vandalism"? MRSC • Talk 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Read the edit history, as it is quite clear. Can one Editor be held culpable for another's lack of comprehension? Generic Character 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you cannot now explain why you thought the edit was "simple vindictive and personal vandalism"? MRSC • Talk 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 3rr doesn't quite work like that! If you combine your revert and other work in the same edit it is still a revert! Nontheless, I propose a moratorium for the moment and we keep it in the currently merged state for the moment - I can't see how many reverts have happened. This time period will allow User:Generic Character to address the substantive points raised about
  • the Wigan urban area and core Wigan subdivision, identified by the ONS and
  • the fact that Wigan is labelled on road maps (and indeed on road signs) as a place, that is not just a council area, does not include Leigh
  • the fact that the metropolitan borough of Wigan is extremely diverse in terms of territory, and indeed parts of it in the east actually are part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area rather than the Wigan Urban Area.
  • also, what, if anything, makes Wigan special, or are we talking about merging Rochdale and Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, etc?
Clear vandalism by a clever programmer, and you know who you are - and so I will go through - line by line. Generic Character 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • would a merged article still be appropriate if the borough was renamed? i argue that if a merged article would be inappropriate if the borough was called something else, then it is inappropriate anyway.

I wish to discuss substantive things here, not procedural things, which seem to me irrelevant. Morwen - Talk 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well some "clever" programer has vandalised this article - so it ends at the begining of the "Wigan Town" section. That is clear vandalism, which I will try to undo - line by line if needed. Generic Character 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, that is you not closing your ref tag properly. This is a shocking display of assumption of bad faith. I must insist you apologise for this baseless accusation against me. Morwen - Talk 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weasal words, as it did not work when I corrected the error in preview. You Just got to the edit 1st. I tried each of my edits in History, one by one. I will edit this as a "merged" article, whilst incorporating any inproved edits. Trying all this Wikilawyering on talk pages is a poor use of my time, as I like real editing. Generic Character 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you will not be addressing any of Morwen's points concerning the viability of this article? MRSC • Talk 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generic, you're such a character. You seem to have some real problems interacting with other contributors here. While I can hardly force you to apologize (and I am not about to threaten sanctions if you don't) this behavior of yours is ridiculous at best. You seem to be looking for trouble, ignoring points raised about the proper way to do things as mere "wikilawyering" and dismissing critique of your actions as "weasel words", and forging off to muddle the situation. This is hardly a productive way to go about doing things. You should, like, stop. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just do not bow to cabals. I'm otherwise quite a sweetie. PS nice use of characters, above. (And so to bed) (?...);-) Generic Character 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Township prose[edit]

So, I was looking at restoring some of the material added, and I have noticed that some of the text in the merged version of the article, is a cut and paste version from [2]. This therefore may be a copyright violation. Morwen - Talk 07:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a similar issue at the Billinge-and-Winstanley article which incorporated prose from [3] [4]. Editors may like to peruse our copyright policy. Morwen - Talk 07:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the cabal had got off my case, I could have re-worked the "cut and paste prose", and generally improved the content. As it is the produced “prose” here is as about as interesting as the assembly instructions of a flat-pack wardrobe. Generic Character

Named after the largest component town?[edit]

Given that Wigan is considered, by Wikipedia, to consist of Wigan AND Pemberton (officially referred to as 'the former county borough of Wigan') it is still smaller than both Ashton in Makerfield and Leigh. However, Ashton in Makerfield is not totally within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, so doesn't count, but Leigh is totally within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and is much larger than 'the former county borough of Wigan' (Wigan and Pemberton combined). That makes Leigh the largest component town in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and the statement 'Named after the largest component town', wrong. Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton has a population of 28,505, Leigh has a population of 44,122 Wigan has population of 81,203 which makes Wigan by far the largest component town in terms of population Pemberton is considered part of the town of Wigan and has been for a hundred years (since 1920). If you are referring to area then indeed they are far larger than Wigan which was quite small and consisted of the walled market town and surrounds rather than the rural/semi-urban areas. Though this changed with the addition of Pemberton to its Town limits. --86.145.142.214 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, in a rather scornful tone, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less".

Large is, generally, used when referring to size, in this case area and, as I said before, even including Pemberton Wigan (and Pemberton) are not as LARGE as Ashton in Makerfield OR Leigh.

Using the Humpty Dumpty theory, when I use the word Wigan I mean Wigan, neither more nor less. When I use the word town, I mean town, not borough.

If you mean densely populated, say densely populated. Not large. Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "lga 1972" :
    • {{cite book|title=Local Government Act 1972. 1972 c. 60|publisher=HMSO}}
    • The 2004 election was for all seats, as ward boundaries had changed. <ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/locals/html/3791.stm|title=Wigan council|publisher=BBC News|date=2004-06-11 |accessdate-2007-02-11}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metropolitan Borough of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolitan Borough of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metropolitan Borough of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Townships[edit]

Can anyone clarify what the standing of these Townships and Township managers actually is? I am struggling to find a reference post 2009. Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metropolitan_Borough_of_Wigan&oldid=1203986474"