User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2011/March

Turnpikes

Are you watching User:JaGa talk page? I had sorted an unhelpful regionally specific #REDIRECT when this gentleman intervened and created 200 false links. Frustrating, thought you may have a view. It occurred to me that you and Phocea, might like to walk over to Weston Road one day soon and share a spot of Tetleys- my number is in the book.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

we will take you up on the cuppa and look into your concerns on our return to medway on the 3rd SilkTork *^YES! 14:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I see what has happened, and I understand the reasoning behind your edit. The question is regarding if Toll road is the primary topic for "Turnpike". There would seem to be some evidence that would be the case for North American readers, but not necessarily so for other readers. Turnpike in British English has a more specific usage relating to Turnpike trusts in the United Kingdom. I can see a reasonable argument for having Turnpike as the disamb page, directing readers to the several possibilities, rather than having Turnpike direct to Toll road. As your move has been contested, the place to discuss this now is at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You would be requesting that Turnpike (disambiguation) be moved to Turnpike because Toll road is not the WP:Primary topic for "Turnpike" as in British English it has a specific usage relating to Turnpike trusts in the United Kingdom, and that a Google search and a GoogleBooks search do not provide a primary topic. Added to which, as you note on JaGa's talk page, the majority of incoming links to Turnpike are for the British English usage. Let me know when you have set up the request, or if you have any queries. SilkTork *^YES! 15:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have informed JaGa and tagged Talk:Turnpike (disambiguation) for Wikipedia:Requested moves.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Queen Street Mill

Hi,

Forgive the cross-wiki messaging. It seems that great minds think alike, I’ve been meaning to create an article for them for a while. I’ve no complaints that you beat me to it, it’s one less thing on my “to do” list! I’ve spent the last few days in the commons sorting the Burnley images into new categories (oh the excitement!) and thought I may as well create a cat for the mill. Your article is looking pretty good so far and I wouldn’t want to interfere too much with something you’ve obviously spent a bit of time on. So for now at least, here a few comments:

• I’ve previously put some related stuff in Burnley#Filmography.
• There are a couple of refs on my userpage, you might find useful.
• I think it’s important to establish notability in the opening section, and think that it needs the “world's last operational 19th Century steam-powered weaving mill” claim.
• Harle Syke is unlikely to get an article of its own any time soon.
• Stuff like “The glory of this mill” is a bit too promotional for my liking.
• “Harle Syke is on high flat ground to the south of the River Calder where you find the M65” needs work. It lies NE of the River Calder, Lancashire, and I don’t think you’ll find the M65 in it at any point :-)

What I will do is fix Template:Lancashire Cotton, which I might of previously broken, and the link in Template:Textile museums (which I assume you will want as well).

I might get involved with Lancashire Loom, because it doesn’t mention Burnley enough. weaverstriangle.co.uk says that we were quite big in loom making. I know that on top of Butterworth & Dickinson, there was also ‘Harling and Todd’, ‘Cooper Brothers’, ‘George Keighley’ and ‘Pemberton Brothers’ to name just a few.

Also have a look at Weavers' Triangle, your input would be appreciated. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You will have worked out from my user page that my interest is in documenting the cotton industry, but from afar. It was a luxury to visit Queen Street. I have put together 50 of so mill articles often working with very little information, so I have a set format that I work to in order to get a body of information up an running- then I add to it when I find extra information- providing facts remain I am more than happy for anyone to tweak them, or correct them if their source is more accurate than mine. Please make the changes you feel necessary and I will take any disagreement to the talk page.

Now the detailed points.

• I’ve previously put some related stuff in Burnley#Filmography.- I wanted to keep this short- so it didn't dominate the article-not my field- to me it is weaving mill first/ museum then anything else- I am sure that others will add something to this section. LCC has a site on Flikr ( CC-BY-SA ) with extra photos including one of Margaret Nowak with whom I am corresponding.
• There are a couple of refs on my userpage, you might find useful.- I will go hunting !!
• I think it’s important to establish notability in the opening section, and think that it needs the “world's last operational 19th Century steam-powered weaving mill” claim. Agreed
• Harle Syke is unlikely to get an article of its own any time soon.- I am not so sure. It needs one partly because in the London Science Museum- there is a mill engine from Harle Syke mill in Harle Syke so folks will be googling for it. Haggate has one so most of the work is done. Harle Syke seems to have historic interest because of the mills, and geographical because it is an urban settlement within a mainly rural civil parish and the Burnley Pendle Unitary bid.
• Stuff like “The glory of this mill” is a bit too promotional for my liking.- Awful isn't it! After having done the info box and got the section headings up I think I was just trying to convince myself that wikilife was worth living- and statements like that hold off the vultures while you are getting the meat of the article written.
• “Harle Syke is on high flat ground to the south of the River Calder where you find the M65” needs work. It lies NE of the River Calder, Lancashire, and I don’t think you’ll find the M65 in it at any point :-)- I was about to say that I don't have an OS map of the area- but I have just checked and found a 1974 edition of Sheet 103 and looking at that, theres not a single motorway! :) A rewrite is in order.

On the Weavers Triangle page you have a collapsing list List of Buildings in the Weavers' Triangle I it rather good, if it could be put into a Template then it could be used elsewhere too. I am thinking of List of mills in Lancashire at the moment, but it could also be included on this page.

I am all in favour of new pages for the loom builders- if we have enough material on each.

Moving back to commons have you been looking at the images in the geograph upload. I use cat-a-lot, and have found that if you do a general search on the SD8634 or SD8635 it picks up the text from the geograph template and you can cat-a-lot on the results ( where typing that into cat-a-lot will fail ). For moorland, you put the images in the civil parish category.

We need to keep an eye on the LCC photostream on flickr

I have sent an email off to Georgina.gates and margaret.nowak at the museum informing them of the progress and asking specific questions on the attribution wording they would like us to use. When that is sorted I have a dozen or so more images to upload.

Time for a brew I think! --ClemRutter (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ve done the templates, although I notice Lancashire Cotton is one of yours anyway, so you probably didn’t need me messing with it. I couldn’t figure out why it wouldn’t stay uncollapsed when I used it. Now I look at it further it seems that the autocollapse feature in Navbox includes the TOC in the count of other collapsible tables! I’ve inserted a manual override.

I’m not all that experienced on the template creation front, but I’ll have a go at making the weavers’ triangle list into one. I’m thinking Navbox, any suggestions?

Thanks for telling me about cat-a-lot, I’ll have a go with it. On the map front let me introduce you to Mario, I think you might like him :-) --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ClemRutter. You have new messages at Trappedinburnley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harle Syke

Lots of work to be done here. Harle Syke Mill is the begining of Harle Syke the Village. The Church and Jackwell House on Tennyson St are the only buildings that pre-date the Mill. Before that, as the saying goes "was just fields as far as the eye could see", well with a road to Halifax. I'm a bit dubious about the Haggate article, so I wouldn't rely on it too much. Also as Biercliffe briefly mentions, today Harle Syke and Haggate are considered suburbs of Burnley.

Template:Collapsible table has arrived! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put some links into opening sentence of History, but the statement is very dubious, I'm pretty sure that the Lordship of Briercliffe has never exsisted. See: british-history.ac.uk Edmund inherited the Lordship of Bowland (North of here) in 1242 and he would also have become Lord of the Honor of Clitheroe of which Briercliffe was a part. He probably had a bunch of other titles as well.

Hello, ClemRutter. You have new messages at Trappedinburnley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi,

How was the demo?

I noticed that there are few Queen Street videos on youtube. It would be quite good if we could get one or two of them in the article. I’ve not had a great deal of luck uploading to commons, how about you. In one of them, the old engineer talks about a fatal accident when the engine exploded and the flywheel went bouncing around the mill. Need I say more?

On Harle Syke, what do you think of the changes, I’ve made? I think that I maybe wrong in claiming that the Mill was the first in Briercliffe. There was a Hill End Mill (demolished, not sure when) in Lane Bottom, which I suspect will be older. What about the table? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the demo- I found out this morning that there were no photos on commons and the ones in the article were none representative. So I have just uploaded a few of the ones that don't breach artistic copyright- they are at commons:Category:2011:March for the Alternative and the article at 2011 anti-cuts protest in London. No the only way to upload images to Commons is with the tool Commons:Tools/Commonist you simply have to install it.

The Demo was good, and I met up with my daughter who was working on a stall in Hyde Park- we must have had three minutes together.

I haven't tried putting on links to You Tube but I have watched some of them. I think the best we can do is to put the best in External links. The Harle Syke changes are good- I know my limitations. I am not touching you table- but will copy new information across to List of mills in Lancashire in standard format later.

I have added a furtherlink to the QSM which gives two further refs.

Speak soon

Mills

Thanks indeed for the improvements to the Royal Mill article. It's much enhanced by the additions. I shall certainly look at your template if I find another mill article to do. Can I raise one, small, objection. Your "undo" edit which states "Deleted- reference false. Hartwell does not use sloppy derogatory sobriquets" is rather strong. Page 284 of Hartwell reads "Like so many other buildings in the neighborhood, Beehive Mill seemed destined to slow decline" (my italics). As such, I don't think my wording can properly be described as "false." Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was harsh- but p281 was what I deleted not p284. destined to a slow decline is not the same as saying was under threat from cheaper, imported products and within twenty years of their construction. It was more likely that it was loss of their export markets that generated the over capacity. See: Cotton mill#Consolidation (boom and bust) 1918-1950 which refers to Holden, Roger N. (1998), Stott & Sons : architects of the Lancashire cotton mill, Lancaster: Carnegie, ISBN 1-85936-047-5, Page 167 or read Bowker 1928 Lancashire under the hammer. I am declaring war on the term Cottonopolis see discusssion on Talk:Cottonopolis which seems to be a derogatory term from 1851, that was not fixed to Manchester itself but anywhere where they got their hands dirty. In investigating cotton, I often have spent time trying discover if a purported fact had any substance thus I think it is important that we do not generate any hares that have to be investigated by future readers. Anyway time for a cuppa- do pop on over and I'ĺl see if there are any biscuits --ClemRutter (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not harsh at all. Blunt, perhaps. I'm no mills expert and your additions have really improved the Royal Mill article. But I shall be very careful about using the term "Cottonopolis" in future. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to look at William Burges and advise. I shall first try to get my head round your guidance and then set to on the article. Best regards KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Irk Cotton Mill

I've found a mention of a cotton mill that is not in your list but don't want to enter it in case the thing went by another name. The name I've got is the "old Irk Cotton Mills", which were fire damaged on 17 August 1861. Page 285 of this - quite a useful contemporary-ish source & it mentions LOTS of fire damage stories. I'm happy to trawl through it all again and drag the details out if you consider they may be of use. I've already added the estimated damage to Beehive. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)