Talk:Heaton Moor

	Greater Manchester portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 articles

"More than a name" - linkspam?

I'm disputing the inclusion of this war memorial site. The link does not point to anything notable regarding Heaton Moor.

Copy of ongoing discussion, originally started on my talk page, is below.

Hi. You have deleted almost all of the external links I had added to the various Stockport area pages, stating that they are spam. This is unreasonable. My community project is researching all the individual war memorials in the Stockport area and it is therefore perfectly reasonable to add the link to the relevent "suburb" pages. For example, there is a page for Heaton Moor; Heaton Moor has a war memorial; I am researching the names on it; why would I not put a link so that local resident know of it? If you wish me to call each link soemthing else, then fine. johnmh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmh (talk • contribs)

Hi John. I'm sorry you think my removal of those links to [1] was unreasonable. The same link had been added to many Stockport town sites. Following the link did not reveal content specific to the town concerned. My criteria for there removal was the guidelines issued at WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer, in particular "appearing to the Wikipedia community that you are trying to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion....Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button.". I don't dispute the fact that it's worthy and valuable external link, but adding it to every town's article I do class as spamming. Using your example, suppose I knew of a website which listed restaurants in Stockport, should I add this link to every Stockport town's article? --Oscarthecat 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not "signing" the post to you. I don't know how to do that.

I have read the guidelines and remain convinced that you are not being reasonable or consistent.Using two of your own examples - if the restaurant website listed businesses in a very distinct part of the borough, why would it be unreasonable to post on that specific page. Stockport is not a single entity (part of it is in Cheshire, part in Lancashire, for exmaple). Taking your other comment that content is not specific to the suburb page, why have you left the Stockport link intact - when like all the others it is not specific (as it contains all the details of the other memorials). Assuming that I am not going to be able to persuade you over this, please if there is a "disputes" procedure to which I may refer my complaint.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmh (talk • contribs)

Hello again, Oscarthecat. I certainly welcome the views of others, although you are now saying that you have deleted the link as there is nothing "notable" as against your original reason of there being nothing "specific". "Notable" is entirely subjective and "in the eye of the beholder".

If I may simply restate my reasons for wanting to add the link to this (and the other relevent pages? I am undertaking a voluntary project within the local authority area of Stockport to research the lives and deaths of some 3000 men who were killed in the Great War. There are a number of war memorials scattered through the area - which is diverse and, as a local authority area, was only created in 1974.I had intended to provide a link to the project for each distinct suburb of the area (which has its own war memorial).

In many circumstances, people might well regard themselves as coming from, to use your example, Heaton Moor. Certainly if they were searching on Wikipedia for biographies of the men remembered on the Heaton Moor War Memorial, they would not look on the Stockport page, but on the Heaton Moor one. Returning to your original objection that there is nothing "specific" about Heaton Moor, you are right on one level. The project is not exclusively Heaton Moor. Nor is it exclusively Stockport (the largest of the suburbs in the area).Johnmh 08:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Heaton Moor article has too many external links few of which relate to an encyclopedia article, WP:NOT#LINK is probably the relevent policy. Here's my thoughts on the links:

Blogspot - remove, no content
Council - remove, adds nothing to article
Heatonmoor.com - keep root page, delete subpage links
Onthemoor.com - keep root page only, the history page could also be used to expand the article and cited as ref
Savoy - delete, advert
House advert - delete
Church - delete, adds nothing to article, virtually no content
More than a name - delete, if it goes anywhere it should be in the Stockport article. That's not to say the info from the link shouldn't be summarised here for Heaton Moor and a citation added. JMiall 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the initial addition of the link, and as Oscarthecat says, it lit up the spam warning lights. A new user adding multiple instances of a link to an obscure site will always be worth looking at, and in addition it didn't seem to fit an obvious need. At first sight, it was a plain case of someone aiming to publicise their web site. But, the description of memorials is an accepted, even desired, part of articles on UK areas, and following on from that, the details of the dead would seem to fit WP:EL "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Now, Johnmh, if you had added properly referenced descriptions of the memorials in the Heaton Moor (etc) area, and then added a link to your site, I think it would have breezed through. Your project puts you in a good position to add top-notch portraits of the memorials to WP - why don't you do that on a case-by-case basis? Mr Stephen 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Stephen - Thanks for your helpful comments. You mention that it appeared to be a "plain case of someone aiming to publicise their website". You are absolutely right - it was exactly that. I had not appreciated that this might be a violation of Wikipedia rules but accept that it must be. In which case, there is no more to be said - the links should stay deleted. If at some point, oscarthecat feels that they could stand in some way, then s/he can add them back. But either way, I'm done here. Thanks for the explanation. Best wishes. Bye. John

Ouch.

After going through finely, I can notice that the person who originally expanded upon this beloved little place of ours really didn't know that much about it. I've just gone through and picked apart a lot, rewritten the Education section (all but one of the schools mentioned are in Heaton Mersey) and added through my own knowledge to the section about the Savoy cinema.

If you're a local, by the way, then yes, it probably will close at some point in the future, hence the sign.

Can people make sure in future that if they edit this page then they supply accurate information? It's a bit far removed from the centre of attention to be changed straight away, and an encyclopaedia shouldn't provide misinformation.

As for the person who wrote the part on the Kushoom Koly, you should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoabuser (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes: Just needs pointing couple of miles South West of current position. That's Reddish. N 53.42300 W 2.18240 is closer to the mark.

149.170.39.34 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a couple of miles out. If nobody else does it, I'll fix it later. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/referencing tidy-up

Hi there. Being from the locale in question, I check up every year or so on this page, and time and time again it's a mess, especially towards the bottom. Granted, as a low-priority page, I'm not saying that all the referencing needs to be up to spec, but don't bother writing anything if (and this sounds cruel, but it's true) you don't know how to write. We're talking basic stuff, like spaces after commas and avoiding sounding like an inept tour guide.

I'm not a great editor myself (look at my history - I don't do much) but some of the edits made to this page are monstrous. Either keep it as it is, or do it properly. In the meantime, I've cleaned it up a bit - feel free to improve it, but not destroy my own improvements. Pianoabuser (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heaton Moor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heaton Moor. 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/20131021230138/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html?ID=1150&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=224 to http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html?ID=1150&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=224

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heaton Moor Council Offices in Thornfield Road

There's an anonymous editor who keeps on stubbornly reverting my correction to the factually incorrect claims that the Council Offices on Thornfield Road were (i) once a Town Hall and (ii) formerly a house called Thornfield. Neither is true. There's an accurate account in Page, P & Littlechilds, I (2013) The Four Heatons Through Time: Heaton Moor, Heaton Mersey, Heaton Chapel & Heaton Norris (Amberley Publishing). The book doesn't seem to have page numbers, but here are links to the relevant information:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fWLGCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=%22heaton%20moor%22%20history&pg=PT58#v=onepage&q=thornfield&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fWLGCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=%22heaton%20moor%22%20history&pg=PT52#v=snippet&q=%22council%20offices%22&f=false

The incorrect version our anonymous friend keeps on inserting would seem to come from the brief remark in section 3.5 of this document:

http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s19109/Heaton

but this looks to be an under-researched aside by a council official, and is in no sense a published historical account. A cursory glance at old maps will confirm Page & Littlechild's published version - Thornfield was between Didsbury Road and Thornfield Road, and the Council Offices on the other side of Thornfield Road were never a Town Hall. C0pernicus (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure your source is an RS (at any rate it does not say that the "council offices" were not also the town hall). Whilst a council page might be SPS I think they might well have some knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, then, if that source isn't good enough. Does a published OS map count?

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=17&lat=53.4154&lon=-2.1937&layers=168&right=BingHyb

C0pernicus (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only for it being the council offices in 1892, So it does not contradict the council page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we need an explanation for why Stockport Town Hall would have migrated to Heaton Moor temporarily in the past, and what happened to the actual Stockport Town Hall during this exile. But frankly I'm losing interest in this. C0pernicus (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion may come from the 1913 removal of Heaton Moor and Heaton Chapel, when they were added to Stockport county borough. Before this they were part of Heaton Norris. So there may well be a degree of confusion of what building served which purpose at which time. But before 1913 heaton Moor was not part of stockport.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]