Talk:Ingleton, North Yorkshire

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Ingleton, North Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Oliver Duggan (16 June 2014). "Labour MP hails beautiful waterfalls of Ingleton - in the wrong village". The Daily Telegraph.

Ingleton Viaduct

Ingleton Viaduct is a very impressive piece of civil engineering that dominates the village. What impressed me more was discovering that it and the railway it carried were put out of business by a dispute between the rival railway companies involved in building it. Neither would allow the other's trains on their part of the track, they built separate stations (one each side of the bridge) & required passengers to walk between the two (not using the bridge!), timed trains to avoid making connections and kept it up until an alternative route was built. Ingleton Viaduct is still closed today.

Clearly there's no point in tit-for-tat over a single word, but I do think that calling this ridiculous waste of money & effort "stupidity" is nearer the mark than "bravado". Perhaps another word? Nealc 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Scar Caves

I've removed this whole section as it was a blatant copyright violation of [1] and [2]. Please see WP:COPYVIO. --JD554 (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General issues

Personally I prefer to keep the lead as a synopsis of what is written in the article- and as such as free from references as possible. Another way is to say if it needs a reference it shouldn't be in the lead.

Apologies for providing a reference in the lead. I just didn't like seeing inaccurate information in there, and thought it best to justify my changes. Another alternative to having a Quarry section is to put the information in the Economy section (where there there is already a mention of quarrying which directly contradicts the reference given to back up the said mention). Langcliffe (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

I can knock up a simple svg of the geological structure using the LJMU material see external links. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the parish boundaries on streetmap, then selecting the 3rd magnification level. Keith D (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got it- just don't believe what I see!-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mapit on Google Map shows the cp clearly. Happy.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quarrying deserves a section- we also have the Pecca quarry at 695 750 to consider. Is Coombes quarry, Fore dale 800701 within the parish? Langcliffe (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there must be a section- and a section on the Ingleton Coal (Northern Mines Research society) have done the work for us

NMRS Ingleton Coalfield other work. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a geological diagram and some lines on the industry. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love the diagram, but I am not keen on the parenthetical notes - e.g. "Ingletonians were classified at Precambrian by a Leedal and Walker (1953) and current research (2003) but others date them to Lower Ordovician (Arenig)." I think that if something is worth saying, it's worth saying properly. The BGS place the Ingletonian Group into the Arenig Age, based on the analysis of decaying radioactive isotopes within the rocks, which date them to about 480 Ma, so I think the controversy is now over. Incidentally, there is nothing "theoretical" about the Iapetus Ocean - how else could the turbidites get deposited? Langcliffe (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. If I have got something wrong- please go ahead and improve it- I am well outside my competence here. In a village that is famed for geological field trips it seemed odd that there wasn't a section on geology. The svg diagrams take about 5 hours to do- and in doing one I learn alot, comments are helpful particularly if you spot an error. There is more to do an the coal legacy and the part of the village south of the south fault.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where it says "Just to the north of Ingleton village the Craven Faults running north-east to south-west" surely you mean north-west to south-east ! (I am the author of Craven Fault System )Kildwyke (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My cock-up - I can't tell my left from my right either! I'll fix it. Langcliffe (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring yourself down. Self encouragement is the way to progress. You're doing fine work Kildwyke (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Parish

Has anyone a parish map- I have no idea of where the bounds are. Langcliffe (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Floating another idea, do we need a separate article Ingleton (civil parish)? When we consider that half the parish is in the catchment of the River Ribble, and some of it is outside the park. How does one do justice to Ribblehead? Any thoughts?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening starts with "Ingleton is a village and civil parish in the Craven district of North Yorkshire, England", so I assume that the article will cover the civil parish. I would not have thought that the existence of a watershed within the parish was reason to split the article, although being spread over such an important geographical boundary is an interesting fact in its own right. Some of the features in the parish have their own articles which can be referred to (e.g. Chapel-le-Dale, Ribblehead Viaduct, and White Scar Cave). Incidentally, are you sure there is a walking trail over Ingleton Viaduct? I seem to remember a very solid gate at the eastern side, neither of the two relevant Wikipedia railway articles have mention of it, and it's not marked on my 1:25,000 maps. Langcliffe (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to reconcile the idea. I looked at Chew Stoke - fa - referred to in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements- which seems to be a village dominating its CP. The problem here is that Ingleton is notable - and the CP though vast is virtually unknown. The opening just needs to be rewritten to "Ingleton is a village and civil parish of the same name in the Craven district of North Yorkshire, England" and a a hat note added ´´ for Ingleton, the civil parish see Ingleton (civil parish) ´´-- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hebden, North Yorkshire is a much smaller vilage in a large area, and a single article works OK. Langcliffe (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useful- thanks.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parish Map

I use http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10437570/boundary opt for open street map. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education

Education Interesting links with the North Yorkshire Middle school system that was terminated/abolished in 2012.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

There is far too much about the Settle & Carlisle line in this article, it is six miles from the village and has its own articles. Nobody would use it to travel to Ingleton and to include so much on it is misleading and so I am removing all mention of it from the Transport section.

I see from the section above that Clem Rutter thinks the article should describe the whole civil parish. Not necessary if links to Ingleton are made in the relevant articles such as Chapel-le-Dale. And Clem Rutter might note that I rewrote a bit of Ribblehead Viaduct to include the scheduled monument. J3Mrs (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are actually in agreement now. I am hesitant to populate a landmarks section as it is often a shopping bag for trivia. I find it hard to think of Ribblehead railway station as more than a halt for walkers. It had its ten years of glory in the 1870s

You are right- I do think that we must cover the whole parish (and we have now done so)- but here most of the interesting things are beneath the ground- coal, field patterns deserted villages. The challenge eight weeks ago was to include anything about the parish

So assorted thoughts are:

Lead needs to be tidied up again- I a worried about Ingleton Granite Quarry not mentioning that it does not quarry granite- it says so later on

Industry history stops before telling that most of the pits were consolidated into ownership of Wilson Wood, and the biggest of them all opening (and closing) at New Ingleton Colliery- I was checking a reference before putting pen to paper. I don't know whether something should be said here about limestone and granite- it would be nice to be able to internal link Skirwith Quarry and blue limestone.

From memory- Ingleton was an early player in the railway tourism industry- reference 27- gives a railway poster Visit Ingleton Falls. In editing we have lost all mention of the falls from the article. Most lie on the other side of the river but the tourism infrastructure will be on this side.

We have a reference for a textile mill, but little else on it. I will continue to watch for something more substantial.

Now- reference 27 is a commercial visit-here site. I have no confidence in it for other than verifiying something exists. It is used to support this sentence. Tourism, mostly from hiking and caving, accounts for most of the economic activity of the village, especially in spring and summer. There are craft businesses, such as pottery.[27] Doesn't sound like a credible statement!

Population change- those calculations haven't been added to the table- I was hoping for a bot to come along.

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ingleton, North Yorkshire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires inline references adding
Requires photographs (The existing photograph of Thornton Force appears not to be mentioned in text so why is it relevant?)
Section on caves needs to be wikified and some links adding where appropriate
Validate external links as some may be spam

Keith D 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ingleton, North Yorkshire. 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) 20:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]