Talk:Kersal

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.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	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.

[Untitled]

Some (or maybe all) of the information on the Kersal flats page needs to be integrated into this article. - Snigbrook 12:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that except for the fact that none of the information in Kersal Flats is referenced. Richerman 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You asked for comments on this article, so here they are. It's difficult to comment in a way that doesn't seem negative, and that's not my intention at all. You've done a great job in improving this article, and my comments are only intended to help you to take it to the next level.

The lead is rather on the short side; it should try to be a mini version of the article in 3 or 4 paragraphs.
The article would benefit from a copyedit by someone with fresh eyes. It's hard to do that with your own work; you know what you meant to say, and you think that you've said it, but it may not be so clear to other readers.
The article is well enough developed now that you ought to start thinking about making sure that it complies with at least the major elements of the wikipedia manual of style. OK, I know that seems like I'm asking for a lot, But sentences like this "On a lighter note Derek Birley (Sport and the Making of Modern Britain) informs us that Kersal Moor was ..." are a big no-no. Personal pronouns not allowed.
There are some external links in the body of the article. They should all be in a separate External links section.
The only other thing that immediately jumped out me was the References section. it's really important to get that right, right from the start, and generally it looks good, but some seem to be incomplete. Reference 18, for instance. Where are the details for the Jewish Year Book 2007? And references 3,6,7,11 and 16 repeat much of the same information. I struggled with references for a while as well, but I've now settled on a style that I think works, where the published references are in a separate Bibliography section/subsection, referenced from a Notes section. A bit like the style the Manchester article uses, although I don't quite follow that style myself, I tend to do it as in the Stretford article.

Great job so far, I hope you can keep it up. :)

--Malleus Fatuarum 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Flats

A large chunk of material has been lifted from my Kersal Flats page. I did not give permission for this and I intend using it elsewhere. Kersal Flats

Yes, some text was copied from the Kersal Flats article (not by me) which was a bit naughty but it’s too late to change that. However, this did prompt me to do a lot of work expanding the article. I think I have now removed all the text that was written by you and only left in anything that I have been able to find references for so that it is a matter of public record. The fact that you pointed me in the right direction to find the information doesn’t make it your property so I would be grateful if you would stop trying to delete it. If there is anything else your not happy about please say so here and we will try to resolve it. Richerman (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Kersalflats did it himself when he wrote the initial Kersal flats article. For him to do that means that he gave that portion of text a GFDL licence. Now he's got the hump that his original article was deleted and merged into the Kersal article. As the text does now have a GFDL licence he is quite free to use that text wherever he likes, but what he can't do is delete it from Wikipedia without reason. I tried to explain this on his talk page. ---- WebHamster 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well exactly, thats why it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." but he doesn't seem to have understood that. Unfortunately the merge process wasn't followed for the text that was copied so as cryptic pointed out to me kersalflats won't appear in the history as a contributor. However if due process had been followed I expect the result would have been the same - and who looks at the history anyway? Anyway, a lot of the text he keeps deleting is stuff that I've contributed susequently and some of his text about the corporatisation of sport was copied almost word for word from another website - that's the name of the game. Richerman (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Massive

Why no mention of the Kersal Massive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.66 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Kersal Massive have been removed from this page anumber of time due to lack of notability Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for promoting someone's 15 minutes of fame from a clip they've uploaded themselves to YouTube. If Kersal Massive were to form a group that people were willing to pay to see they may eventually satisfy the notability criteria but they certainly don't at the moment. Richerman (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the 'Kersal Massive', and that video specifically, have been a massive web-phenomenon. I'd bet there are more people in the UK that have heard of them than of Kersal itself - surely that level of interest is a good example of notability? It sounds to me more that you are deliberately removing them because you disaprove of them. 87.236.134.146 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not meet the Wikipedia definition of notability (not to be confused with notoriety!). If they can meet WP:BAND then why don't you try to see if they are notable enough to have their own article. I'd guess the article wouldn't last a day before being deleted. This is an encyclopaedia, not MySpace. --WebHamster 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually there is one, see Kersal Massive. And please don't go Hammy, we need you! Richerman (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a top 50 of YouTube style clips called 'RudeTube' on Channel 4 (I think) and 'Kersal Massive' was featured. Suppose that's not enough thoughGomez2002 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also expecting to find a mention of this in the article. It seems the only arguments against inclusion given here are under Notability, which specifically states "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.". I agree that a hypothetical article devoted to the Kersal Massive should be deleted, but that doesn't prohibit a mention here. Therefore I've put a brief mention back in - if anyone deletes it again, please explain under WP:NOT instead. Cheers.

Also, note that I created the "Popular Culture" section for it, but by all means add other things to that section if you know of any. EJBH (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Philips Community Church

Has St Philips Community Church on Northallerton Road been closed down now? I remember it well from my time at college in Salford, but can't see it referenced in the Religion section.--62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I missed that one. I'll add it now Richerman (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fishing rights

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1950/apr/18/river-irwell-pollution#S5CV0474P0-00744 mentions that 'fishing rights' were an important part of the history here - I wonder if this is worth investigating? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Kersal

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kersal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gordon":

From Salford, Greater Manchester: Gordon, Colin (1975). The Foundations of the University of Salford. Altrincham: John Sherratt and Son Ltd. ISBN 0-85427-045-0.
From Manchester Racecourse: Gordon, Colin (1975). The Foundations of the University of Salford. Altrinchan: John Sherrratt and Son Ltd. ISBN 0-85427-045-0.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pyrotec (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Cell

The caption to the picture seems historically incorrect. If the house was built in 1563, there would have been no Cluniac houses in England then following the dissolution of monasteries under Henry VIII and the brief revival of papal authority in England begun and ended with Mary Tudor's reign in 1558. Is the year given in the caption and in article text correct? If so, the reference to Cluniac order should be deleted.Cloptonson (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it might be a "problem of grammar" plus uncertainly. The name "Kersall cell" refers to a Cluniac monastic house and associated lands. Henry VIII confiscated the lands and sold them to Baldwin Willoughby. The oldest part of the building, known as "Kersall Cell", which is shown in the picture was probably a part of a larger building erected by Baldwin Willoughby. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the caption to remove the reference to Cluniac monks. Richerman (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kersal. 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) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kersal. 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) 04:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kersal. 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) 20:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]