Talk:Tyldesley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tyldesley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	Tyldesley has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 9, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance 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. Greater Manchester High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-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

Does anybody think Shakerley warrants a page of it's own? or should I put any info in Tyldesley?--J3Mrs (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best served as a redirect to Tyldesley... at least for now, until Tyldesley has flourished into something like a Good Article. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over on the project talk page I suggested making it a separate article similar to the many areas of Oldham because there's a lot of material about the place. J3Mrs has started the Shakerley article and there does appear to be a lot. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops! Yep, just noticed. It's quite good. In which case, yep, it seems like a good move. These small areas can be made quite interesting - Shuttleworth, Greater Manchester and Sholver come to mind :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more info to Mosley Common, --J3Mrs (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the population figures include Astley as well as Tyldesley? Not nit picking! just want to be clear in my own mind.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the figure of 34,022 is from Greater_Manchester_Urban_Area#Settlements. Astley doesn't seem to have been give an individual entry so it is entirely possible they have been united. User:Fingerpuppet is an editor who is very good with these kind of entities - he may be able to elaborate. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, it's just that I was considering Astley as my next little project :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the editor. I have to say it's remarkable how fast you've picked up elements such as formatting and references. The attention to detail is great. I really hope you are able to stick around.

I have just reassessed the page from a C-class to a B-class (see above), reflecting the progress and depth the article has made. The next step is the Official Good Article status - I think it would be possible for Tyldesley to make it in the near future.

You mentioned not long ago you plan to add some images to Wikimedia Commons to display here at Wikipedia? Do you still intend to make this so? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have loads of images of Tyldesley on Geograph where I am SMJ but I haven't figured how to get them yet:-( I might take some more pics when I next visit. I can only format refs by pasting bits into one I know works! I am not very computer literate.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... in which case this would also be you? I was intending to upload this image in the near future. If you list what photographs you want uploading to wikicommons, I am willing and able to make this so on your behalf. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's me! Whatever you think.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Entwistle

I have found a citation for edward entwistlebut is a family history website it a good enough ref? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I have found a citation for edward entwistlebut is a family history website it a good enough ref? I don't know if the link works!!!!!--J3Mrs (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old maps

Is it possible to use snippets of old maps Yates 1786, Greenwood 1818 or Hennet 1829 as found here Lancashire old maps --J3Mrs (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything about Edward Entwistle's birthplace at Google Books - I'll keep looking. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is much better Entwistle--J3Mrs (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do we think about nominating this article for WP:GA status? Are there any burning issues that need tackling urgently, or are we quite comfortable with the content as it stands? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84, I'm not 100% sure what this means, I'm sure you will find lots of things wrong with it without trying too hard but everything I've written I hope is referenced. If it can be got to a good standard I would be delighted as someone who types with one finger and can only do refs by cutting and pasting!

I was in Tyldesley today hoping to get more pics but the light wasn't too good and Wigan Council are "improving" it so it looked particulary dreary.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:GA is a kind of grade or score that can only be bestowed upon an article by an independant assessor/reviewer according to a strict critera. WP:GA (or Good Article status) is quite an achievement, as it means that it is at a point where it professionally outlines a topic to a standard that is sufficient for readers requiring an intermediate level of detail. It's quite a honorific, and it what all article writers should hope to aspire to achieve with their work, really.

It's not the top accolade for an article (which would be WP:FA), but it's one of the highest. It would help WP:GM's aim of taking as many articles as possible through the highest tiers of assessment successfully. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old postcard of Tyldesley posted in 1923. Would that be suitable for uploading? copyright etc???--J3Mrs (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ok for Wikimedia Commons, under this licence. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it but managed to get the licencing wrong, I really don't get it :( --J3Mrs (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tyldesley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick-read-through, this looks quite a reasonable article. However, refs 38, 39 and 40 seem a bit strange: they have the appearance of being web sites, but without the "www." prefix (well "http://www." prefix to split hairs). As this will not be quick-failed, I will now carry out a detailed review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed the refs now.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to those later - they stuck out" whilst I was quickly reading the article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• History -
  • Toponymy -

• This part <*>Tyldesley means "Tilwald's clearing", and is derived from the Old English (OE) personal name Tilwald (or Tīlwald) and leăh meaning "wood, clearing"<*>, does not appear to be covered by ref 5, (however, I could have missed it) but it is in Mills (1998), on page 355. Interestingly, the same paragraph later invokes Mills, pages 404 and 405 - "hyrst" is on page 404 so pressumable page 405 is for "leăh"?

I have rearranged the refs, I hope it's better --J3Mrs (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Thanks  Done. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Earliest history -

• This claim is unreferenced, so could (possibly) be WP:OR: "After the Roman departure from Britain, and into the history of Anglo-Saxon England, nothing was written about Tyldesley. Evidence for the presence of Saxons in what became a sparsely populated and isolated part of the country is provided by local place names that incorporate the Old English suffix of leah, such as Tyldesley, Shakerley, and Astley".". However, Tyldesley and Astley are mentioned by name in Mills (1998), so that could be used as a citation.

Used Mills as suggested --J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Manor houses -

• This appears to be compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Banks Estate -

• The second paragraph, which is a direct quote from John Aikin needs a citation.

added citation--J3Mrs (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also going to ask for one for "The last quarter of the 18th century marked the beginning of a building boom in Tyldesley. The grid pattern of the present town is from this date.", in the 1st para.

added citation--J3Mrs (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Industrial Revolution -

• Just a comment, no action is needed. This is covered, in part or whole, in: Hayes, Geoffrey. Collieries in the Manchester Coalfields, Eindhoven: De Archaeologische Press. Not dated, but I bought my copy from the publisher in March 1987.

• Governance and Geography -

• These appear to be compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Geography, Demograaphy and Ecomony-

• These appear to be compliant.

• Landmarks -

• I'm not sure whether "The Parish Church is one of the few stone structures in a town built largely of brick." is an opinion or a fact: a fact aught to have a citation. It is vague as well: looking at the pictures, Old St George's School also appears to be stone. You could say (if its correct, I don't know), e.g. "The Parish Church, together with Old St George's School, are some of the few stone structures in a town built largely of brick." (but I'm not all that happy with the grammar of this revised example).

I found a ref and added it, Tyldesley is largely brick, hope the ref is satisfactory--J3Mrs (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rejigged this section. The final sentence now says "Tyldesley's built environment is almost uniformly constructed of brick", which is what I think J3Mrs is trying to get across. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for improving the grammar. However, just a small point, "uniformly constructed of brick" could be interpreted differently to "built largely (or other synonyms such as mostly, mainly, predominantly) in/of brick. But, realistically, I'm not going to undertake an arguement with you on grammar during this review - I'm going to pass the article anyway: PR and FAC next? Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transport and Education-

• These appear to be compliant.

• Religion -

• The middle para could do with a citation for the 1847 division of the diocese.
• Ditto the final sentence in the last para.

added ref for last sentence, 1847 ref to follow--J3Mrs (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added 1847 ref--J3Mrs (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sport and Culture -

• These appear to be compliant.

• WP:Lead -

Reasonably acceptable.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A compreshensive, well-referenced, well-illstrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status; and (apparently) congratulations on acheiving your first GA. Pyrotec (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Pyrotech, yes the very first article I ever edited, I came looking for information and ended up writing some of it.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nudge that this image is in the public domain (owing to age) and is probably of some use to this article if added to Wikimedia Commons. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is too much information on Tyldesley Little Theatre to be merged into this article and now it has been improved should remain as a stand alone article.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article has been expanded and have removed my merge request, it was only there to keep the information from being deleted, with a view to splitting again at a later date; the expansion has come much sooner than I expected, thanks guys. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be conflicting foundation dates for the Tyldesley Rugby Union/Rugby League/Rugby Union club, some have it as 1879 some have 1881, does anyone know the definite answer? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a total of 20 listed buildings in Tyldelsey [1], [2]. Should some or all of those not currently mentioned be included? The old bank would certainly be worth a picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listed buildings in Tyldesley is now a separate artcle and is linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The building at 31 Upper George Street bears the inscription "Technical School 1903". Although it's not a listed building, it seems to be quite an historic one. I see from here [3] that the site was donated by Rev. G. T. B. Ormerod (apparently no relation of George Ormerod). The cost of the building was "met by public subscriptions raised in the name of the chapel congregation" at Tyldesley Top Chapel. That source also says: "In its early days the school was known as the British school. Later it became a council school, but the chapel continued to receive a yearly rent." I see that there is no article yet for "British School". But I wonder if the inscription was added later - and why does it bear the date 1903 and not 1902? Should any of the history of the school be added to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although not listed, the Conservative Club at 5 Stanley Street is quite a large historic building, dating from 1914: [4] Is it worth any mention in the article? (Curiously, there is also a club of the same name in Blackpool: [5]) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of towns have clubs affiliated to political parties, I don't see this as being particularly notable especially as it isn't listed.J3Mrs (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of towns have churches, many not listed. At least they get mentioned? I am genuinely surprised that a Conservative Club should have outlived the Labour Club in a town such as Tyldesley. The Labour Party Club dated from 1880 and the Liberal Club (which is now the Town Hall) from 1881 [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marklands Buildings on the corner of Stanley St and Elliot St is more prominent but doesn't necessarily warrant a mention. You can't include everything and it's hardly comparable to a church.J3Mrs (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a shame that the Marklands Building isn't there also. I would imagine some political clubs get better attendance than many churches. But I agree they are mostly cultural remnants these days and are mainly of historical interest. Oh well, just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are also quite commonly-used variants which include the d sound? So I'd suggest adding these: /ˈtɪldzliː/ and /ˈtɪldsliː/. But I'm not sure how often each variant is used. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When does a Notable residents section “become necessary” in an article? Only when there are more than one? Or does it depend on the degree of notability? Or something else? I have to admit that one-item lists don’t look very good. But I was wondering if there were some agreed criteria. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very usual for articles on towns and cities to have sections for "Notable residents". Both Jeffery Dench, English Shakespearean actor and brother of Judi Dench, and Lord James Blears, the professional wrestler and promoter, are notable people. That's why they each have an article. I think they should be added to this article, either in a "Notable residents" section, or somewhere in the existing sections. To argue "not everybody born in the town needs mentioning", as suggested by the anon ip in Wakefield, is hardly a very convincing reason to not include. No-one is suggesting that "everybody born in the town" is added to the article. That would be impossible and ridiculous. We are talking about two people. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia. The ip was me, I was logged out. Tyldesley is mentioned in Dench's article. Other than being born there what does it contribute? I'd say nothing. I left the wrestler in and tidied the reference to make it consistent, as his career was in America, I'm not sure a mention contributes anything of value to this article. Notables are mentioned in the text, some with no article but they actually made a contribution, Dench just happened to be born there. Not everybody who was born there needs a mention, that's just trivia.J3Mrs (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying the reference. You're argument that "not everybody who was born there needs a mention" is a complete straw man. No-one is suggesting that they should be. One could argue that everybody "just happens to be born" somewhere or other. It's just a fact, like date of birth. A section on "Notable residents" would be consistent with thousands of other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need sections on notable people like a hole in the head. They are magnets for trivia and best avoided. J3Mrs (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They do have that unfortunate effect, as they attract youngsters who want to make themselves "notable". But omitting the section wholesale, just to avoid the work in removing "trivia", is not a good reason. I think you would be hard-pressed removing the section from the thousands of articles it exists in. At least we've managed to wrestle in one more notable person. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tyldesley. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/BusinessRegeneration/RegenerationInitiatives/TownCentreManagement/Tyldesley.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090421070825/http://www.hevac-heritage.org:80/victorian_engineers/grundy/grundy.htm to http://www.hevac-heritage.org/victorian_engineers/grundy/grundy.htm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130410013044/http://www.wigan.gov.uk:80/Services/CommunityLiving/CommunityCentres/ to http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/CommunityCentres/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the attempted fix for this failed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tyldesley. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/Tyldesley/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721093920/http://www.wigan.gov.uk/News/Archive/March2007/ShakClose.htm to http://www.wigan.gov.uk/News/Archive/March2007/ShakClose.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090421070825/http://www.hevac-heritage.org:80/victorian_engineers/grundy/grundy.htm to http://www.hevac-heritage.org/victorian_engineers/grundy/grundy.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the attempted fix for this failed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is re-accessed to check it's validity, isn't it good practice to update the accessdate parameter to today's date? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it needed checking. J3Mrs (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does one tell? Especially if it has no publication date. If I see a source that was last accessed three years ago I often look to check that it is even still there. I might even access to try and determine a publication date? This source says it was accessed only in 2013, but that's no longer true, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go and follow somebody else. I can't be bothered. J3Mrs (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the first part your answer. The second part seems pretty clear. However do you manage to stay so jolly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tyldesley. 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/20110719174541/http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/site/maps/lnw_map1.html to http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/site/maps/lnw_map1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520125844/http://www.brtuk.org/downloads/BRTSymposiumUniversityofWarwick6-7thDecemberPresentations_09.pdf to http://www.brtuk.org/downloads/BRTSymposiumUniversityofWarwick6-7thDecemberPresentations_09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729083944/http://www.agma.gov.uk/agma/authorities/index.html to http://www.agma.gov.uk/agma/authorities/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903173727/http://www.astleysaintstephens.wigan.sch.uk/ to http://www.astleysaintstephens.wigan.sch.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306071131/http://saintambrosebarlow.wigan.sch.uk/ to http://www.saintambrosebarlow.wigan.sch.uk/

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) 20:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tyldesley. 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/20131116045852/http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1876_77.pdf to http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1876_77.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160623213522/http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1882_83.pdf to http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1882_83.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613012112/http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1894_95.pdf to http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1894_95.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130114020040/http://wigan.limehouse.co.uk/portal/pp/core_strategy/csio?pointId=1198081730885 to http://wigan.limehouse.co.uk/portal/pp/core_strategy/csio?pointId=1198081730885
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820064331/http://www.tyldesleyrufc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=86 to http://www.tyldesleyrufc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=86

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) 05:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ella Toone not on here? 185.238.166.119 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ella Toone is notable and was born in Tyldesley. But this article does not yet have a section on "Notable people". 86.187.235.35 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]