Talk:New Mills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeNew Mills was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 25, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

older entries[edit]

How about a disambig page.

There are two "New Mills" in Scotland, 2 in Ireland, 2 in Cornwall plus Gloucestershire and Herefordshire


  • I've added a clean-up tag because the article could benefit by some rearranging of the text into a more logical order. At the moment it reads like a random list of facts with no discernable progression.

Fire[edit]

I seem to remember visiting the heritage center, years back, and they had a little demonstration on, about a fire in the mills, which is why they're now old and broken, and have not been converted into luxury waterfront apartments. Isn't it worth mentioning, and if it is, and I missed it, should it not be in the History section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.85.162 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fire is mentioned at Torr Vale Mill, which is probably where it best belongs. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

newtown[edit]

isnt newtown a district of disley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.106.6 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The western part of Newtown is in Disley Civil Parish (and Cheshire East), but the bulk of the village, including the school, station and church, is in Derbyshire. See 1:25000 map at streetmap.co.uk. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

There is some good material in this article and if that was the sole criteria, then this article would be a GA. However, there is also a requirement of WP:Verifiability and this article falls down on verifiability - sometimes for what appear to be "trival errors". I'm going to list them, so I'm sorry, but this is going to be a somewhat negative stage of the review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • History -
  • Ref 1, used to verify "Bowden Middlecale" claims to be the English Placenames Society Data Base, but it is merely a web link to Nottingham University - [1] - there is no evidence that it belongs to the English Placenames Society; and ref 2, used to verify "New Mylne (New Mills)", is to a broken web link, but stated to be New Mills Local History Society. As such this first paragraph is not WP:Verifiable. I checked the claims against A.D. Mills, Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names, 2nd edition, and there are some minor differences over dates and spellings, but there is a 3rd edition which I don't have (and I beleive an electronic version). I suggest that a WP:Reliable Source such as Mills is used, or if websites are used, then they are fully described using {{Cite web}} to include title, publisher, access date, etc.
  • Ref 4 should be fully described using {{Cite web}} to include title, publisher, access date, etc. Note: Pigot was a publisher (a real person) and these were originally published in book form; they are now out of copyright which is why they are are on Genuki. If you don't understand the requirements, please ask.
  • Ref 5 is a reasonable (but not a "good") example of what I'm looking for; but again it was originally published as a book and the name of the publisher does appear on the digitised image, but is absent from the citation.
  • Ref 6, a web site, has a publisher (but its not listed).
  • The statements regarding railways and stations are unreferenced. I checked dates: my two references state that the Stockport, Disley and Whaley Bridge Railway was opened by the L&NWR on 9 June 1857 and New Mills (SD&WD) station opened 9 June 1857 and was renamed New Mills Newtown on 2 June 1924. New Mills (S&M) station opened on 1 July 1865 and was renamed New Mills Central on 25 August 1952. My dates might be wrong, but they are verifiable - Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M. & Awdry, Christopher (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 1-8526-0049-7. OCLC 19514063. CN 8983.
  • Ref 7, a web site, is not properly cited.
  • Governance -
  • Ref 9 and 10, a web site, are not properly cited: both have a publisher and accessdate are needed - 10 is little more than a raw web address.
  • Geography -
  • The first two paragraphs are uncited, but they don't appear to be controversial so I won't insist.
  • Ref 13, a web site, is not properly cited.
  • Transport -
  • This is entirely uncited, it does not appear to be controversial, but a whole uncited section stands out somewhat in a (potential) GA. Since, most of the material is readily available and thus referenceable, I'm, going to regard this section as failing on WP:Verifiability.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Education -
  • Ref 14, a web site, is not properly cited.
  • Economy -
  • Refs 15, 16, 17 & 18 are web sites, and are not properly cited.
  • There is a {{Citation needed}} flag apparently dating back three years.
The opening of the Millennium Walkway is unreferenced.
  • Landmarks -
  • Mostly unreferenced.
  • Religious sites & Culture and community -
  • Refs 20 & 21, web sites, are not properly cited.
  • Sport and leisure -
  • Unreferenced.
  • Notable residents -
  • Ref 22, a web site, is not properly cited.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As none of these actions have been addressed, I'm closing this review. This article will not be listed as a GA. The article is close to being a GA and hopefully someone will care enough to bring the article up to standarsd and renominate it at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert Hibbert" grave[edit]

This source tells us that the vault of Robert Hibbert is, as one expect it, in The Wesleyan Cemetery at New Mills. How is the grave, in Slough, of someone born in 1836/36, pictured in File:Robert Hibbert Grave St Mary's Slough.jpg, connected? The inscription on the lower part of that memorial is too indistinct to be clearly read. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without some supporting source, just adding this image to the article counts as WP:OR. So I have added a cn tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hibbert in Slough MIGHT possibly, but remotely possibly, be a descendant of the Hibberts of Birtles, one of whom, John Nembhard Hibbert, inherited one of the Hibbert family's southern estates at Chalfont, and whose family held it until the late 1880s, when it was sold. For John Nembhard Hibbert, and his kin, see the Legacies of British Slaveownership database by Googling lbs ucl, which is readily searchable. This Robert Hibbert is not mentioned, or doesn't seem to be, but Chalfont is much closer to Slough than New Mills. The lower base stone in the image appears to have an inscription of some length, which may well be the key to the problem. It doesn't seem to be available in transcription online, But if you blow up the image the words Robert Hibbert, Cotton Spinner,New Mills" become visible there. By then the Birtles Hibberts were landowners, in the eighteenth century Jamaica slavetraders, and merchants, not just spinners. One of these Hibberts did die aged 76, but the year in this image is indecipherable. The Robert Hibbert born in New Mills who is shown as Superintendent of the St Pancras Baths in the 1901 census, living in King Street St Pancras, seems to have died aged 66, not 76. There was a family of Hibberts in and around Slough in the 1911 census, but no certain Robert, and none born in New Mills. Can some Wikipedian in Slough have a look?81.158.101.97 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Railways - the Hayfield branch was operated by the Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, later Great Central Railway, and had been built from Romiley between 1860 and 1868 by a company backed by the MS&L, which later took it over in 1865, and completed the New Mills -Hayfield branch. The Midland later from 1867 had a joint interest in the London Road -Hyde- New Mills line, which gave it its first route to Manchester through Romiley, and also through Tiviot Dale, to Cheshire. When Edward Watkin expelled the Midland from London Road, the Midland built its South Manchester line to the new Central Station, in 1880. Even into the 1950s the tickets sold on the Manchester-Hayfield line at some stations, eg Marple, were printed as Midland and GC. But the Hayfield branch itself from New Mills was wholly MS&L/Great Central see (ia) Dow, G The Great Central Railway Vol 2 p 12 and passim81.158.101.97 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on New Mills. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]