Talk:Heavy Woollen District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many people in all of the towns wish for a return to the era of local self-government."[edit]

Could this be made more specific? What are the options discussed, and how high is the level of support for them? It would be interesting to see something like Saddleworth#Identity, or at least some kind of source for this claim. //Essin (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heavy Woollen District. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heavy Woollen District. 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) 10:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion proposal[edit]

I am removing the proposal to delete this article. It seems very odd to want to delete an article on such a long established geographical term. If the article is lacking in sources, as the proposer suggests, that's a reason to improve the sourcing, not to delete the page. I would question the inclusion of "heavy" in the title; the name is more often "Yorkshire Woollen District" or simple "Woollen District". Notice Wikipedia already has a page on the Yorkshire (Woollen District) Electric Tramways, precursor to the bus company called Yorkshire Woollen District Transport, which has no article in its own right but is covered at National Bus Company (UK) and at Arriva Yorkshire. A Google search for "Yorkshire Woollen District Buses" will bring up plenty of additional information. --94.196.81.75 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had no right removing that until a consensus had been reached. So.its been readded. If removed again I'll revert it. If a consensus reaches it should be kept or merged them the nomination for deletion will be removed but until then it is active. RailwayJG (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not required to remove a "PROD" template. Anyone has the right to remove it if they disagree with the proposal. --94.196.81.75 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not now they don't RailwayJG (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its now at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Woollen District which is the way to deal with WP:CONTESTED PRODs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref from a substantial source with the lede text "The YWD was to operate tramways radiating from Dewsbury, to feed the heavy woollen districts of Thornhill, Ravensthorpe, Heckmondwike, Batley, Liversedge, Hightown, Moorend and Birkenshaw.". I arrived at this page after seeing that Bkissin had reviewed a new article at Crouch, Swale's TP. I was intrigued by the title, but I'm only passing through and as it mainly concerns the tram, I'm anticipating shouts of SIGCOV.

I would've preferred an earlier ref to avoid any suggestion of cytogenesis. The YP source is 2017, this article has 2005 origins and the Tram page 2012. For WP purposes, the YP's mention cannot realisticly be refuted, however, unless another reliable source can be found demeaning their content. Their byline is "News you can trust since 1754".

One of my pet hobby-horses is 'new media' trawling the net for second and third-hand stories (including WP for background info). I've just seen a story (about someone I know) originally from a Leeds Facebook group, repeated regionally by the Yorkshire Evening Post, then picked up nationally by The Mirror - QED.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Sources and search results:[edit]

For anyone seeking to source for the article that aren't already included in some fashion.

  • [1] - 1939 article for background ref of transport coverage. Any search related to "Yorkshire Woollen District" inevitably brings up anything related to the company, rather than the region.
  • [2] - 1983 book "Only The Ashes are Older" historical reference for Heavy Woollen Challenge Cup which is still going.
  • [3] - Historic monument dedicated "MEN WHO DIED IN THE HEAVY WOOLLEN DISTRICT MILITARY HOSPITAL AT STAINCLIFFE, DEWSBURY DURING THE GREAT WAR 1914 - 1919"
  • [4] - reference for a decade of Trades Council
  • [5] - 1988 book on "Women and Industrial Militancy: The 1875 Heavy Woollen Dispute"
  • [6] West Yorkshire Archive Service full list of their sources.
  • [7] Local tourism / history information for Dewsbury.
  • [8] Local tourism / history information for Dewsbury.
  • [9] 1959 Doctoral Theses with economic analysis of the region.

Modern usage[edit]

Koncorde (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly usage examples. While fine to verify the existence of this informal location, I don't see anything here to satisfy the requirements of in-depth coverage needed to support a stand-alone article per WP:GEOLAND.----Pontificalibus

Add one for posterity, detail only available via local archive

  • [13] Heavy Woollen District Manufacturers Association 1931-1969 (link at National Archives).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still.needs work[edit]

I still disagree completely with this article being kept separate from the West Yorkshire Article by being merged or given a tab of its own.. but the article still needs some work it's still a complete mess and all the towns mentioned aside from Ossett Batley Dewsbury and Heckmondwike need sources to back up they were in this so called district. I only found Morley to be but after that nothing for Horbury Cleckheaton etc...so please work on this article and I will see if I can make it a little less bad but still think it's weak to warrant an own article instead of a mention in the wider West Yorkshire Article... RailwayJG (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments come across as very sour as you were the one-only deletionist until you found another drive-by to latch on to. You deleted Heavy Woollen District from the lede of Dewsbury on 30 March (placed in 2007) when you had initiated the PROD without edit summary on 28 March and AfD on 28 March. The Wikiquette is to inform the author where possible when PRODding/AfDing. Bad form taking out the lede description when you were trying to delete the article it referred to.

Try trawling back through this history to find who added all those blue links and when - likely locals.

I placed the union text prominently to verify the historic name usage and date and immediately it was altered (3 hours later, and with a complaint it was "messy" in the deletion review). I have to accept the text being moved, but that editor was responsible for all those places being prominently sited.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't need to be mentioned in Dewsbury lead and it is not prominent on other articles this district covered...I might have made some mistakes but I still disagree with it as a local. Not because I am blind to it existed but that in modern times it is rarely if at all used. Only the football and cricket teams use the name. But boroughs have changed and Yorkshire was split into four counties...so I think it could have just been mentioned in a tab on the wider West Yorkshire Page given it covers a quarter of the county anyway, and I see nothing sour as you put it about my comment. I disagree with it having a seperate article when it could have just been moved to West Yorkshire Article... And I again disagree with Dewsbury being the only one to need this district name while other areas see no mention of it in their articles like my hometown of Batley...Wiki doesn't discriminate against opinions in a constructive manner and mine is I feel it should have been merged with the wider West Yorkshire Article. Theres plenty to say about Huddersfield and Halifax mill history but they are covered in the town articles...Dewsbury and Morley have a lot about their mill history and I just think this article repeats that but for a wider district which had no official government stance but was a coined name for an area...so again my opinion and the sources are fine for it hence why I have made no reattempt to get a concensus because I failed to do so. I just think it is a mess the article and needs a lot of work...RailwayJG (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added this article to each town and village it covered so I am not gonna keep engaging on this page in arguments... RailwayJG (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Woollen District DOES need to be in Dewsbury as the lede contains elements of the body for those not wishing to trawl down through the WP:BLOATED content; it therefore follows it is in the body at Dewsbury#Industrial Revolution. Then there's Category:Heavy Woollen District established in 2006. The name is also used by a minor political group, Heavy Woollen District Independents.

WP articles are all considered as work-in-progress; normally from the past, unverified content has been regarded under AGF.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed the AfD, but this absolutely should have been kept. The concept of a Heavy Woollen District is an important part of the industrial and cultural heritage of the towns engaged in the 19th–early 20th century shoddy trade. It is notable, but you have to look at books and historic sources, not just websites; see [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], in addition to the sources mentioned above. A merge to West Yorkshire wouldn't make sense as it only included part of the modern county (i.e. Batley, Dewsbury, and other small towns between Leeds and Huddersfield). The heavy woollen industry died out locally 50 years ago so obviously the term is no longer used as frequently as it was, but that doesn't matter, because we're an encyclopedia, not a list of modern administrative boundaries. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heavy Woollen District has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Heavy Woollen District has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the following concern[edit]

I noticed editors think I hate the mention of this page and it isnt I hate it because I don't. However the page and categories need sorting out. The fact the page has a category page when it is not an official borough or local government district is misleading. The article already has all the places it covers named and the towns and villages do as well mention the article. However categories are for more places in boroughs cities and districts and this is not a local government district. It is a name coined district covering Kirklees Leeds and Wakefield boroughs. So the article categories need to be deleted or removed as they are leading to a misinterpretation on the district being an official borough when it is not as others have stated. RailwayJG (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for geographical categories to have within it all manner of subdivisions and regional descriptions. For instance Leeds Category goes to Golden Triangle (Yorkshire) and the Rhubarb Triangle. This is pretty standard. Koncorde (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heavy_Woollen_District&oldid=1202650838"