Talk:Millennium Mills

A fact from Millennium Mills appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Millennium Mills, a derelict icon of London's post-industrial docklands, is a favourite destination of thrill-seeking Urban Explorers?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/June.

Wikipedia

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mills Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2011[edit]

File:DESTINATION1.jpg I think this image is millennium mills afterall. Compare with this [1] which is clearly the CWS. France3470 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick's full metal jacket[edit]

Also Kubrick's full metal jacket reference is as far as I know incorrect. As far as I know and can remember it's a false claim that has just been spread from one statement on the urbex forum. All the others though I can confirm are right, I have seen them. France3470 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not sure about this afterall. It might be correct and I just wasn't able to find a reliable source. Has anyone actually seen it and can confirm? France3470 (talk)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/locations refers to Beckton gasworks and Isle of Dogs. I am going to remove the mention of this film from the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and attempt to replace most of the citations to urbex. I do believe most if not all of the information can be cited by more reliable sources. At the moment I am adding in information rather crudely from my userspace page, essentially adding anything I think might be suitable for this article. It will all need a good lot of copyediting and condensing before DYK but I do believe it is getting there.France3470 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the Full Metal Jacket story may have started from this urbex forum posting in June 2009 (earlier than the one cited in the article). I do think we should keep the urbex at least as an external link, because the photos are stunning. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be totally alright with keeping it in external links. I have constantly been disappointing by how few photos there are of the site that can be used under our licensing requirements, especially since there are so many truly fantastic photos out there, particularly internal short taken by urban explorers. I hope that once people see there is an article, a few might decide to upload their photos to commons. France3470 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime bombing[edit]

Yes, well done! What does Glyn Jones' book say about this building in the Blitz? The statement that it was destroyed is clearly wrong! perhaps should refer to another mill? - Fayenatic (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it is correct. I at seen this in a least a few sources. Most of the Premier mills and Millennium Mills were destroyed, which is the reason why they were substantially rebuilt afterwards. Only the unfinished CWS survived unscathed. The section of The Millers reads "Many of the port mills were severely damaged during wartime bombing, including in 1940 Ranks' Solent Mills, and in 1941 their Ocean Mills at Birkenhead....[cont.] At London's Victoria Docks, Ranks' Premier Mills were destroyed , also Spillers' Millennium Mills. Nearby, the new CWS mill remained unfinished but escaped disaster." From page 319. Then on the next page, "Between 1945 and 1950 there were massive reconstructions at the ports. Spillers' projects included Pauls' mill at Seacombe, the business and the Homepride flour brand having been acquired in 1945, and the rebuilding of another wartime casualty: the Swan Mills at Hull where the separate firms of Rishworth, Ingleby and Lofthouse had amalgamated in 1900. A new Millennium Mill was built at London's Victoria Docks. At the opening, Wilfred Vernon of the leading dynasty of millers within the group said 'I think it is important that industrial buildings, which may last a century, and which must be functional, must not be eyesores'. The largest port mills were architecturally impressive but they were not all destined to reach the next millennium." Seems clear to me that the mill was destroyed. France3470 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is this quote from page 286 of Concentration in British Industry, "The outbreak of war found he major concerns in a vulnerable position since their main productive capacity (indeed, almost 75 per cent of the national capacity) was concentrated at the ports in the first line of air attack. The mills of both Ranks and Spillers suffered considerable damage, although Spillers claimed in 1945 that despite the destruction of mills at London and Hull, its output of flour throughout the War had been consistently maintained at above pre-war level." France3470 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was going by the "1933" which is still in the stonework 10 storeys up, to the right of the ugly steel infill. [2] I've changed the text to "substantially destroyed". - Fayenatic (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've always wondered about that too. I think often times 'destroyed' doesn't mean razed to the ground but rather damaged enough to become nonoperational. France3470 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Royal' Victoria Dock[edit]

I am not sure what is meant by "...the Victoria Dock (as it was then known).." Wasn't the Royal Victoria Dock always 'Royal'? I have only ever heard 'Victoria Dock' used a shortening of the name. France3470 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation for that, and expanded in the Royal Victoria Dock article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm but the citation says that the Royal was added in 1880 and since we are talking only about the period after the turn of the 20th century, ie after 1900, the Royal should be used. France3470 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right as usual! - Fayenatic (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil[edit]

Also it seems that the filming of Brazil was mainly at the CWS, so I wonder if this is entirely relevant if this article's focus is just on Millennium Mills. France3470 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you decide how significant it was in the film. As long as there is no WP article on CWS, I'd be inclined to keep it if MM is clearly seen in the film; but add a clarification. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure MM is actually seen in the film. [3] seems to suggest that it was only CWS. France3470 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure date[edit]

The urbex citation was last being used only for the closure date of 1992, Spillers being the last to go, and their destination of Tilbury. I disbelieve the date. This photo suggests 1986 and it appeared to be closed before Jarre and Jarman's media events. So I deleted the date and moved urbex into External Links. It would be good to state the closure date if reliably sourced. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at The Times digital archives. Only two mentions on the mills occur up to 1985, and advert in 1914 and again in 1932. Closure would appear to have been post-1985. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK suggestions[edit]

Here are my previous suggestions for a DYK hook:

...that the Millennium Mills survived the Silvertown explosion and two world wars, was the last flour mill to cease operations in London docklands?
...that the Millennium Mills was the last flour mill to cease operations in London docklands?
...that the Millennium Mills is the last of the flour mills in London's docklands that once processed most of the UK's grain?

Now that we have better sourcing, how about:

...that the Millennium Mills, an icon of London's post-industrial docklands, is a favourite destination of thrill-seeking Urban Explorers?

- Fayenatic (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer either one, or four. Not sure how about the claim it was the last flour mill to cease in the 'London docklands'. The Docklands is a very large area and although I don't know, I suspect there were other mills in different docks that may have closed later, such as Isle of Dogs or Millwall. Also I'm not sure I have a citation which actually describes it as 'post-industrial'. France3470 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the hook in DYK. Looks fantastic, thanks! France3470 (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I just added the word "derelict" to the hook, and a link to Cultural icon. It has been approved.

As for the statement that it was the last mill to cease operations, I have removed this altogether from the article as unsourced for now, see above. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe that was a good choice, the closure date is best left out until confirmed by reliable sources. All looks well. Only wondering about the possibility of noming an image with the hook. All the licensing should be good, and there don't appear to be too many hooks with images. Might have a chance of making the lead. The current article lead image is quite nice or perhaps File:Millennium Mills - geograph.org.uk - 864168.jpg, which shows some nice derelict details. France3470 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good idea - sorry I missed it yesterday. The DYK is now in the queue and another item has the picture slot. I left a note for an admin who replied on my talk page; I don't think it's worth trying to change it now. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I was away also and by the time I got back it was in the queue. Looking forward to seeing it on the main page regardless. France3470 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Millennium 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) 10:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]