Talk:Flixton, Greater Manchester

Flixton, Greater Manchester 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
March 15, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Greater Manchester Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flixton band[edit]

If Flixton Band is notable then it ought to have its own entry. If it isn't notable then it ought to be just mentioned somewhere in the text perhaps. But it certainly ought not to be included in the External links section.

Personally I think that bands are at least as noteworthy as local football teams. ---- Eric 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various edits[edit]

The Flixton postcode was changed to M41 in 1998, I've added urmston.net in the external links as it covers Urmston, Flixton and Davyhulme, Chassen Road station is also in Flixton and I've added a link to the history of the Urmston area to show that the centre was once Flixton. (Quentin X 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

When does an article stop being a stub?[edit]

Is there really an awful lot more to be said about Flixton, more than other articles not flagged as stubs? ---- Eric 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:STUB for guidelines on stubs. In short, anyone can remove stub status, if they feel the article has matured to an appropriate standard; it doesn't mean the article is complete of course, just that it is no longer, a stub.

On another note, I've altered the opening sentence, simply because Townships were abolished in England, and have no official, legal or academically verifiable status. Jhamez84 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Census figures[edit]

A Vision of Britain isn't working for me right now so I can't check, but the census figures given appear to include Urmston and Flixton. Although Flixton was originally the more important of the two, I think it might be a good idea to have separate values for each. Those are accessible in this book Parrot of Doom 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: INeverCry (talk · contribs) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is clear and well-written.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References checked and fixed where needed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad detailed coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Straight forward factual representation of subject.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Good images and captions.
Overall: See this GA discussion of the article during the review: User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2012/March#Flixton. Should've done this here on the review page but this was my first review.
Pass/Fail:

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flixton, Greater Manchester. 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://archive.is/20120803162601/http://www.dioceseofsalford.org.uk/component/content/article/43-the-diocese/2637-parish-priests-a-z to http://www.dioceseofsalford.org.uk/component/content/article/43-the-diocese/2637-parish-priests-a-z

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) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flixton, Greater Manchester. 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) 06:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]