|WikiProject Architecture / Historic houses|
|WikiProject Greater Manchester||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
Heaton Hall and gardens
I have added some information on Heaton Hall and the design of the gardens as I think these are the most important features of the Park, however I found it a bit difficult to add these in to the existing format. I think the sections on "History" and "Heaton Hall" seem a little confused, but that may have come about because of people like me adding bits in. I think if they were merged together the article would read a lot better. This is generally a good article that has evolved somewhat over time and could now use some rearrangement. Could I suggest that the picture of the tram is moved to the "Tramway" section and a picture of the Hall is put in it's place? I hope to be able to supply a suitable picture in the near future. Also, I'm not sure that the bits about the hire of the park buildings belong in an encyclopaedia as they sound like an advertisement and the section on controversy is now out of date as the planning application was refused. I will have a go at rewriting the article myself, if no-one minds, as I want to add a lot more to it and can't see any way of fitting it into the present structure. I will endeavour to preserve the original text as much as possible Richerman 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have now completely restructured the article and expanded it. The photographs I've used aren't all of the best quality yet, but I will update them as I either get round the park and take some more, or digitally improve the existing ones and replace the files Richerman 11:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem particularly generous ...
The lead says that "The park was renovated as part of a millennium project using an £11 grant from the Lottery Heritage Fund", which is clearly not right. I had a quick look through the Lottery Fund's grants database, but I couldn't find the Heaton Park project to see what the correct figure was. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops, sorry, that's what happens when you don't cite your sources, and I didn't get it quite right anyway, it came from this page but it actually says it was jointly funded by the Heritage lottery fund and Manchester Council. I'll try researching a bit more on the subject. Richerman 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've sorted that out now with references but it seems the HLF only contributed £7m of the total spent Richerman 22:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
A sign on the Old Town Hall Colonnade says that "This south western part of the park was the site of a race course from 1827 to 1939. A painting in the hall illustrates one of the more lively race meetings". I'm not too sure how best to cite this information, hence why I'm adding it here rather than on the article page. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- There I quite a few bits of information I put in that was taken from the signs but I've not given them references. My only excuse is that I did it when I was a newbie on Wikipedia. Perhaps a note that says something like "taken from an information sign in the park" would the the right way to do it? Richerman (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
According to this article, Heaton Park races "were moved to Aintree" in 1839. Is this claim correct? Its backed up by a reference, to a tourism website. If its correct, the suggestion seems to be, that the organisers at Heaton Park must have been central to the first 'official' Grand National races in Aintree, which started in 1839. Personally, Im sceptical as, according to the Aintree story, races were moved from nearby Maghull to Aintree some time between 1836 and 1838.
1839 was the first year the Aintree racing committee appeared to up the ante over businessman Lynn. Although Wilton was present in the committee, Aintree in 1839, the first "Grand National", was surely a bigger concern than the Heaton races. There were many other powerful committee members who gave tremendous backing including the Earls of Derby, Sefton, Eglington and others. Lynn had got the business started. Lord Sefton provided the land.
My question is, if there was a coordinated transfer of resources from Heaton Park to Aintree, what was that exactly, besides Wilton's presence on the Aintree committee? Or did Heaton's organisers pragmatically decide to call it a day, in the advent of growing competition from Aintree? --Abacchus1974 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Goals Soccer Centre
I've added a section with some details about the proposed sports complex in the St Margaret's corner of the park. I've referenced where I could and tried to keep it as factual as possible. I'll freely admit that I'm opposed to the plans though. I've bitten my tongue on a few points and tried to keep it balanced, but it's possible some bias has crept into my contribution. I believe I have sufficiently referenced the majority of the Proposal Details section and I'll pop back on and add references for the Objections section as soon as I can. I popped on to make the addition quickly just before midnight, then I got referencing and it's fast approaching 4am so I've got to call it a night. I'd appreciate someone checking it over for typos, spelling mistakes and if necessary, edit the format or language where needed. Jack of Many (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the planning application going before the Planning Committee on the 3rd of Feb. I was going to include something about this in the new section, but I wasn't sure how to go about it without it sounding like "get your objection letters in pronto!". If anyone can work that in with a more neutral tone somehow feel free to add it. This late at night I'm having a hard time keeping my personal views about the proposal out of elements like that. Cheers. Jack of Many (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up on my talk page. Additions like this should be kept as brief as possible as they may come to nothing. The addition was over-detailed so I've trimmed it down a bit, but I've left a lot of it as the decision will be made fairly soon. That's not to say that someone else might not remove it of course! Full marks for trying to be neutral, however, please remember wikipedia is not a soapbox and you shouldn't use it to try an garner support for a cause. The bit that suggested the Maccabbi playing fields were a suitable alternative was definitely your own opinion so I've deleted it. You may find some references on the Prestwich and Whitefield Guide web pages for the "objections" section as there have been a few stories about it over the last few weeks - however their search facility is pretty hit and miss. Popped on at midnight and still referencing at 4 am? - that sounds familiar :) Richerman (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed about wp:soap, hence asking for an editor and biting my tongue on analysis and trying to keep it factual. On the Maccabi point, it strikes me that it is a similar facility, I thought it strange that it wasn't mentioned in the application. I didn't intend for that to come across as soapboxing, though I did feel the point about the application omitting Maccabi was worth mentioning as it's part of the justification/objection for/against the proposal. Could that line be better split into a "20 minute drive" part in the application details and the Maccabi part in the "objections". That said, I'm not entirely sure how to word that without it sounding like a call-to-arms or the first part sounding like a set up for the objection. Of course, it could be that you're right and it's better left out entirely. The edits I've made on Wikipedia so far have all been minor or related to non-controversial issues. I tend to stay out of political stuff, but I thought this was a significant enough park development to be notable. Lack of experience in contributing things like this makes it tough though. Thanks for your help and input so far. Jack of Many (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- You should only really mention other facilities if you can find a published reference where someone else has said they were a suitable alternative. Peronally I would have thought the Salford Sports Village facilities on Littleton Road were a better alternative. They're a lot nearer than the Trafford Centre, easier to get to, and you'll see from the link that they do have two 3rd generation synthetic pitches. However, that's only my opinion and you would need to find a reference somewhere where that's been said. You could always put it in a letter to the papers I suppose. If it all comes to nothing it may as well be deleted I should think. Richerman (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd forgotten all about the Littleton Road one. I'm inclined to agree that it's more like the Goals proposal than the Maccabi centre is in both size and in its secular nature. I'll have a dig and see if there's a published reference. If it comes to nothing I'll be quite happy to delete the section. Here's hoping I get that chance! Jack of Many (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)