From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Greater Manchester (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject UK geography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Seneley Green[edit]

To Whom It May Concern : SENELEY GREEN was in existance in the mid sixteenth century, (actually, long before that). The founding of Ashton in Makerfield Grammar School took place in Seneley Green at that time. It was founded using a capital sum bequeathed by Robert Byrchall, in 1589, and a plot of land granted by Sir Thomas Gerard. There is nothing 'new' about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:23, 12 November 2006.

Park Lane Unitarian Chapel[edit]

The article on 'Park Lane Unitarian Chapel', Bryn, has been transferred from Ashton in Makerfield article to it's rightful 'Bryn' article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13:45, 16 November 2006.

REPY: Until recent times Bryn was part of the district of Ashton-in-Makerfield. Nearly all the other 19th century chapels deleted form the article are in present-day Ashton. To omit, or brush over, the rich history of native Christian non-conformity from an article on Ashton would be ridiculous. Similarly, the history of coal mining in the area needs a substantial entry. Yozzer66 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yozzer - Bryn is STILL part of Ashton in Makerfield.

JemmyH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Boundary changes[edit]

To Whom It May Concern: Those who would like to re-write history by re-introducing the old boundaries of Lancashire are perfectly entiled to their views. However, to place these views (without substantial qualification) in an encyclopedic article on Ashton is inappropriate. Yozzer66 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lancashire boundaries were never changed. A change of Governing Authority (local council) does not alter country, town or county boundaries. The Government who altered the 'Administrative' boundaries stated this at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:41, 16 November 2006.
REPLY: What do you mean? In 1974 new counties called 'metropolitian counties' came into being. You may not have agreed with this superseding of the traditional counties in many of England's major urban conurbations but it did happen. You can't simply wish it away. Yozzer66 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
'Note that the LGA 1972 did not do anything to the historic Counties of Britain. It only abolished the administrative counties and county boroughs. The Government was (and still is) happy to confirm that the Counties themselves were unaffected...'
"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." Source:(DoE Statement, 1st April 1974). ....... (ABCounties) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:56, 16 November 2006.
Have you read the 'Official' Government Statement which explains how Administrative Boundaries can be altered without actually affecting the traditional County Boundaries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:28, 17 November 2006.
Wishful thinking on your part, I think. Yozzer66 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Lancashire boundaries remain unchanged according to the Duchy of Lancaster. I tend to agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:38, 22 November 2006.

St Helens Coalfield[edit]

There has never been a 'St.Helens Coalfield'. Any mining near to St.Helens was taken from the Lancashire Coalfield. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:41, 16 November 2006.

REPLY: In point of fact, the Lancashire coalfield was sub-divided, as indeed the county of Lancashire was. Yozzer66 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please provide 'official', not local, proof of a St.Helens Coalfield, ie: Official documentation rather than writings by local historians. I was employed in coal mining, at management level, for over thirty five years and only in later years was there a change in title from St.Helens Area, to North West Area, that is 'area' of the Lancashire Coalfield. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:24, 17 November 2006.
This is a pedantic point but I will accept your description 'St Helens Area'. Your other point ignores the difference between an administrative label and a geological and geographical description. There has never been only one Lancashire Coalfield geologically and geographically speaking. Yozzer66 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. However, Windy Arbour Colliery wasn't an Ashton colliery but was classed as in Winstanley, Lancashire. (source: National Register of Archives, Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:17, 18 November 2006.

Religious bigotry[edit]

Religious bigotry has no place in the encyclopedia. Personal opinions will be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:56, 16 November 2006.

REPLY: Where is the bigotry? It is a statement of fact that, historically, Christian Non-conformists found religious relics to be an anathema. Attempts at air brushing the rich non-conformist history of the Ashton area from history could be viewed as either ignorance, lay Catholic sectarianism or traditional Anglo-Catholic arrogance. Which is it? And why hide behind anonymity? Sign your contributions! Yozzer66 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is a Cross not a relic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:24, 17 November 2006.
What has that got to do with anything? Describing, and seeking to explain, the religious differences of our ancestors is not the same as taking sides in the here and now. My contribution was not polemic but history. Yozzer66 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I was not the anon contributor above. I removed the POV on opinions on relics as the issue does not pertain directly to Ashton. If relics are important to you personally Yozzer, I understand your hurt about iconoclasm. But the article on Ashton is not really the place to express those views unless there has been a historical action in Ashton around the issue (c/f founding of Cave Brown Church). There are other things in any town that other people find offensive (bettings shops, churches, mosques etc. But we don't have room for it all. What do you think? Brixtonboy (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Brixtonboy, thanks for your contribution to the debate. I've got two points - (1) I don't think that the article as it is currently worded includes POV. It is historically accurate. Catholics venerated relics. In the past, radical Protestants sought to destroy them. No opinion in the rights and wrongs of the matter were expressed; (2) Given the history of religious tension in Ashton (see the last para. of the 'religious history' section), I think that it is appropriate for the article to cover something of the historical context of this tension. Crucially, one of the Protestant objections to the Anglo-Catholic style of worship in their churches was that ritualism was said to encourage idolatry in that it encourages worshippers to focus on ritual objects and actions rather than the things they are meant to symbolise. Again, no opinion on the rights and wrongs of the dispute are expressed in the article. Yozzer66 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cotton Mills[edit]

St.Helens was home to two cotton mills in the 1800's. Ashton in Makerfield had one, so it was not the westerly extremity after all!

Repy: (1) QUESTIONS: The town or the district of Ashton? When you say the 1800s do you mean the ist decade of the 19th century or the whole century? (This is important because the heyday of the Lancs cotton industry was later than 1800 - 1810). (2) CONTEXT: Even if this comment were correct for the district of Ashton throughout the 19th century, it doesn't alter the fact that two mills in a large district like St Helens is not very significant - coal and glass still completely dominated. (Indeed, textile mills may have existed in isolation even further west). Whereas for a much smaller place like Ashton one mill could be a major employer and contributor to the local economy. The general point about the western extremity of a concentrated, economically important cotton industry surely remains? Yozzer66 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There were two cotton mills in St.Helens in the 1820's, therefore the statement about Ashton having the most westerly cotton mill is wrong. St.Helens wasn't a large district in the 1820's, however, if it was, it would not alter the true fact that there were two cotton mills there and that they were further west than Ashton. You can't beat the truth, no matter how you tart it up!
Put something on the article for Bryn, that's what it's there for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:51, 19 November 2006.
The heyday of the Lancs cotton industry was 90 years or so AFTER the 1820s. In the time of 'King Cotton', how many mills did the district of Ashton have in comparison with its then much larger neighbour, St Helens? Also, no one would ever call St Helens a cotton town, as they would Wigan. The question remains then: was Ashton the western extremity of the concentrated Lancs cotton industry? Yozzer66 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that St.Helens DID have cotton mills means that it was a town, further west than Ashton in Makerfield, with cotton mills in it, and therefore the 'extremity' of the Lancashire cotton industry was beyond Ashton in Makerfield. However, Liverpool was the key place regarding the Cotton Industry, as it was from there that the Cotton Brokers supplied the rest of Lancashire with cotton via the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. Liverpool is further West than both. Who said that St.Helens WAS a cotton town, and who mentioned Wigan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 11:46, 21 November 2006.
Due to the opening of the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, several textile and Cotton Mills opened in ORMSKIRK. Ormskirk is far more westerly than Ashton and St.Helens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:23, 22 November 2006.
Ashton was only the western extremity of the Lancs. cotton industry, if you exclude any cotton industry that has anything to do with Liverpool/Merseyside as we know it today but is, like it or not, part of Lancashire. If you wish to include the word 'concentrated', then we can write Wigan and Ashton out of the equation as the 'concentration' started to thin out west of Bolton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:33, 22 November 2006.
Take a look at the ‘Wikipededia’ entry 'Mill town' and try to identify ANY mill towns to the west of Ashton in south Lancashire... Despite the presence of textile mills, Liverpool, St Helens and Ormskirk were not mill towns. To continue the argument, there were Staffordshire towns that had potteries that are not included in THE Potteries. It is all a matter of the degree of importance the industry had in shaping the character of the location. (Incidentally, to deny that Wigan was an important cotton mill town is ludicrous). In regard to Ashton, at the peak of the Lancashire cotton industry, just before the First World War, the town had at least two sizable mills - the Record Mill (Spinning) situated in York Road, and the Makerfield Mill (the 'Weaving Shed') in Windsor Road. This was hugely significant for a town the size of Ashton. Yozzer66 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't take anything written in Wikipedia as fact, as most of it is written by those who have made the mistake of believing all they have heard, not having seen the half of it! Now then, Wigan 'was' a mill town. It says so in the article, because 'I' changed it to mill town, from mining town, which it was not. But compare Wigan with other mill towns further into the 'concentration'. Oldham 89 mills, Manchester 101 mills, Rochdale 63 mills, Bolton 56 mills, Wigan 21 mills. Then Preston 31 mills and Lancaster 8 mills. They laugh at Ashtons, and St.Helens' 2 mills apiece. So, I would tend to agree if it was said that 'Wigan was the south westerly extremity of the 'consentrated centre' of the Lancashire Cotton Mill Industry'. Like you say yourself, regarding towns in Staffordshire which are not included in the 'potteries' despite the fact that they may have had small pottery producing companies, Ashton, in the same context, cannot be included as a Lancashire cotton town. (Incidentally, far from denying the fact of Wigans importance as a mill town, I merely pointed to the 'concentration' of cotton mills thinning out further west of Bolton, as is proven by the figures shown above.)... (Jimmy H). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:27, 23 November 2006.

New InfoBox[edit]

  • I don't like the new infobox map, showing Ashton in Makerfield's location in Greater Manchester. The original one, showing it's position in the 'North West of the British Isles' is MUCH better and much more informative. A person would not be able to identify with the new map as easily as the original, as no-one associates with Greater Manchester as a location. I propose to revert to the original. 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
I have switched the map to the UK one, pending any further consensus. (The map is selected by the map_type parameter - see Template:infobox UK place). Just as a note Template:Infobox England place (the old one) is deprecated now.

Pit-yacker 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sir Jhamez has 'taken it upon Himself' to replace the Greater Manchester map WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING A CONSENSUS. This is even though He knows the change to Greater Manchester is disputed. Also, consensus wasn't acquired before removing the original 'standard' map. I propose it be replaced. 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
Excuse me, but there was already demand and consensus for using a Greater Manchester map in infoboxes before I found the infobox discussion. It was originally intended to be this image!!! I merely tried to improve the look of it. There was only one objection raised at the infobox talk page by a traditional counties advocate, who, upon making some valid and mature suggestions (which I took on), led to an improved look of the map.
I should add Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we are all required to be bold when editting - Consensus is only required if an issue that can't be solved by attributation of sources, is raising objections, otherwise how does one know to contribute? You could've just raised these issues at the talk page, I would've listened. Jhamez84 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In Merseyside/Greater Manchester?[edit]

Do we have a source that the town is split between the metropolitan counties? It is unusual (though not impossible) for urban areas to be divided by borough, let alone county. I'm not doubting it as such, but such a distinction should have a source attributed to it to validate its inclusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It is not the town that is now split between metro. counties; it is the area covered by the former Urban District Council of Ashton-in-Makerfield (late 19th century to 1974). Incidently, the area covered by the former Urban District of Billinge and Winstanley was also split between Merseyside and Gtr. Manchester. Yozzer66 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this ought to be made much clearer in the lead section? As far as I can see from a map I have to hand, A-in-M (the urban core) is completely within Greater Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Jza84 - It IS the town of Ashton in Makerfield that is split between different local authorities.

The place called Ashton in Makerfield was marked out and named long before any 'local councils' existed. The 'marked out and named' place was kept under ONE local authority, divided into separate 'wards', until 1972 when the 'wards' were separated between TWO local authorities. Ashton in Makerfield remains Ashton in Makerfield. Only the local authorities changed. Part of Ashton in Makerfield is in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, county of Greater Manchester. Part of Ashton in Makerfield is in St.Helens, county of Merseyside. It happens that 'the shops' (generally referred to as 'town centre') are in Greater Manchester and a large part of the rural section is in Merseyside. 'The Shops' are not split between local authorities. The council, the postcode, the telephone code, the church parish and it's diocese, the local boy scouts, milkman or newspaper boys delivery round, does NOT dictate the name of a place!

Try to think away from local authority areas when referring to placenames.

JemmyH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Did I miss something? I wasn't sure why town links were deleted. Brixtonboy (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Or why some were deleted and some were left. Brixtonboy (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashton-in-Makerfield. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)