Talk:Turnpike trusts in Greater Manchester

Lead and construction

I envisage this article to go down the route (no pun intended!) of something like Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. In this capacity, we probably need a more punchy lead ([[WP:LEAD|4 paragraphs max. and all), then perhaps a section of text with a bit more background (where alot of the present lead could go), then the tables with all the details. Would that seem OK?

Also, might the Template:Underconstruction be appropriate if we expect heavy editting sessions? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I do have a fair bit more information about individual funding arrangements for various trusts, debts, etc - but I left them out as I didn't feel they fitted into an article about GM. My concern now will be filling the table, I don't mind anyone editing whatever they like. Any data in the table that isn't referenced though, I'll probably remove - its easier to keep track of things that way. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When the table is more complete, it might be an idea to look at the page width it imposes on the rest of the article: I was a bit surprised at the extent I had to scroll horizontally to read the text (and I'm on a vaguely wide-screen thing on a portable at the moment.)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumford?

An editor, in an edit summary, has questioned the linking of Rumford in the second paragraph of the History section (it took me a bit of time to locate it, as the edits that were done didn't involve the linked item at all.) The link as it was goes to a disambiguation page, and since no item on that page seemed to be appropriate, I removed the link, leaving plain text there. I'm not sure where this place is, as there is no wikipedia article that is appropriate, and streetmap doesn't include it. Youngs book about local government lists a township called "Rumworth" (page 198) that could be it or close to it, as it was connected with Bolton and Deane at some point in its history, which seems to fit with the context in which Rumford is mentioned. Could the "Rumford" be "Rumworth" at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumworth was directly on the route of the Bolton & WH turnpike road to the southwest of Bolton, so it seems certain I've made a mistake in my notes. I've checked them, and they say 'rumford' to, but there aren't any Rumfords anywhere around here. Rumford and Rumworth are easily mistaken. I blame the bunch of teenagers making so much noise in the library whom the staff did nothing to quell! I've changed it to Rumworth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

income/expenses

I can use this book to fill the table's expenditure columns. Would this be ok to use, or are there guidelines for articles that state that all dates should be the same? I've tried to find expenses in 1848 to match the lengths already there, but without success - and trawling through the individual accounts for every trust, held in different libraries across the region, doesn't appeal to me for some reason... Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Parliamentary Papers are a reliable source, but a little tricky to cite correctly. I think the correct citation in this case is Reports of the Secretary of State on Turnpike Trusts (British Parliamentary Papers, 1852, LXIV), (then the page) and your google books reference. Harvard University Library shopuld not appear as part of the citation. It is merely the library that scanned them for Google. Unless you can find systematic information on them (and perhaps anyway), I would suggest the omission of the "gates", "side-gates" and "distance between gates" fields. Having paid the toll at one gate, I think a road-user was usually free to use the road as much as he wanted that day, without paying again, or at least not at those gates listed on his ticket. These fields are currently blank and could be deleted without excessive difficulty. I would suggest that you do not trawl for original archive documents, as these will not give you a consistent coverage. Accounts or minutes survive for some trusts and not for others. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok well I'll put that information in, I did find some information on numbers of gates and things but not a lot. I have emailed the milestone society to see if they can volunteer any sources for such information, but the references I have (see the bury and bolton gates for instance) do make mention of not having to pay at every gate. One thing I cannot find is anything about the Worsley Trust, anything at all - and yet it appears many times on the 1848 OS maps, around Worsley and Farnworth. Presumably it's an abbreviation of some kind. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Turnpike Trust

Metropolitan Turnpike Trust is a new article, from today! User:Lozleader is sure to be worth asking to have a look at the goings-on here. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted in the talk page a link that user can use to find good images for London. I'm still looking for old images for this article, unfortunately I haven't found any yet. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pavements

I'm a bit confused about the pavements mentioned in the history section. Where the pavements for horses and wheeled traffic rwther than pedestrians as they are today? Also, did they use Whitworth stone on them as this was used extensively in the area - and when did cobbles come in, was that later?. I've wikilinked to Pavement (road) but it gets confusing as in the US they use the term today for roads rather than pavements - which they call sidewalks of course! I'm also confused with ref 14 as the "section 10" given is about Deptford, not GM, and in the Old-Maps refs there are various dates given for the Lancashire and Furness maps from 1848-51 but the only map available around that date is the 1848 one. Richerman (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to link to metalled surfaces. I'll have to research further what exact materials were used but not all turnpiked roads were Macadamised - quite a few were frankly, rubbish, there are more than a few anecdotes of people thinking that doctors and road owners were colluding, etc. I would guess that pavements were for wheeled vehicles, and gravel for horses. I think discussion of materials and construction is more a topic for the main Turnpike article really unless the roads up here used stone specific to the area. The Google books referencing is always strange. I tend to link to the 'about this book' url and let people go from there, but pay no attention to what Google says, click on section 10 and navigate to the page number on the scan itself, you should find pages 8 and 9 easily enough. Perhaps I should link directly to the page to make things easier, I'm not sure - people can still navigate back to the 'about this book' section. I've found scans on Google where they're scanned the page numbers in backwards, so you find the front of the book at the end of the document and have to navigate back! As for the maps, I'm unsure - for instance, search for Radcliffe L&F and you'll find 1850, Eccles L&F is 1848, etc. It could be a limitation of that website that if you scroll far enough, it will get the date wrong. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This will probably be of interest - if only I could find a copy online...Parrot of Doom (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised that Pavement (road) is a redirect to Road surface anyway. Also, I hadn't noticed that the old-maps site seems to be a composite of maps of different dates although it looks like one map. The the dates on the maps at the bottom depend on where you start from and they don't change as you scroll. Richerman (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer

Hi guys, Can I help with this article? I know a little bit about the subject because I looked into it when I was expanding the article on Wilmslow Road. I have just added a link to this article from that one. Yaris678 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can - but please ensure that any data you put into the table is referenced. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Page

Edit out the horizontal scrolling!Resident Mario (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What resolution are you viewing in? Some elements of the table may well be removed shortly, which should solve the problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Roads in the United Kingdom vs. Category:Toll roads in the United Kingdom and Category:Roads in England

Category:Toll roads in the United Kingdom and Category:Roads in England are subcategories of Category:Roads in the United Kingdom. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

There's a new image of a milestone in Whitefield here. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well well well, in all the years I've gone down that road I've never noticed that. I'll get a good shot of it today, weather permitting. Parrot of Doom (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Page layout

Hi all,

I came to this page via a review of old DYKs. The first thing that hit me is the horizontal scroll bar that appeared on the bottom of the screen and the images half obscured on the right hand side. This appears to be the same problem as the comment above, as it's the first page I've ever viewed on WP where I've had to scroll across to view everything. I'm sure there's a policy or guideline on that, but as per WP:BRD I have removed the table that was forcing the images out of a single page width. I've put them in a gallery, I don't think this is the best solution but it was better than having them causing more whitespace. Perhaps they could be categorised at Commons and a link provided, or some of them could be distributed about the page a bit more. What does everyone else think? Bigger digger (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The same format is used in List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, a featured list article. What browser and screen resolution are you running at? I don't like galleries. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate galleries too, it's just better than scrolling across and is a halfway house. I run Firefox @1024 with which I expect to be able to view the full width of an article without scrolling, but it's not specifically about me, it's about the usability for the general user. I'm sure there's a usability wikiproject that would be upset by the use of tables in this manner, they're not like HTML layouts, they're intended for tables of information. Interestingly enough, List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester displays without a problem, and probably down to about 800 pixels if I resize the window, I imagine due to fewer columns in the table. I had a quick look and the table descriptions seem to be the same so I can't think what else it might be. Perhaps the images could be spread through the lead, history section and in the Refs & Bibliography section? I don't mean to provoke, feel free to revert whilst I try and figure out a better way if you'd like to. Bigger digger (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with this article in that I've been sidetracked into other work, but I expect to see several columns disappear when I get back to it, the gates aren't necessary and are too difficult to source. I'm busy at work right now so won't be able to address these for a few weeks. I've also been working on a GM wide map of turnpikes but have been a little hamstrung by the lack of map data for south Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, well I doubt I can find many sources on Greater Manchester turnpikes at my end of the country but if you need some help let me know. I might take a copy of the page into my userspace and see if I can make it squeeze up. Bigger digger (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)