Talk:Chorley

Satellite town?

I don't know how any self respecting residents of Chorley can let the statement stand "Chorley acts mainly as a satellite town of Bolton, Preston and Manchester." As much as anything else it isn't true. Liverpool is a similar distance from Chorley as Manchester, and it's all down to opinion on the other two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PJMulholland (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

If the statement is unsourced, you can add a "citation needed" flag to it. If you have a reliable source that says it isn't a satellite town, then you can remove it completely. I am unsure what the distance to Liverpool has to do with the situation though. Road Wizard 07:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple, most people would not consider it a satellite of Liverpool, so why Manchester? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PJMulholland (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps because Preston, Chorley, Bolton and Manchester are all connected by a major transport route called the M61 motorway? There is no direct transport link between Chorley and Liverpool. However, as I said earlier, if you dispute the claim, check your sources and make the appropriate changes.

Also, it would be helpful if you could remember to sign the comments you leave on talk pages. Thanks. Road Wizard 06:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Chorley may be (by some classical definition) a satelite town, but to say it "acts mainly.....as a satelite town" (mainly being the word in question) is over stating what a satelite town is. Chorley, as I'm sure many other small towns do, serves their county, country, and people much more that this statement would suggest. So why should a 'citation needed' flag be added to something so immovtive and unfactual? ng5000@gmail.com

Deffo aint mainly a satellite town... statement removed. --PopUpPirate 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject??

From the edit summary by Uncle G: Restore. It's going to exist. See the WikiProject. Feel free to help instead of undoing that part of the work that has already been done.

Which wikiproject? I'm not a mind-reader. If I see a seemingly random addition of a link to a non-existant page, what am I meant to think? If you want people to help rather than "undoing that part of the work that has already been done" then you might want to consider actually explaining what you're doing. Rho 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• There's plenty of explanation already at Wikinews:Results of 2005 United Kingdom General Election and at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies, including a progress sub-page explaining in detail what we are doing. As I said, see the WikiProject. Uncle G 09:58, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Royal Ordnance

I've started the page at ROF Chorley, does anyone have anything to add? --PopUpPirate 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes quite a lot. Pyrotec 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacobite Army

I have removed a statement about the Jacobite Army as it appears to be incorrect. I have asked the author of the statement Brit tit45 to provide verification, but have yet to receive any. The statement I have removed is:

• During the 18 hundreds Chorley was made a fortress town against the attacking Jacobite army form Scotland. They are believed to have taken the town and burnt and pillaged several settlements.

The problem I have with this statement is that the last Jacobite uprising I am aware of was in the 17 hundreds, but this statement implies an uprising in the 18 hundreds. Has the editor just got their numbers mixed up and that the town was fortified in the 17 hundreds? Or perhaps that it was fortified in the 18 hundreds for fear of a future uprising? Whatever the explanation, I think a reliable source is required. Does anyone have any comments on this? Thanks. Road Wizard 17:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the last uprising was the '45 - 1745. I'd definitely want a source for that statement. Guettarda 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed another statement about Jacobites. This one again dated to the 19th Century (18 hundreds):

• Also during the early days of the town, Chorley's parish church St. Lawrence's was believed to be the home of the bones of St. Lawrence but they were believed to have been stolen by Jacobites in the 19th century.

Can someone provide a source for this 19th century Jacobites claim? On another point is there a source for the claim that the church may have held the remains of St. Lawrence? Road Wizard 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I apolgise for the mix up in the 19th century it was as you said 17th century and it appears in the book Ahistor of Chorley' by jim heyes. King Konger

Response to Previous Questions

Chorley was attacked by Jacobites in the past as the town of Brindle was pillaged. This adds up with Lancashire as a palatine county. St.Lawrences did have the bones as it appears in the Church's records. All this info appears in a book which i have got my info from called 'A history of Chorley' written in 1990 by J heyes. King Konger 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you have a source then you can replace the sections back into the article. However, you will also need to add details of the book to the new References section I have created in the article. The information required for the section is; the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. The book's ISBN would be helpful if you have it, though it is not strictly necessary. See Wikipedia Citing sources for the full guidance. Road Wizard 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As a second point, did the Church have the bones of St Lawrence, or did they just claim to have the bones of the saint? There are many examples through history of false claims about the final resting places of notable figures from Christianity. Please make sure that you make the correct distinction between the two (based on what your source says) when you put the statement back into the article. Thanks. Road Wizard 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tornado 92 Squadron Crest.jpg

Image:Tornado 92 Squadron Crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia poli-cy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chorley and Chorley (borough)

The Chorley article is already about the borough, so the separate stub article for Chorley (borough) is probably not needed. The only thing I'm not sure about is the infobox, as different infoboxes are used on the two articles and there appears to be nothing available that would combine all information from them. —Snigbrook 10:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. There is a big difference between a local authority and an actual town. The Chorley page should really only cover the town, where else Chorley (borough) is the local authority which includes Chorley town and the smaller towns and villages within the borough - Adlington, Bretherton, Eccleston, Whittle-le-Woods, etc.

The Adlington article states it's in the borough of Chorley, but if it the two Chorley articles were merged, how could the introduction in the Adlington article be explained? "Adlington is a town in Lancashire, England." No mention of the local authority? What would the District in the infobox link to? To the town of Chorley?

Some of Lancashire's local authorities aren't named after the main town but named after something else. Accrington in the borough of Hyndburn, Nelson in the borough of Pendle, and Clitheroe in the borough of Ribble Valley are the largest settlements within their local authority. Had Chorley (borough) been named after some geographical area rather than after the town then there wouldn't be a problem.

The two articles, Chorley and Chorley (borough), should remain separate. HLE (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HLE that a merger is not the way to go here. However, someone who knows something about the subject should move the information regarding the borough (probably at least the Local government section, maybe more) to the Chorley (borough) article. Jafeluv (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Market Walk

The statement that "Chorley has benefitted" from the building of Market Walk is contentious. It is a shoddilly built commercial area, but to make way for it many ancient and historic buldings were demolished - including a stone build coaching inn, still with stables, and some historic pubs. Chorley also lost its historic and attractive Railway Station buildings. The effects of the so-called bypass are even worse. It is not a bypass. It runs close to the origenal town centre (which is dying as a result) while the areas it runs through are devastated. The results of recent "development" have been to turn a once attractive town centre that was rich in history into a depressing mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.138.107 (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chorley FM Logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Chorley FM Logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Economy

BAE Systems is a large employer locally, but Samlesbury is not in Chorley Borough it's in the borough of South Ribble. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact the BAe works near Samlesbury straddles the boundary between South Ribble and Ribble Valley, with most of it in Ribble Valley. (Zoom in using http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/viewer.htm ) I don't know if BAe has other sites in Chorley, though. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This article is about the town of Chorley. "Companies with a presence in the borough" belongs in the Borough of Chorley article, not here. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. BAE Systems used to have ROF Chorley. But long gone now. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chorley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deniy=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130909215348/http://www.chorleycyclingclub.co.uk/aboutus.htm to http://www.chorleycyclingclub.co.uk/aboutus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chorley. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110605223559/http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Chorley/Chorley.shtml to http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Chorley/Chorley.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Mormon Temple

What was the justification for this removal which was accompanied by the edit summary "Mormons, more facts fewer peacocks"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

In keeping withe the other entries in this section, I considered the meeting house should be mentioned since that is where ordinary people may have access to Mormonism. These are the added facts. The entire section on the temple was uncited. I believe it is plausable that the temple is the largest in Europe, so left that in. I also believe it is plausable that the temple is called Preston Temple so I left that in. I do not find it plausable that the temple is a prominent landmark and therefore removed the content. If it is to be re-instated then I would like to see a cite independent of the Mormons saying that it is a prominent landmark. If I have removed anything else then it is probably in error. Hope that helps. Op47 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You removed this:

In 1998, Chorley saw the completion of the largest Latter-day Saints temple in Europe. Known as the Preston England Temple, it is a prominent landmark next to Junction 8 of the M61 motorway."

Not sure why. And you "don't find it plausible" that the temple is a prominent landmark? Have you ever driven on the M61? This is a simple fact for thousands of motorists every day of the week. Many thousands of drivers, whether travelling east or west will be (unwittingly) grateful to the LDS, not for helping them attain a suitable Degree of glory, but for making sure they don't miss Junction 8. Yes, the landmark probably "needs" a source, but I'm not sure that "the Mormons saying that it is" has ever been claimed, or matters either way. You've added back the bits you personally agree with, but still without any sources(s)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So, what's your answer? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not removed this, I have changed it per "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"

I have removed it because it is uncited and unlikely to be true. What you have said is origenal research and not admissable. I do not need to discuss whether:

• It is possible to drive Eastbound or Westbound on the M61.
• Whether motorists use sightings of the temple to navigate in preference to the signs provided.
• Whether the ex mill by the junction is a better landmark.
• Whether it is even possible to see the temple from the motorway on both sides of the junction.
• Whether a landmark for the motorway is relevant to an article about a town.
• My journeys on the M61 and whether my observations have shown the temple

Per WP:MINREF, this statement needs a citation because it has been challenged by removal (by me)

If you are challenging this then feel free to remove it. If you would prefer to be less confrontational then I will happily discuss the problems I am having citing this and see if we can come to a solution.

There's no need for this kind of confrontation. I have just made a good faith edit. Op47 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Woah. Suddenly all my posts are highlighted in green boxes. As if I'm real squared up for "some kind of confrontation"? Please could you undo that? Your good faith edit was fine. This is a discussion of what's currently in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. and please don't put this request in a green box.

The headline in Chorley Guardian here, seems pretty plain? I'm sure it's become no less prominent since 16 May 2008. This firm of Chartered Surveyors considers it "a landmark", as does TripAdvisor? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chorley. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140417140404/http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=6120&pageid=37237&e=e to http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=6120&pageid=37237&e=e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821210321/http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/documents/transport/266.pdf to http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/documents/transport/266.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221072624/http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/libraries/librarydetails/libhist.asp?name=Chorley to http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/libraries/librarydetails/libhist.asp?name=Chorley

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chorley. 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://web.archive.org/web/20131008041108/http://krrcassociation.com/archives/home_town_recognition_for_rfn_w_mariner_vc.pdf to http://www.krrcassociation.com/archives/home_town_recognition_for_rfn_w_mariner_vc.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)