Jump to content

Talk:Disley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Assessment Report

  1. Article needs to be massively expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
  2. It should make use of sections, using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
  3. Infobox to be added (use Template:Infobox UK place.)
  4. Photos need to be added.
  5. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disley, Newtown and Lyme Handley

Why properly 'Disley, Newtown and Lyme Handley'? Lyme Handley is a separate parish. Most of Newtown is in the Parish of Disley (though part is in the Town of New Mills, including the village's railway station.Skinsmoke 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem right to me either: doesn't agree with any sources I can find. It was added on 17 January 2005 and just never got challenged before. I'd be inclined to take it out, or at least add the fact tag Lozleader 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. The amendment has been made! Skinsmoke 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Lyme Handley a 'ward' of Disley or something? we certainly vote with them in local elections

Lyme Handley is a separate civil parish to Disley. The fact that you are in aq same ward as Lyme Handley is not any kind of indication to the contrary unless you know that it is in the same ward for elections to a parish council. The reason for this is that electoral wards for borough council elections need pay no attention to boundaries between civil parishes, and parts of separate civil parishes, or even two or more entire civil parishes are often included or "lumped together" into the same borough councul electoral ward. The same thing happens with county council wards. these wards need not pay any attention to the wards for borough council elections, nor to parish council boundaries. For this reason, I've also removed the information about Lyme Park, etc from this article, as it is in a different civil parish.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme Park

Why has the information about Lyme Park been removed from this article, i take your point about it being in a different civil parish, but it is still within Disley isn't it? It at least has a lot to do with the history of the village and is probably the only reason most people would ever want to visit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.18.90 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the question. The village of Disley is in the civil parish of Disley. In this sense, the limits of the village are defined largely by the civil parish in which it is placed, unless it is in a strange situation (like Mow Cop, or Wheelock Heath, for example, where they are both clearly split between different civil parishes. Lyme Park is in the civil parish of Lyme Handley. It is nearby, but it is not "in" Disley.
If, however, you feel it would a good thing to add Lyme Park back in as somewhere near to Disley, making clear that it is in a different civil parish and perhaps adding the comment you made about it being a "notable" nearby feature, then please feel free to do so.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added back information about Lyme Park. I hope it will suffice, but please improve upon it if you feel I have omitted any crucial information. The main article about Lyme Park could also probably benefit from being expanded if anyone feels able to do this.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disley. 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|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disley. 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}}).

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) 22:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disley. 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: 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) 17:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disley&oldid=1206982700"