Jump to content

Talk:Blackburn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBlackburn was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 8, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

News

[edit]

NEW WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT LANCASHIRE A new WikiProject about Lancashire has just opened. We are a WikiProject dedicated to improving and expanding Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Lancashire, England. We cover the city of Preston and the boroughs of Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, the Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire, and Wyre., as well as all articles relevant and important to the areas, such as Blackpool Airport.

If you plan to be active in editing the articles above, or articles related to them, please add your name to the participants on the WikiProject. We discuss the project on our talk page and you are most welcome to join in the discussion there.

Follow this link to the WikiProject Lancashire page and get editing. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link: WikiProject Lancashire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Fox

[edit]

Bill Fox, chairman of Blackburn Rovers and president of the Football League from 1998 until his death in 1991, was born in Blackburn on 6 January 1928.

apparently became president of the football league 7 years after he died, think this may need checking out!!!

Looks like a typo... maybe it should have read "president of the Football League from 1988", but I don't have a source to check the correct date. Anyone? - Motor (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Rovers heading

[edit]

Quite amazing how Blackburn Rovers gets a top-level heading, should replace with 'Sport.' Skinnyweed 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really amazing. The town is justly famous for its old and relatively successful football team, high achievers for a town of its size. Incidentally, I see that Cricket is singled out from other sport. Poshseagull (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

The history section is disgusting, it's simply some copy and pasted unreadable nonsense. Needs to change. Skinnyweed 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to get something down here. Pretty garbled at the moment and I'm only up to the medieval period, but am gathering sources to add some more information.Theelf29 14:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous Blackburnians" cite tags

[edit]

There's too many, I think it's pointless to have a cite after every mention. Skinnyweed 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases of Blackburn

[edit]

I've got an exam coming up in Blackburn in a bit. Is the area known for particular rare diseases I should famiarise myself with before examining its inhabitants? JFW | T@lk 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it's the same as anywhere else... JFW | T@lk 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed

[edit]

This will fail a GA nomination. removed until improved. TreveXtalk 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Areas

[edit]

Blackburn consists of a number of areas:

  • Audley
  • Bank Hey
  • Bank Top
  • Bastwell
  • Beardwood
  • Billinge
  • Brookhouse
  • Brownhill
  • Cherry Tree
  • Ewood
  • Feniscliffe
  • Feniscowles
  • Fernhurst
  • Griffin
  • Higher Croft
  • Knuzden
  • Lammack
  • Little Harwood
  • Livesey
  • Mellor
  • Mill Hill
  • Nova Scotia
  • Pleckgate
  • Queen's Park
  • Redlam
  • Revidge
  • Roe Lee
  • Shadsworth
  • Shear Brow
  • Sunnybower
  • Wensley Fold
  • Whitebirk
  • Witton

GA review

[edit]

Hello, just a note that I will be reviewing this article within the next 24 hours. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read through Blackburn and found it to be of mixed quality, i.e. some very strong but also very weak sections.. What's glaring to me is the lack of material on Blackburn's industrial heritage, which I'm really surprised about. The images are fairly good, and the article is thorough in parts. The weakest parts are the lead, lack of industrial history and culture/sports. The Governance section is strong, but perhaps too "recent" and overbares the article. Although there are many barriers to GA at the moment (too many to list extensively) I've set some challenges below to help Blackburn along.
Here's how it looks against the Wikipedia:Good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Somewhat. No glaring spelling or grammar errors, but some "stubby" one-sentence paragraphs.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail. Several unsourced statements/paragraphs.
3. Broad in coverage?: Broad(-ish), but by no means thorough.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass
6. Images?: Pass
Here's how it looks against the major elements of WP:UKCITIES:
7 Lead: The lead is weak and thin. I would've expected at least 3 paragraphs on such a major town (you have upto four to play with). I suppose a comparable lead to look at would be that of Oldham, a town which not only shares a simillar kind of historical experience, but has a featured article here on Wikipedia. Simillarly, "Local Authority" should be decapitalised.
8 Infobox: I'd like to see a "static image" in the infobox, preferably a townscape (see Runcorn, or Barnsley). Other fields could be filled in, like the distance to London, and the population density (see Template:Infobox UK place/doc/England).
9 History: John Bartholomew's description does not relate to Toponymy. The first paragraph in Prehistory is unsourced. Under Medieval Blackburn, define "traditional". The History section tails off in the Middle ages. Where's the industrial history?
10 Governance: I'd rename the section per WP:UKCITIES. This is a strong section, but perhaps too detailed and sprawling. The Local government part has too "recentism" and almost wholly pertains to the Blackburn with Darwen area, not Blackburn specifically (perhaps move it there?). I think the "Far right" material might be better served from a historical perspective, and go under History - that way one can explain historical migration. The "Straw/Rice" section is almost entirely unsourced; although this is notable, it doesn't tell me a great deal about Blackburn, and I'd consider a rethink. Coat of arms is completely unsourced.
11: Geography: This section is of mixed quality. Units of measurement are used inconsistently here (use miles first, then km conversions); references to distances in terms of "time" (eg. Manchester is less than an hour away) have got to be converted to units of length. "industrial revolution" needs capitalising. We're also missing material on climate, divisions and suburbs and landuse and the built environment (refer to WP:UKCITIES or see Manchester/Stretford as local examples)
12: Demography: The second paragraph here is unsourced.
13: Sports: Is completely unsourced.
14: External links: This section is in breach of WP:EL. Look at Manchester (a major city), which limits these to a minimum. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory.
I hope this helps. I would like regular editors of this article to take a look at some of WP:GM's work (namely Oldham, Manchester, Stretford, Altrincham, Shaw and Crompton) which share a simillar historical experience with Blackburn and I think could inspire some sections here. I'm going to place this article on hold for one week to see how the article develops against this review. If there are any queries/concerns, please feel free to contact me. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks for this. Quite a lot to be getting on with :-) 86.1.249.35 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jza85. I would like to add my thanks to those already offered for the work you've done here. I've begun to address the lack of industrial history in the article. I've only cited two sources so far and I'm currently looking for more to broaden the range of reference material. I may also have some new, original photos (I'll be taking them myself) later today, including a townscape for the infobox. Beejaypii (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a picture of the town hall to the infobox. I think a townscape would be better but visibility was not good enough over the distance required for such a photo today. Beejaypii (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the units of measure consistently imperial with metric conversions. I've also removed some external links to sites primarily advertising or offering products and services. I also removed an external link to a discussion forum. Beejaypii (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! It's been one week, and, as promised, I'm back to review the progress of the article. :)
I'm really pleased with the progress made so far (and give my greetings to Beejaypii!). The lead is now much more befitting to the article, and the infobox has been utilised to its potential with the "advanced" features of the template. As stated, a townscape would be great (like something Huddersfield has perhaps?), but the current photo is quite satisfactory to my tastes and sensibilities. This all said, infobox and lead are a GA pass.
I think the next step would be to "trim" the Governance section. Salford has quite a strong example of this section, which explains how the place is (and importantly, was) governed. Alot of the existing material in that section is good, but perhaps better served in the History section (under a new subsection entitled Political history, Migration, or Social history?), or at the Blackburn with Darwen article.
Still alot of outstanding issues at the moment, but as there has been much progress, I'm happy to keep the article on hold for another week. If I can be of any assistance in the meantime, feel free to give me a nudge on my talk page. Happy editting for now, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the information about the visit of Condoleeza Rice. I agree that it does not tell the reader much about Blackburn. I also think it's really just a recent news item with no real long-term significance to the town. Beejaypii (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some reorganisational work and trimmed the Governance section. See new talk section. Beejaypii (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close... for now?

[edit]

Hi, it's been two weeks and, although there's be huge progress, I think it's only right that we close the GA candidature as a fail for now. At the current pace of change, I envisage that it will take at least another three-to-four weeks to start meeting the GA criteria in full. What do you guys say though? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84. I agreed with you: the article probably isn't going to come close to meeting GA criteria soon. However, I for one will be continuing to work on it. Perhaps we can subject it to the GA review process in another month or two? Beejaypii (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. In the absence of a Lancashire WikiProject, feel free to give us a nudge at WP:GM or even WP:UKGEO. Best of luck in the meantime, and keep me in the loop of any big changes, please. :D --Jza84 |  Talk  22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start the GA process again?

[edit]

Hi, I would like this article to become GA as it was very close a year ago. So I am going to nominate this article for Peer Reveiw. You can see the process |here. By processing this article with peer review we can see what changes this article needs to be done to become GA.

There is a WikiProject devoted to Lancashire articles since September 2009. Click here for it.

Survey

[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Not especially. Beejaypii (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Adding these comments from Beejaypii's talk page in response to a question: "What I really meant was that I'm pretty confident when it comes to things like grammar, vocabulary, paragraph structure and general writing style. These are aspects of Wikipedia editing which I feel I don't really need much help with. On the other hand, I find the kinds of recommendations made by Jza84 as part of the GA review for the Blackburn article very useful. Beejaypii (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]

  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
I don't write a lot outside of Wikipedia. Beejaypii (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
Not consciously. Beejaypii (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Town hall extension"

[edit]

This may have been the official name for the the borough's tower block offices in the 1970s. This is now referred to as the "new town hall".[1][2] The term "town hall extension" does not appear once on Blackburn with Darwen's website.[3] Furthermore, the angle of the photo makes the tower appear as it may be a physical extension of the 19th century town hall. This is not the case and this impression should not be reinforced by the caption. For this reason, I am reverting TreveXtalk 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TreveX, please note the following:
"...Lord Rhodes officially opened the new Town Hall Tower Block extensions..." (20th Century Blackburn, Andrew Taylor, 2000, p.102"
"Blackburn's £650,000 town hall extension..." (Blackburn: Official Handbook, Ed. J. Burrown and Co. Ltd., 1970, p. 16"
"...the town hall extension has been re-clad." (Blackburn: A History by Derek Beattie, Derek Beattie, 2007, p. 337)
However, I can see your point. I would prefer to retain the word extension but its presence in my version of the caption was perhaps mis-leading in the way you describe, especially to those unfamiliar with the buildings in question. Nevertheless, I do think the tower block is an extension (to the town hall complex if you will) rather than a counterpart. I think the phrase "1960s counterpart" doesn't tell us whether the original is still in use as a town hall or not, whereas the word extension does. Perhaps "The italianate 19th century town hall and the reclad 1960s tower block extension (the two are linked by an enclosed footbridge)", or something similar, would be a good compromise. What do you think? Beejaypii (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about "The italianate 19th century town hall and its 1960s tower block extension are linked by an enclosed footbridge"? How about a 'civic buildings' section where we can go into detail - we could link directly to it from the caption? TreveXtalk
I'm not too concerned about the caption at the moment. I think it's acceptable as it is.
However, I've acted on some ideas that your suggestion of a civic buildings section inspired. Rather than adding a civic buildings section I've re-organised the Landmarks section so that significant buildings can have their own sub heading. I decided to do this after looking at the Oldham article to see how the section is arranged there. If we get a townscape photo for the info box we will now be able to move the town hall image from the info box to the newly-created Town hall subsection of the Landmarks section.
I retained almost all the info in the Landmarks section by moving some of it into an Other landmarks sub section. My thinking is that significant buildings which are currently briefly mentioned under Other landmarks can be given their own subsection if and when enough relevant info has been sourced. What do you think? Beejaypii (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governance and politics

[edit]

I've taken much of the material out of the Governance section and put it in a new section: Politics. Hopefully, the Governance section is now much more compliant with the relevant guidelines in wp:ukcities. I think the material I've moved into the new Politics section still suffers from too much "recentism" (as Jza85 remarked in his suggestions per the GA review). However, my main aim with this edit was to improve the Governance section. Beejaypii (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some of that material to Blackburn with Darwen or the Blackburn (UK Parliament constituency) articles, as it didn't pertain to Blackburn proper as such. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

[edit]

I've made a few changes to the demography section. Instead of using the census figures for Blackburn with Darwen, I've sourced the figures for Blackburn as a parliamentary constituency. These figures seem to relate more specifically to the town itself and are, I think, more appropriate. I've decided to remove the small amount of info on health and households as these subjects are not amongst those recommended for inclusion in this type of article at wp:UKCITIES. I've also had to reduce the size of the satellite image for the time being because the section has reduced in size. Hopefully, the whole section is now properly sourced, resolving one of the problems highlighted in the GA review. Beejaypii (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tackled the issue on Oldham's demography section by citing the wards as a combination. Yes it took an incredible amount of time to total up, but I feel it was worth it. Re the photographs, if a Transport section was created, the Railway station flick could be moved there. I think the coal mining flick could move to Economy or History thereby freeing up space for the satalite image to move to the Geography section. Just my thoughts. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

As part of the ongoing attempt to bring the article up to good article standard, I've removed most of the external links, leaving only the Blackburn Council, cottontown.org, and Lancashire Telegraph ones intact. I've also consistently formatted these remaining links and edited the descriptions. I think the section now complies with the recommendations given at the wp:UKCITIES and wp:External links articles. Hopefully, this is another step taken towards good article status. Beejaypii (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good call to me. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for improvement

[edit]

This article is generally excellent I think, and very close to the GA standard now. I have a few suggestions as to a little bit of work that I think ought to be done before its next nomination:

  • There a few places in the article saying things like "... the town centre in particular has seen significant investment and redevelopment in the past 15 years" and "Over £25 million is currently being invested ...". the problem is that there is no date context for statements like that. What does currently mean? Now, or when the article was written, whenever that was? The past 15 years beginning when?
  • "Those familiar with the work of the The Beatles may recognise Blackburn ...". This is just a bit too informal for an encyclopedia article I think. Best to avoid any reference to the personal voice.
  • The Cultural references section is really too short for a standalone section, and may be criticised as being a (deprecated) Trivia section in disguise in its present form.
  • "When Saint Mary's was consecrated, in 1826, it is believed a church had already stood on the site for several hundred years." That sentence just doesn't make sense to me.
  • The way the citations are being done means that the book details are being repeated over and over again, unnecessarily. I've reformatted ref nos. 22, 23 & 25 to give an example of how to avoid that.
  • I'm no expert on Blackburn, but I was surprised to find almost no mention of coal mining in this article. Was it never a significant industry or employer in the area?
  • Make sure that dates are being formatted consistently; at the moment some are formatted with commas, as in [[April 21]], [[2008]], and some aren't, as in [[April 21]] [[2008]]. You don't see this when you're logged in, because the autoformatting feature takes care of it, but non-logged in users will see the inconsistency. Best to remove the comma from all dates.
  • IMDb is generally considered to be an unreliable source, so if you can find something better ...
  • The link in ref #50 has gone dead.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the link for #50 (the page was moved to the archive section of the site) and made a correction based on that and the BBC News page I have added as a source. Some sources say 19 years of Labour control; others say 24 and I'm not sure what the cause of this was: maybe they ruled without a majority. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tackled the date autoformatting inconsistencies. Beejaypii (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the style of many of the references in order to avoid repetition of book details, as per the advice above. Beejaypii (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased the bit about St Mary's parish church. Hopefully I've improved it. Beejaypii (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tackled the informality of the Beatles bit. Beejaypii (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys/gals have done a fantastic job with this article; I suggest that you nominate it at WP:GAN right now. I'll watch over it, and help where I can as well. Let's get you that well-deserved green dot for a job well done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd still personally like to see a layout which is a little more tightly aligned to WP:UKCITIES, but other than that this is a great article. Well done! I say go for it!... don't forget to drop WP:ENGLAND, WP:CITIES and WP:UKGEO a nudge about this nomination. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Review comments can be found here: Talk:Blackburn/GA1 -epicAdam (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]

Since when have Rishton and Great Harwood been "even smaller localities" than Wilpshire and Langho? There must be a better way to express the opinion that some inhabitants of the two Hyndburn towns seem to look to Blackburn for their identity. Maybe introducing a note that they are not post towns in their own right, nor are they covered by Accrington would do it? DavidFRAS (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it slightly (and removed "even smaller localities"), it still needs a reference for the claim that they are suburbs – just the fact that Blackburn is the post town for Rishton and Great Harwood is not enough. The geography section looks like it needs expanding, and probably needs a subsection about the districts/suburbs of Blackburn. —Snigbrook 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutton's Brewery

[edit]

Does anyone have any information on the town's old brewery? I've mentioned it in the article on Bloomfield Road (specifically regarding this image, which features the brewery's slogan). Information is welcomed. - Dudesleeper / Talk 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First record of blackburn

[edit]

"The name of the town first appears as Blacheborne, in the Domesday Book compiled from a survey completed in 1086." - this is contradicted in a later section discussing the origins of christianity in Blackburn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.157 (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A music section

[edit]

I think we should have a music section. It could include... All Over The World record label(AATW) which specialises in house/dance music and has artists like Cascada, Scooter, N-Dubz and Ultrabeat signed to it.AATW also do all the Clubland albums and launched Clubland TV in 2008. Diana Vickers from x-factor is also from Blackburn and has an album out in 2010.

Post peer review

[edit]

Following the peer review here, I've done a bit of work along the lines suggested, in particular merging short paragraphs. I've also added a number of non-breaking spaces - and added some citation-needed tags (not much chance of GA until we get more citations). I think we need more citations in the Notable people section too. There's still plenty of work to be done IMO, but it's going in the right direction. In the Geography section text is sandwiched between an aerial photo and a chart, against MoS advice; I do not think the photo adds anything to the article and would recommend deleting it. Also needed is consistency of the formatting of dates in the refs - some are (eg) 9 November 2009, others are 2009-11-9; choose one or the other. In my experience Geography articles are difficult to do to the satisfaction of reviewers, but this is well on the way. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Manchester

[edit]

This type of edit is not infrequent. I would like to have confidence in restoring the article to an accurate version. Are there any citations floating around that confirm this distance? Orphan Wiki 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best reference I could find was from the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which I have now added. --Deskford (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The distance of 21 miles is "as the crow flies", and I think this is what is usually used in articles. Some of the changes to 37 miles appears to have been based on Google maps, which recommends a 36.6-mile route via the M65 and M61 motorways (there are several shorter routes, and it can be reduced to 22.9 miles by using minor roads). These edits (although different distances are used, anything from 34.7 to 40 miles) all appear to be from IP addresses in 80.0 and 81.102 ranges (both NTL) so are possibly all by the same person. snigbrook (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work guys, glad to have cleared that up. :) Orphan Wiki 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Confusing Picture

[edit]

In the demography section there is a picture that supposedly shows 'Blackburn Muslims worship under supervision of Shaykh Sufi Riaz Ahmed Naqshbandi Aslami, 2007' (also how it is titled in English on the file page) but on viewing the file itself the title of the photo in Russian says: 'Gathering on the festival of Mawlid in Kerala (India).' Can anyone clear this mystery up? 81.131.190.7 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 census

[edit]

So, where is the population from 2011 census? I don't think Blackburn do not have a population any more. Though it is not the only one, for example the relatively large towns Bolton and Stockport still have the old figure. 82.141.117.146 (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blackburn. 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 07:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Blackburn. 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) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Blackburn. 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) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackburn. 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) 13:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackburn. 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) 21:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackburn. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Day in the Life

[edit]

So, how large are those 4000 holes? What is the area of the town? kencf0618 (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackburn&oldid=1206323020"