 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
disagreement about a mention of Gisburn Forest edit
There were a couple of reverts, so to avoid misunderstandings let's discuss.
- User:Mhockey deleted a sentence about Gisburn Forest, with the edit comment "material on Gisburn Forest moved to Tosside": [1].
- I reverted saying "no need to remove it from here though?"
- My reversion was reversed with a new explanation for the removal: "Gisburn Forest is not in, or adjacent to, Gisburn - it's about 4 miles away"
- I reverted again (perhaps I should have already started discussion here, but I still presumed this was just a basic misunderstanding) "4 miles is fairly adjacent and it is within historical Gisburn which is also a subject of this article, at least in passing?"
- On my talk page, Mhockey has raised this sequence of edits, answering only the first point about being adjacent, pointing out that there is a modern civil parish between Gisburn and Gisburn Forest.
To explain my concern: the article is about Gisburn, and covers this area both in its modern senses and in older senses. The modern civil parish of Gisburn historically covered not only Gisburn Forest, but also the parish between Gisburn Forest and Gisburn. The boundaries of this older parish largely correspond to the modern ward of Gisburn. A
In terms of WP policies see for example WP:SPLIT. The subject does not seem being enough to justify splitting the article into many articles, one for the modern civil parish, one for the ancient parish, and so on? Therefore it seems reasonable to leave at least basic information about the smaller parishes where it fits? Indeed Gisburn Forest is mentioned in other places in the article, where it seems to cause no concern.
Possibly the specific sentence removed was just going one step too far, but if so let's get that rationale on record. The rationales in the edit summaries did not explain it this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Andrew Lancaster Although I don't have strong feelings about it, I'm afraid I'm on Mhockey's side of this one. While it is appropriate to mention Gisburn Forest here, I feel that the population info was included because this is where the redirect then pointed. I would welcome more info in this article about the relationship between the two places. Was Gisburn Forest a hunting preserve attached to a lordship I wonder, like Bowland and Blackburn (Pendle, Rossendale, Trawden)? Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was actually wondering if that was the argument against the removed text. What you are saying about population figures makes sense. I would say that concerning the population figures we can include all or none of the other Gisburn parishes apart from modern Gisburn. Does that agree with what you are saying? One reason for posting here was that the edit summaries did not explain it this way. Concerning the history of the place, I understand it was, as I think you are suggesting, "legally" a "forest" in the medieval sense of the term, but belonging to the ancient parish of Gisburn.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- From Visions of Britain: "In 1870-72, John Marius Wilson's Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales described Gisburn Forest like this:
- GISBURN-FOREST, a township in Gisburn parish, W. R. Yorkshire; 8 miles S of Settle. It contains the hamlets of Haughton-Chapel and Owlshaw. Acres, 4, 756. Real property, £2, 491. Pop., 301. Houses, 62. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/12720
- Ancient Gisburn boundaries: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/12720
- Gisburn Forest in isolation: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10427990/boundary
- From Visions of Britain: "In 1870-72, John Marius Wilson's Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales described Gisburn Forest like this:
- Perhaps the Gisburn Forest population could be replaced with a figure for the ward?
- And although it is old, this looks promising on the history side:
- I'll try to find time to put a little work into the article soon.Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Guy of Gisbourne edit
The Guy of Gisbourne page links to Gisburn but apparently the (fictional) Guy in the ballad is from some other location. Should I break the link? Gilgamesh4 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)