Talk:Mill town

Early comments

I just created a new category, Category:Early American Industrial Centers, which has a lot of overlap in idea with this article. Any ideas on what to do here?

Thanks, CSZero 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can point out some information in this topic is definately wrong. Wigan was 'primarily' a mill town. There was no mining, of significance, took place in Wigan. There are towns nearby to Wigan which were mining towns, namely Pemberton, Abram, Leigh, Ashton in Makerfield, Haydock, Golborne, etc. etc. etc. but not Wigan, it was predominantly a Mill Town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Wigan as a mining town as per above after looking at the town page.

Is the banner about quality standards still necessary? Please let me know what else I might be able to do to help this page.Peter 04:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct. If you look at the figures for employment in Wigan in 1921, 1931 and 1951, you can see that more Wigan residents were employed in coal-mining than in textiles. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_theme_page.jsp?u_id=10109206&c_id=10001043&data_theme=T_IND I wrote the sentence originally; the aim is so that readers remember that there was a difference between towns that had nothing but textiles, such as Todmorden or Heckmondwike, and towns that had other industries as well, such as Wigan or Ossett. Epa101 (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Can anyone think of a way to correct this misnamed article. I have many objections- first it is not prose but a series of lists - a link farm. There are no citations- it is mainly unsourced so cannot be verified. The text is trite padding. Even the definition is not sourced. Notability is not established. It seems that any village that once had a mill is getting listed. Accuracy is disputed. I will correct one reference and listen to suggestions. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)b

List them Right

As places such as Greater Manchester,Cumbria and Merseyside didnt exist during The Industrial revolution,i think its only right that Towns that were once Mill towns such as Bolton,Bury,Rochdale and Oldham and even salford and manchester should be mentioned as being Lancashire Mill towns instead of Greater Manchester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Add this to my list of multiple issues. Wikipedia does modern counties even if I agree with you. Stockport is in Cheshire, as is Reddish. The table needs proper formating. Manchester was not a mill town as such- a mill tpown by British definition is one where the majority of the population worked in the mill- not a town possessing a mill. Many of the towns listed were textile centres but weaving towns using outworkers. I would revert and steer clear.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dark satanic mills

William Blake AFAIK never visited a mill town - the line 'Dark Satanic Mills' refers to Lambeth, not Lancashire. redpaul1 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Spinning vs weaving towns

It's worth pointing out that not all textile mill towns are engaged in the same activities: the mill towns in the outer ring round Manchester - Burnley, Blackburn, Accrington etc, specialised in cotton weaving; while the towns in the inner ring, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, specialised in cotton spinning. redpaul1 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New England not on focus

I have taken down this text, as it seems to be a eulogy for New England rather than explaining the concept of one-company towns. I don't want to be discouraging- the material is fine but it is just not in the right place. Please carry on the discussion here- but get yourself a wikiname so we talk on your talk page.

"In the nineteenth century, saws and axes made in New England cleared the forests of Ohio; New England ploughs broke the prairie sod, New England scales weighed wheat and meat in Texas; New England serge clothed businessmen in San Francisco; New England cutlery skinned hides to be tanned in Milwaukee and sliced apples to be dried in Missouri; New England whale oil lit lamps across the continent; New England blankets warmed children by night and New England textbooks preached at them by day; New England guns armed the troops; and New England dies, lathes, looms, forges, presses and screwdrivers outfitted factories far and wide." - Jane Jacobs, The Economy of Cities, 1969

thumb|right|Peabody, Massachusetts was known as Tanner City, and to this day in 2016 the logo of a bull, representing the past of this mill town and being the tanning capital of North America, along with neighoring seaside town of Beverly

Peabody, Massachusetts was one of the biggest players in the tanning of leather with Lynn, Massachusetts next door, a booming mill town circa 1900. Lynn moved to high tech with the General Electric Lynn Aviation Plant.[1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Glossop

Before any editors take issue with my removal that's because Glossop has never despite being on the border Lancashire and having mills. Has never been a Lancashire town how that's gone unnoticed for years is beyond me. It clearly states Lancashire towns. So how can Glossop be in that same table? Derbyshire isn't part of historic Lancashire. So I've removed it. If you have an issue with it please happily discuss it here DragonofBatley (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This was raised at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Accuracy_of_the_mill_town_article, where it was pointed out that the table had originally referred to "major mill towns", with no mention of Lancashire. This is how the table was added to the article in 2010. There was no explanation given when the title was changed in 2014 by J3Mrs to an inaccurate title.

Since the above-mentioned teahouse discussion, Stockport has also been removed from the table on the grounds of never having been in Lancashire.

I have reverted the table to the version including Glossop and Stockport, and reinstated its original title.

There is another problem with this article: there is a large unsourced list of "mill towns". More in a future edit. PamD 07:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

UK mill towns

This section includes a large untitled, unsourced, list of "mill towns", divided up by current local authority. It is not clear what criteria have been used to create this list, which includes Skipton (in Domesday book, castle 1090, now described in its lead as "market town and civl parish"). Manchester is listed, Leeds is not. I have a feeling that this list may be being used as the source for the addition of "is a mill town" to the leads of some articles - or perhaps alternatively the list was created by searching for the term in articles - or two sets of unsourced content are reinforcing each other. I am not sure that this list is a useful element of the article.

The first addition of an unsourced list of Lancashire mill towns was in 2005. At that point it included a link to Lancashire Mill Towns, now redirect, which was a short stub. (The editor who added them hasn't edited since 2013.)

I see that ClemRutter raised similar concerns 10 years ago, but the unsourced list remains.

Any thoughts? PamD 07:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks dubious to me. I don't believe that there is anywhere today that can be described (in the present tense) as a mill town: the example of Skipton is particularly egregious. Yes, there are certainly places that were founded as mill towns (see Derwent Valley Mills) but there must be very few. Specifically regarding the list, it is wp:OR and maybe wp:SYNTH unless every entry in it is properly cited. Looks like wp:advocacy to me, same problem as the interminable historic counties debate. My vote is to delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, there's even a picture of Belper but somehow it doesn't make the list! Definitely dubious. I agree the list should be deleted. The "spindleage" table beneath should go too - it's specific to Greater Manchester and doesn't add anything of great meaning to the article. If it's well enough sourced that kind of data could go onto Wikidata instead.

The prose in that section of the article might be worth keeping and improving upon but the two tables should go. WaggersTALK 13:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The spindleage table does give a striking historical picture of the main cotton mill towns ... but I have a nasty feeling it's might be Copyvio anyway. Unfortunateley ClemRutter, who added the table to the article in 2010, can't come here to discuss, having had problems over ... Copyvio. PamD 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It only gives a picture of some of the mill towns - those in and around Greater Manchester. I'd therefore suggest it should be moved to Greater Manchester or a similar article unless similar figures can be obtained for all mill towns - and of course the point here is that there isn't even a definitive list of those. WaggersTALK 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Zlin

Whatever part of the definition is keeping Bataville off the list should be amended or asterisked to add it on. Not all factory towns need to be satanic. — LlywelynII 13:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• LlywelynII, I don't know what is keeping it off the list, if anything is: please add Batadorp and Svit. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)