Jump to content

Talk:Burnley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Burnley Pano.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Burnley Pano.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 24, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley, Lancashire, England
A panoramic image showing the former mill town of Burnley in Lancashire, England. To the far top left of the image is the imposing Pendle Hill, with the Yorkshire Dales visible in the top central background. The left of the image shows the town centre and Turf Moor, home of Burnley Football Club, can be seen in the centre of the picture. To the right the areas of Brunshaw and Pike Hill can be seen. All of the town's 11–18 education facilities have recently been replaced and two of the construction sites can be seen, one behind the football stadium and the other in the foreground to the right of the image.Photo: Childzy
Archive – More featured pictures...

Different population data for 2001

[edit]

The section on demography shows two different numbers for population in 2001 - one in the table to the right, a different one in the text and the table below. Which is right? Also the link to the table below does not work. --Cafe1819 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they are both correct. The table at the bottom is the population of the town of Burnley, where as the one on the left is for the borough. As the new 2011 census data is currently being released, I'm not gonna do anything about it just yet. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley is called Burnley

[edit]

Burnley is called Burnley not Burnlee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.43.120 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burnley. 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}}).

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) 02:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Burnley. 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) 19:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Burnley. 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) 04:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

Why does the "See also" section include List of mining disasters in Lancashire, when Burnley is mentioned only twice - once for Town House Colliery (which was, in fact, at Great Marsden) and once for Hapton Valley Colliery which currently had no article? If Burnley was directly affected by a mining disaster, shouldn't the detail just be included in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hapton Valley Colliery, a mile from the town centre had a disaster in 1962. It's not my fault it isn't mentioned in the article or that there are no articles on either the pit or the Burnley coalfield. But the link is useful, these things can be added. J3Mrs (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's anyone's "fault". I'm just saying that any reader who goes to List of mining disasters in Lancashire to find more information related to Burnley will be sadly disappointed. If the 1962 disaster is relevant, as it was only a mile away, I'm sure it could be usefully added to this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that readers can visit the disasters article after reading this one. J3Mrs (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a nice article that deserves as wide an audience as possible, I'm going to link to it in the Lancashire articles also. I do see Martin's point that there isn't much directly related to Burnley. I've read some of Nadin's 'Coal Mines of East-Lancashire' and I remember that deaths on a smaller scale seemed fairly commonplace. I will see if I can borrow a copy for a while. I'm happy to make a few coal mine articles, [1] this seems a good source, but what makes a colliery notable? Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struggled writing it and it needs some more work but it's such a depressing subject and there were more many more miners killed in individual accidents than major disasters. I think most collieries are notable if refs can be found. Certainly Hapton Valley, Bank Hall and those that survived to nationalisation are worthy. I've written a few colliery articles but info isn't always easy to come by. The best is Bradford Colliery that I wrote with Eric. An article on the Burnley Coalfield could be a good place to mention those that don't have enough info for individual articles. I've linked it to all the places mentioned, I think. Jack Nadin is definitely the go to source for the Burnley area. I'll contribute where I can, I might even start some if I can get a book. J3Mrs (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Burnley. 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) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley has a population of about 70,000

[edit]

As someone has again tried to update the population figure, I thought it best to explain the issues in a little detail here rather than trying to fit it into an edit summary.

The Burnley local-government district covers the towns of Burnley and Padiham, the villages of Harle Syke, Hapton and Worsthorne, and a number of small settlements, farms and scattered dwellings in the rural areas that make up the remainder. Administratively this consists of the civil parishes of Padiham, Ightenhill, Habergham Eaves, Dunnockshaw, Hapton, Cliviger, Briercliffe, and Worsthorne-with-Hurstwood along with an unparished area covering the bulk of Burnley town. This unparished area is broadly similar to that of the pre-1974 county borough. Construction largely since WW2 has created a continuous urban area through much of the district (continuing north into neighbouring Pendle), with suburban housing estates and business parks extending into almost all of the parishes. Although we have figures for the borough and civil parishes, generating an accurate population for the town is therefore tricky.

The population figure of 73,021 that has been in the article for a long time, comes from the 2001 census, but is actually for a defined urban area of 1,582 hectares (15.820 km2). Padiham is listed separately, pop. 11,091, area 205 hectares (2.050 km2). From that census, the unparished area population can be calculated as that of the borough minus those of the parishes, giving 64,607. As an aside, the size of the drop from the county borough (1911) high of 106,765 is indicative of the economic problems the local area as faced and hopefully now overcome.

As more detail is available from the 2011 census, the area can also be calculated. That of the borough minus those of the parishes is 1,872.58 hectares (18.726 km2). This however will be different from the 2001 figure as boundary changes occurred in 2004. Using the same method, the population was 62,464.

That census also provides data for a built-up area which includes the residential parts of Burnley, Padiham, Harle Syke and parts of the surrounding parishes (also small parts of Pendle district), but not greenspaces within the unparished area such as Towneley Park or the Crow Wood complex. Those figures give a similar area of 1,894 hectares (18.940 km2) and a population of 81,548. It seems likely that the 2001 figure did not include Padiham or Harle Syke (and neighbouring Haggate). As we don't have an area for the last bit, we can't be sure. Plugging the 2010 population density into the 2001 area gives a population of 68,184, a very specific number, but again not accurate enough.

As the borough's population actually fell by 2.77% *(from 89,542 to 87,059) between 2001 and 2011, it is obviously not correct that the town's population could have increased by 11.68% at the same time. Although the 2001 figures are probably the best to use, this issue will keep coming back. I plan to largely revert the recent edits soon (while correctly explaining the built-up area data), but does anyone have any ideas?TiB chat 15:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2021 census shows 8.8% increase in population of Burnley district to 94,700.
Burnley population change, Census 2021 – ONS 2A00:23C5:2A0:C401:90BE:9031:81F1:65EE (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. Since this is now verified, go ahead and add it. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burnley&oldid=1206485228"