Hello, thanks for the contact. I think you raise valid questions, but I can assure you there was no malise intended. I made the edit to the Appley Bridge article for one simple reason: lack of citation. Could you find a reliable source with which to verify that Appley Bridge is divided on this basis? It is quite unusual (although not impossible) that a settlement is divided in this way, and I think some kind of attribution to a source (e.g. like Ramsbottom) would aid both our readers, and editors like myself. As I said in the edit summary, there was no evidence of a Wigan/GM connection (in the lead, prose, categorisation, or in any citation).
Re your section point about section headers, I'm probably best refering you to WP:UKTOWNS. Etymology/toponymy sub-sections are permissable, but should generally form part of an extensive history section. Hope that helps, -- Jza84 | Talk 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the contact. I think you raise valid questions, but I can assure you there was no malise intended. I made the edit to the Appley Bridge article for one simple reason: lack of citation. Could you find a reliable source with which to verify that Appley Bridge is divided on this basis? It is quite unusual (although not impossible) that a settlement is divided in this way, and I think some kind of attribution to a source (e.g. like Ramsbottom) would aid both our readers, and editors like myself. As I said in the edit summary, there was no evidence of a Wigan/GM connection (in the lead, prose, categorisation, or in any citation).
Re your section point about section headers, I'm probably best refering you to WP:UKTOWNS. Etymology/toponymy sub-sections are permissable, but should generally form part of an extensive history section. Hope that helps, -- Jza84 | Talk 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)