| Revision as of 10:34, 20 February 2008 editRicherman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,397 edits →What are we doing wrong?: some suggestions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:02, 26 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 38) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Shortcut|WT:GM}} | ||
| {| |
{| cellpadding="5" style="width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; background-color:#FCE487; padding: 0.5em; border: 2px solid #990000; -moz-border-radius:20px;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | style="width:50px;" | ] | | style="width:50px;" | ] | ||
| | <big>'''WikiProject Greater Manchester Talk Page'''</big><br />Welcome to the Talk Page of ]. Please remember to ] and to '''all users with respect'''. <small>Please only use this page to discuss the |
| <big>'''WikiProject Greater Manchester Talk Page'''</big><br />Welcome to the Talk Page of ]. Please remember to ] and to '''treat all users with respect'''. <small>Please only use this page to discuss the project, to learn more visit the ] </small><br/> | ||
| | style="width:50px;" | ] </div> | | style="width:50px;" | ] </div> | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-12-10/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =10|month=December|year=2007}} | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background-color: #f9f9f9" | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |- | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''10''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |- | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-10 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 7--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 38 | |||
| {{archives|small=yes|auto=}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives|search=yes}} | |||
| <!-- ADD ALL NEW SECTION BELOW THIS LINE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. THANKS. --> | <!-- ADD ALL NEW SECTION BELOW THIS LINE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. THANKS. --> | ||
| == |
== FAR for Trafford Park == | ||
| At Altrincham's FAC, a point was raised on where Altrincham gets its water from. | |||
| {{quote|"Why does Altrincham have to get its water from so far away (the Lake District)? Does all of Manchester get its water from such a distance or are there out-of-town reservoirs and treatment plants? Is there a deficiency in the water table or some other geological reason that relates? ... it would appear this is ripe for expansion"}} | |||
| To put it bluntly, I haven't a clue and never really thought about it. Doesn't most of Greater Manchester get water from the Lake District? Is it "interesting and unusual" as has been suggested or just water under the bridge? Any ideas (and bad or weak puns) are welcome. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So far as I know, all of Manchester's (public) water comes from the Lake District, via the ]. Local places, like Trafford Park for instance have dug acquifers though, of course. So far as "interesting and unusual" is concerned, I hadn't really thought that it was either, except insofar as the engineering feat of getting 55 million gallons of water a day from the Lake District into Manchester without any pumping stations along the way. --] (]) 02:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::As far as I know, the Oldham borough gets its water from.... Rochdale, of course! I think there's a list of reservoirs in Greater Manchester at ] - some of those articles may provide some clues. Nice section title by the way, I just got it! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps there's more here than meets the eye. Oldham appears to get its water from 5 reservoirs in the Ogden Valley, at least according to . Perhaps each of the old boroughs came to different arrangements about their water supplies? --] (]) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh! There are lots of water resources around. We have the Longendale chain of reservoirs on the Etherow. We have the Fernilee reservoir (& the other one just above it) on the Goyt, some reservoirs in Lyme Park, and a borehole at Woodford feeding . Tameside gets its water from . There are stacks more, but the biggie is the Lake District of course. The Manchester UA's water supply is easily a big enough subject for an FA or two. ] (]) 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well I know we get a large amount of our water from the lake district as I saw on ], during one of London's ever so frequent water shortages, MPs down there calling for us to send our lovely water down to the capital to solve their problems. The report did point out that it was something of an engineering feat to get so much water from the lakes down to our city and I can only begin to imagine the cost of sending down south. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It gets more and more complicated. The water from Thirlmere goes to Heaton Park Reservoir. However there's a pumping station at Heaton Park about which I've put some information on the ] article, but all the information given on the plaques on the pumping station is about the Haweswater Aqueduct - very confusing. It looks like we could do with another article on the Haweswater Aqueduct anyway. I'll take some pictures of the plaques as they give the full history. There's a map of the whole system ] (]) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| On Altrincham: I came across this while looking for something else entirely. Taylor tells us that Altrincham is built on sandstone, specifically Keuper Waterstone, and that for towns in that position, "such small supplies as they may be able to pump from the underlying rocks are frequently found to be so hard as to be undrinkable." In addition, they are often saline. Thus, Sale, Altrincham and Knutsford had to buy water in from Manchester (UU now). The salinity makes sense as Altrincham is within shouting distance of the Cheshire wiches. Perhaps enough could be created from this to satisfy the reviwer at FAC? {{cite book | title= Geology of the Country around Stockport and Knutsford | series= Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, number 58 | author= Taylor, B J|coauthors=R H Price and Frederick Murray Trotter | year= 1963 | location= London }}] (]) 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That looks like a really good find! If the FA reviewer isn't satisfied with that then I don't know what they would be satisfied with. --] (]) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::HTH. Can I leave it to you (or another of the Altrincham regulars, or indeed anyone) to weave it into the article? ] (]) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If Nev1 doesn't do it shortly, then I'll have a go and he can change it as he likes. --] (]) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For those that don't know ] passed FA at 22:39 thanks to a great collective effort from this project. Nice work guys :) ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Fantastic work! Congratulations! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Goin' up town, Uptown girl, Townies == | |||
| Hello team, | |||
| I'm afraid my puns are not as good as ]'s! I wondered how everybody thought about the latest discussion raised at ]. The issue (as if my heading hadn't established it) surrounds the defintion of a "town", and could have implications for our fifty or sixty or so articles about "towns". In this capacity, I would welcome input there if anybody gets chance. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You do seem to attract more than your fair share of ......... shall we say "pedantic people" to be polite? The lead in the article ] says it all - "A town is a community of people ranging from a few hundred to several thousands (occasionally hundreds of thousands), although it may be applied loosely even to huge metropolitan areas." As for his/her point about town councils there aren't many left these days as most places now come under metropolitan boroughs. ] (]) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Manchester's Underground:Rumours & Truth == | |||
| A new user (]) has created ]. I think that this should probably be merged to ]. Anyone else got any opinions? ] (]) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Manchester's very own conspiracy theory. My opinion is that it should be deleted rather than merged: it's almost completely unreferenced, based on hear say and the sources given are not very reliable to put it politely and I don't think there's much to salvage. The truth may be out there, but I don't think it's in the ]. ] (]) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It couldn't be merged as it is written like a story plus it is twisted. There is the Guardian Exchange and another set of tunnels built as nuclear bunkers which have been un-officially proven to be real thanks to some ], the insides are very weird and mostly preserved. Obviously as nobody official has said they are real it is still classed as speculation and don't warrant an article. The Guardian Exchange was proven to be true after it caught fire and knocked out half the phonelines even though they said it was fireproof. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cool. I think the article would be better off if it referenced the book mentioned at the end. It does have a very tabloidly feel with phrases such as "rumoured to have been funded by NATO" and "it is believed that some". ] (]) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And "What we do know is that the tunnels"... Who is we?! Looks like a copy and paste jobby. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm with And-Rew and Nev1 on this; I think it should be deleted, and aggressively so. I think it breaks pretty much every Wiki-principle going! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec) FWIW, most of the facts and figures were in the Winter 2003 issue of Manchester Forum (I don't think it's online anymore). The "golly gosh" stuff is not there, however. ] (]) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that article should be nominated for deletion. There's very little, if anything, of any value in it. --] (]) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I think you're right. I'll prod it. ] (]) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's gone. ] (]) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Another new article == | |||
| ] has appeared. Never heard of this and I cant find any references to it on the web. However, it does sound plausible as the site described does appear (from sat pics) to have a large "stone" area where a building appears to have been (. Anyone know anything of this? ] (]) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Can't say I know about it, but since it does sound plausible why don't we ask the author what sources they used? ] (]) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I use to live near there, and I remember hearing something of this. But no web/literary sources I'm afraid. ]] 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] FAC == | |||
| Hello team, | |||
| Just a note that Stretford is up as a FAC. The link for the nomination is at ]. As has been suggested before for us, try not to jump in to support this for means of getting us a trophy - it wouldn't serve us well. Instead try to find ways in which the article could be improved!... Sorry for any patronisation on my part for that note, but I have to say it just incase people misunderstand!... However, that said, let's hope we can get another success under our belt!! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a good reminder. Our aim isn't to get trophies, our aim is to produce the best articles we can about Greater Manchester. --] (]) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is coming along nicely and the basics are nearly sorted out. (I think) There's still one Grade I building in ] unaccounted for, so could anyone who knows about LBs or has an interest in Bolton's local history please take a look. Thanks. ] (]) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Discussion has been undertaken on the talk page. ]] 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Would anyone oppose an unprotection? It's seems fine as is. But seeing as it's an FA, I thought I'd ask before I do. Best, ]] 10:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I certainly won't object. I suggested a period in the wild a couple of months ago, and it was unprotected, but it was reprotected fairly shortly afterwards (less than a week IIRC). Let's go for it. ] (]) 12:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll try it now. If the vandalism gets heavy, I'll protect it again. ]] 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| Someone at IP address 82.17.212.218 has been vandalising the articles ], ] and ]. Could someone deal with it as I don't have the time at the moment. ] (]) 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's been done. ] (]) 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tell me if he comes back. ]] 12:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just thought the team might be interested in ] <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Little Lever == | |||
| I have just re-written the article on Little Lever, Bolton and it is currently in my ]. Took a little time to dig into the history and govenance but I managed to find something to expand the article. If anyone would like to take a look and add or suggest any further bits, please feel free. I will give it until next week (Jan 19th) and then replace the current article with the re-write. It would also be nice if someone could come up with a photo of the village as it is today. Phil aka ] (]) 14:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's certainly an improvement on the existing article on ]. I'd be inclined to follow the ] guideline more closely however. The "General information" section is likely to be a point of contention should the article go to ] or above. There are some images of the local churches at that might help a little. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Have changed it around to ] guidelines, thanks for the lead ] (]) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No probs! Looks great! Anybody else have any pointers for Geotek's sandbox proposal? <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Religion and education are a bit listy. I assume the information in the demography section is taken from the neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk website? If this is the case the ref should link to the site, and there may be a bit more that could be added to the section. Other than that it looks nice. ] (]) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Have been burning the midnight oil and got a pile of new stuff on the economics and demographics so will add that in. The demography stuff came from the actual census but I'll cross reference it to save confusion. I'll also edit those lists, was just trying to get something going.... still learning about editing Wiki and a lot to learn.... Also found a mass of stuff on Ladyshore Colliery so that will be my next stub expansion..... and a large phone bill back home !! Thanks to all so far ] (]) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Article now moved across ] (]) 13:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester... again == | |||
| Hello again team, | |||
| ] is up for ] status. However, there are still lots of red dead links in the article. To pass this nomination we need to create stubs or articles about these structures. Can anybody answer the call???? <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I can give you six-sentence stubs on the Edgar Wood Centre, t least one of the two Stockport churches and Dunham Massey Hall (to which the other two DM articles can be redirected). ] (]) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure there used to be an article on that. There is an image ] if it is of any use. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's a short section on Dunham Massey Hall in ], do you want a link to that or a whole new article on it? —]] 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that for now it will be sufficient to link both Dunham Massey Hall and Dunhan Massey stables to th Dunham Massey article. --] (]) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Will do —]] 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It shouldn't be too difficult to create at least reasonable stubs for the red linked churches; I've just done one for ]. --] (]) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hopefully not. I've just done one for ]. —]] 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've created one for ] - now I'm off to bed! ] (]) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Woohoo! We did it! —]] 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yep, it looked touch and go for a while, but in the end Nev1's diplomacy and perseverance finally managed to push it over the line. --] (]) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Winter Hill == | |||
| I know this is outside the remit of the project but I would like some advice. I came across an article on ] and none of the text was referenced. I put in one reference myself and then added a refimprove tag. The following day ] (an appropriate name as it seems) removed the tag leaving a note saying something to the effect of "instead of tagging why not contact the original contributors?". Am I right in thinking that this constitutes vandalism as the user has made no attempt to improve the article and removed a perfectly valid tag? I've reverted the edit but suspect I may now get into an edit war. If so, what's the next step ] (]) 13:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not ] no, because the intention isn't to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The best way to resolve this is by discussion on the article's talk page; if that doesn't work then you'll find some suggested next steps ]. FWIW, I'm not a great fan of those defacing tags either, but you're perfectly within your rights to put one on the article if you think it's justified. Keep cool, and good luck! --] (]) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're right, after a look at the ] page I'd come to the same conclusion. However, I think the tags are important in alerting a casual reader who doesn't know what wikipedia is all about to the fact that the information may not be reliable. However I suppose putting something on the discussion page is a sensible thing to do. Thanks for the advice. ] (]) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Woodhead tunnels == | |||
| An interesting page and part of a current ongoing campaign, I'm bringing http://en.wikipedia.org/Woodhead_Tunnel to the attention of peeps here. Would it deserve to be part of the manchester wikiproject? ] (]) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not certain that we've ever really established firm boundaries for this project - I'm reminded of the bot that added every football player that had ever played for Man Utd. I'm more sure about what I think the situation ought to be with geographical or engineering features like the Woodhead tunnels though, and it may even have been me who removed the GM tag. Are the tunnels within the borders of Greater Manchester? --] (]) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::As the tunnel runs from Derbyshire to South Yorkshire I would have thought that it rightfully belongs to either or both of, the Yorkshire and Derbyshire wikiprojects. The only link with us that I can see is that the tunnels were once on the Manchester to Sheffield Line. ] (]) 12:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::..and the M67, which initially was proposed to use one of the tunnels. I think you're correct though, it probably belongs in one of the aforementioned wikiprojects. I was interested to see how it would figure as a transport link between the areas. ] (]) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Naming of categories relating to the boroughs (again) == | |||
| ] appears to have brought this one up again by creating a number of "Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" categories, moving articles to these, and tagging the Wigan ones for deletion (see: ], and ] for example). Edit: As a side point, I still believe the earlier argument that categories are meta-data (and not meant for "human consumption") and thus keeping naming as simple as possible holds weight.] (]) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The last, er, formal discussion was . There was no consensus for change. Swap back? ] (]) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hopefully it's just a good faith misunderstanding on TimTay's part, and not the beginning of another long and tedious debate on this topic. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your view categories are metadata, so simple names are best. --] (]) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure it's a good faith misunderstanding on my part. Category names should reflect the topic. Wigan is a town. Metropolitan Borough of Wigan is a district. These schools and colleges are part of the district, not just the town so the longer name is more appropriate. I don't see anything in WP:MOS or elsewhere saying that category names should be short. What they should be is meaningful and "Schools in Wigan" is not meaningful for a school 8 miles away in Leigh, for example. --] (]) 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Meaningful to who? Do you not accept the metadata argument that Pit-yacker has reminded us of? --] (]) 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Explain why metadata shouldn't also have a contextually correct name? There is no extra impact on Misplaced Pages by having a few extra characters in the category name. However, there is a benefit to people who aren't wikipedia savvy in seeing correct names used i.e. WMBC instead of Wigan. If you take a look at ] you will see that is says "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories". To be able to stand alone the category must use the borough's full name. That it is a sub category of Schools in Greater Manchester shouldn't affect it. The same page also says avoid abbreviations. In this case Wigan is being used as an abbreviation of the full borough name - I'm sure everyone accepts that the purpose the category is to group school in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, not just the town of Wigan, so IMHO the full name should be used. --] (]) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because metadata isn't for human consumption, simple as that. The same point that you're making has been made many times before, and the consensus has always been to stick with the simple names. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not by one person with a bee in their bonnet going off half-cocked. --] (]) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The manual of style is the distillation of consensus reached over the life of Wikpedia. Why would you choose to override that by using more abstract names. Where does it say in the MOS that categories are metadata? As for bee in bonnet and half-cocked, I would rather that you didn't resort to such insulting language. This is meant to be discussion not mud slinging. --] (]) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ah, consensus. The subject has come up before, and there is no consensus for change (see the discussion I linked to above, for example, and there are others). There is consensus through usage, though. ] (]) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you think that was an insult then you really do need to get out more. ;-) I was making a general point about how wikipedia works, it was not targetted specifically at you. --] (]) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There's a possible link with ] here, and thus I'd urge users not to go over previous debates where a strong consensus exists. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The request for speedy renaming was declined, and the changes reversed, by ] (]). ] (]) 11:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have reverted related changes to text and cat pages by ] (] '''·''' ]) (see my , , , , ). Wait four days and we can speedy ]. ] (]) 11:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Photographs of courts == | |||
| If any GM-based photographers could take snaps of courts in their neck of the woods (Crown Courts, County Courts or magistrates courts) and add them to ], the photographs would be very much appreciated for ] and ]. I'm also working on a list of closed courts, so photographs of former court buildings would be useful too. Thanks, ]] 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I wish you'd asked sooner. I was in Manchester Crown Court before Xmas - as a juror I hasten to add. --] (]) 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you checked ? e.g. . There are a lot of really good images, and a really easy way to add them to Wikmedia Commons using the <nowiki>{{geograph}}</nowiki> template. --] (]) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yep, I've bled Geograph dry of Crown and County Courts (and Wigan Crown Court is one I've added at ]) - a great resource that more people should know about! There are still some mags' courts there I need to copy to Commons, one day... ]] 09:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What about courts no longer in use? Theres one in Eccles, I worked in there a few years back on a BBC drama-doc. ] (]) 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The more the merrier. ]] 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Grade II* listed buildings in GM anyone? == | |||
| Now that we've got the Grade I list accepted as FL, what about tackling the Grade II* list? | |||
| Is anyone up for it? :-) --] (]) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Health warning:''' there are over 200. | |||
| :I'm in. ] (]) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm in too, so that's only 100 stubs that we each have to write. Anyone else? | |||
| :::I'm really struggling for edit time at the moment, but I'll help where I can! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great. So that's only 99 stubs that Nev1 and I have to write each now. :-) --] (]) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's do-able, I guess. Bolton might be the sticking point, as there doesn't seem to be an online list. We need a hardy soul to trot off to the town hall and transcribe the 'horses mouth' (I remain unconvinced that the Trinity Church is Grade I, BTW). ] (a FL) shows that we don't ''need'' an article for every item. I suppose we have to ask the fundamental question: would it be ] or would it be ]? ] (]) 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I should be able to help where possible, after all I did create the Grade I list. :) ]] 12:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was afrraid someone might come up with that next, however, I should be able to contribute some stubs too, when I get time. By the way, congratulations on the grade 1 list FA, a great team effort. All that work to get a little star at the top :-) Still, virtue is its own reward. ] (]) 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There isn't a page for grade II yet is there? So I'll post it here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Pack_horse_bridge_stoneclough.jpg - thats my contribution for now :) There are a few more viaducts and aqueducts I know of that have their own pages, but the pack horse bridge in that link doesn't have its own page right now. ] (]) 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi guys | |||
| Just looking at the basic stub ] and added about its demolition. I don't think that its going to be important to keep it going when it bites the dust. The article doesn't really say anything and k it might have some notability being the oldest surving picture house (as opposed to 20s/30s picture palaces) in Manchester, but that goes as soon as the bulldozers step in. I propose a prod in a months time. any thoughts? ] (]) 12:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It could be said that it was notable for being the third cinema built in Britain. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know. The place is going to be a hole in the ground quite soon and references to scala/cine city can easily be added to ] or even a brief history of picture houses added to ] with scala included. The article just isn't relevent and has never been cared for. ] (]) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. Its imminent demolition has no bearing on the issue of whether it merits an article or not. A merge to ] seems sensible to me, but then I'm a ]. ] (]) 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ok I see your point but stubs four sentences long which aren't going to be improved or added to are very hopeless. lol on the grounds of ] how about a redirect to ]? With a proviso that if some guys here find more info when you get over listed buildings, churches etc., that they will create a real article on Cine City. ] (]) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think a merge into Withington is the sensible option too, so I've tagged the article. --] (]) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm with Malleus on that too. A merge seems most appropriate to me. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd go along with the merge proposal. It's a shame about the demolition - I spent many happy hours in there! ] (]) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Unless ] saves the poor building at the last minute, do we wait until the last brick falls? or get some consensus from the ] editors beforehand? What will happen to the original page? just left as a redirect or CSD No context? just wondering ] (]) 07:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Stop worrying about the state of the building. ] by: merging the text into the ] article, with an edit summary something like <code><nowiki>merging from ] per discussion at ]</nowiki></code>; then replace the text with <code><nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki></code> and again use an edit summary on the lines of <code><nowiki>redirecting per discussion at ]</nowiki></code> (we have to leave it as a redirect to keep the edit history); finally, add a note at ] saying what you've done. ] (]) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester == | |||
| I just looked at ] and for some strange reason it is coming up with loads of pages in the other languages list all saying "Українська", it also does the same thing on ]. Looks like it is something to do with the tick icon used in both, has this always been a problem or is this just my laptop being stupid? <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see it too, how long's it been like that? ] (]) 14:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::How is it looking now? (after ) ] (]) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It works. ] (]) 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good-oh. The interlanguage link should have been in a "noinclude" block. I ''think'' that was my first serious template edit. Cor! ] (]) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{done}} Looks like it could have been due to ] which has caused quite a few bugs, at least we know it has not been like that for ages. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == List of tallest buildings in Manchester == | |||
| I just did a big revamp of ] changing it to look a little more like the featured list ]. I think the list just needs a few refs in the lead then could pass ], anybody agree? Also there are 2 completed building which I could not find the date for, if anyone knows please add, I will try to find the dates asap. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the lead needs referenceing, and reviewers won't like the colour of the tables, other than that it should have a good shot. Nice effort. ] (]) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The tables are exactly the same colour as the ones on ] and that passed with no comments about the colours used. I think it looks much nicer than white and grey which is what it used to be. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The table widths don't match up, and as Nev1 said, given our recent experience there will be an issue over the table colours. When did that London article pass FL? Why not copy the format of our ]? --] (]) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::re: the colour, I agree it looks better but it's one of the wierd things that came up during the review of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. ] (]) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The table widths are different because the second table does not have completion years. Colours are fun. London's passed at the end of May 2007. Grade I list looks a little dull. There is no policy that says we can't use colours in tables is there? Isn't that just someones preference with no consensus? <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a policy about colours yes. It was quoted at us during the Grade I listed building article's FLC. You'll find it in there somewhere. --] (]) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think it matters that the columns don't line up as they have different headings. It might be worth making some of the columns sortable. I don't think there's a policy on colour as such, if the London list made it you can point to that if it comes up in the review. ] (]) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Page just moved to ] as I have just added the 5 tallest structures of Manchester. I don't know if I should remove the structures from the buildings list or not? Some like COM Stadium and B o Bang could not have gone on the buildings list but the Palace Hotel clock could sorta fall under both, any help? <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think it could be argued that the stadium is a building, but B of the Bang is more problematic. I'd be temped to leave it as it is, perhaps with a note explaining why there are separate tables as the London article has done. And are they clocks or clock ''towers''? ] (]) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Clock towers, I'll change that and should probably change the "usage" column too. As for the colour, I think it should stay as it is for now and if someone challenges it they can challenge London too. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think the article looks nice, and as it happens I quite like the colours, so I hope that you manage to get them through FLC. On a more detailed note though I noticed this: "Piccadilly Tower (previously known as Inacity Tower), has begun construction ...". Began construction when? I'd also prefer it if all of the images down the right-hand side of the screen were the same width. --] (]) 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe "Begun construction" is ambitious but they have started to drill down into the ground there now so it looks like we will get it after all the fuss, Albany Tower on the other hand looks doomed. Will change to "Groundwork" like the Axis building. <s>Also I don't know how to make them the same width with adding the |300px| thing which most people seem to hate.</s> <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It's just occured to me that is its present state, the article will fail ] 1a, ie: brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. More stubs need to be made and linked from the article. ] (]) 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Tut, more work! Alot of the building on there are not notable as many are simply residential but there are plenty of notable too, for example while finding all the info for the list I discovered the Axis building will have the tallest LCD screen in the world stuck to the side of it at 51m tall! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Good point. At a quick count there are 44 buildings in that list, of which only 17 currently have articles. --] (]) 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It fails ] 1(a)1, but it passes 1(a)3, ie "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". One or the other is (or, at least, should be) enough. ] (]) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well we wont know unless the article is nominated. I think it's worth a try. ] (]) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I found some more articles to link to and some I have linked to the area e.g. 1 Hardman Square, Leftbank Appartments etc link to Spinningfields, a linked section for each of the biggest buildings in that area on the Spinningfields article would suffice wouldn't it? <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd have though that ought to do it. The problem we had with the Grade I list, in hindsight, was probably because of the number of red links, not because of the lack of articles. Mr Stephen makes a good point about the list qualifying under criterion 1(a)3 as well. I notice though a bit of inconsistency in the handling of heights. Sometimes they're converted to ft and sometimes they're not. I think for UK articles it's probably always best to provide conversions, whichever units of measurement you present first. | |||
| ::::I'm with Nev1 on this. Nominate it and see what happens. :-) --] (]) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"inconsistency in the handling of heights"? I converted each of the heights from metres to feet so where is the problem? <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In the lead there's conversion provided here: "It is 47 storeys and 169m / 561ft high", but not here: "which would have stood at 110m", or here: "118m CIS Tower". And it should of course be 110 metres, not 110m, according to the MoS. --] (]) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry I misunderstood, I changed some of it at the same time as you so I hope it still worked. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Now up for ] status ''']'''. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Congratulations to everone involved, the article was promoted late yesterday (19th Feb 2008). ] (]) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == List of railway stations in Manchester == | |||
| If you have not yet noticed, the list ] has just been promoted to ] while the list I created ] has barely been touched for some time. Maybe an expansion of scope is in order i.e. ] in order to bring the list up to a higher standard. I doubt I would be able/have the time to do it all myself as there are a lot of stations so maybe a group effort? So hands up who likes the current format and level of detail and who thinks things should be added/removed and who thinks it should be scrapped and started again? Obiously the lead will need changing but the table could be expanded easily, although some images down the side would look nice and it's a bit too wide at the moment. I'm not an expert on tables, I know how they work basically but I know some of you guys are better at that sort of thing. So to conclude, views on how to move forward would be great and it can be taken from there. Thanks in advance. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :What references did you use? Because they really need to be added. It might be a good idea to increase the scope if there aren't too many other stations. ] (]) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are two books (volumes) on Greater Manchester's railway stations from memory. Amazon.co.uk provides the details (e.g. ). There is also one about former, or "lost" railway stations. Almost certainly the best sources to use for such a topic I imagine. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi all; I'll help where I can. I may be able to supply relevant sources as well as generally fill in gaps. I have a few images available on a PD licence as well; I would like to see images sonewhere (either a few in the body of the article, as at the ], or ideally a thumbnail for each station — although I realise that may not be feasible). Perhaps there could be some way of distinguishing staffed and unstaffed stations; maybe by use of bold or italics in the station name, to avoid using another column? (Such info is sourceable from Transport Ticket Society Journals, which are accepted as a permissible source; I have the last 120 or so at home :).) ] (]) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More help is great! I have been working through the list adding bits when I get time but I have had assignments due for uni. No more assignments for a short while now so I will keep adding station usage figures and other stuff. The list really needs some references now, I will add the usage sheet links asap and carry on working through it. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I might be able to blitz through the station usage figures tonight, in fact, as I have all three sets available on my computer in a convenient format (they're very useful for my ticket-collecting purposes, so I saved them all and optimised the formats a while ago). I'll give that a go this evening. ] (]) 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That would be good! I have them in excel, sorted by name A→Z and was using AutoSum for the 02-03 figures as they are split between entrance and exits but it does get a bit tedious after a while so if you want to take over, be my guest! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Kersal Massive == | |||
| Has anyone noticed that there is an article about ]? Either it needs to be put up for deletion or there should be a link to it on the ] page. Also, I see that ] says he's retired. I hope we can persuade him to reconsider. ] (]) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear that WebHamster's retired. I know that he did have a bit of trouble recently over the usual crap American kiddie "incivility" rubbish, but I'd hoped that he would be able to ignore that and carry on. --] (]) 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :On the subject of the Kersall Massive, I'm not so sure. I see it's flagged for speedy deletion, but on the face of it I'd be inclined to believe that notability had been proven. --] (]) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Terrible news about WebHamster, I speedied the "Kersal Massive" article as it was appauling that wikipedia is acting like a soapbox for that kind of crap. Every town has a "massive" Manchester has several "massives" just because this one made a video on YouTube of them talking at speed with a few hits doesn't give them notability. It sickens me that those kinds of people are noted as being the youth of today, nothing but scumbags. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::But when the Guardian says "The video (which lasts a mere 44 seconds) has divided YouTube's vast net-based community like nothing else" that surely proves notability. You and I may not approve, but we're not here to censor. --] (]) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, it's gone, hopefully for good, it had already lost an AFD with full '''delete'''. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::WebHamster was still defending the ] article yesterday on the talk page so hopefully he will reconsider. And as for Kersal Massive - they were the only people from Kersal to gain fame since ], even if it was only for 15 minutes :-) ] (]) 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Trafford== | |||
| Hi everyone, ] got promoted to GA earlier today. I thought it could be a template for the other borough articles and I think the best way to do that would be to get it to FA. Input from anyone with any ideas (or criticism) is very welcome, particularly what to do with the ''Transport'' section. A couple of points cropped up during the GA review, mostly about converting some figures into a table. I’m wondering if some parts (ie: the end of the ''Geography'' section) are a bit too listy and if something more could be added? Thanks. ] (]) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well done again! | |||
| :The article looks like it isn't far off a credible FA nomination, but I do agree with you about the ''Transport'' section. I can add a bit about the Trafford Park Eurofreight Terminal, and there's perhaps a bit more that can be said about the road network, Trafford's cycle initiative, the congestion charge and Trafford's opposition to it, bus services, ... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::The ''Transport'' section has been significantly expanded and there may be some stuff that could be added on the coat of arms of Trafford. Once that's done I'll nominate the article at ] ... unless of course anyone here sees any major faults. ] (]) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think possibly the Bridgewater canal could be included in the transport section? Also, no mention of the ship canal is made although it does form a rather significant part of the boundary of Trafford. ] (]) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The Bridgewater Canal is mentioned in the ''Geography'' section and is now used more for leisure than transport so perhaps it shouldn't go in the ''Transport'' section? I could see that it could though, as part of the history of transport. Also, I agree that the Ship Canal should be mentioned in ''Geography'', but should it also go under ''Transport''? It would seem odd for only one canal to be there. ] (]) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My opinion is that the canals would be appropriately covered in the Geography section, for two reasons: they are no longer used for transport, and their transport history has nothing to do with Trafford. Just my 2p worth. --] (]) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's pretty much what I was thinking, except better phrased. In the meantime, I've included the Ship Canal in the ''Geography'' section. ] (]) 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == List of people from Bolton == | |||
| Hot on the trail of ] and ], might we be able to consider ] as a potential ] in the near future? It's probably the best ''"list of people from"'' article I've seen, and it'd be great for us to be the first to set another standard! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That list is good, but it looks pretty dreary. One thing I do very much like about it though is that everyone is referenced. It really gets on my wick when some random person who may once have spent a night in a hotel there is listed as a notable resident, without any explanation at all. But having said that, the article does look like fertile ground for at least trying to establish some sort of a standard. --] (]) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I like the alphabetical listing too.... there is a small problem with some of the referencing in that it uses the ] for several entries (which I was once told is not a reliable source because of its ] nature). Other than that, if not now, it might be one to look at in the future.... I'd like to see something like ] but replaced with Boltonians for the lead. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I created the article from the original list which was once in the ] article; it'd got too long and messy looking. I had the idea to sort people into their own field - engineers, musicians, sports, writers, etc. The problem was that some could come under two or three different ones. So I kept it alphabetically. I've made sure that each person has a reference. Some I simply took from their own article, others I had to find them. | |||
| :::I understand ]'s concerns about the ] references. Misplaced Pages hasn't given a clear message about IMDb refs and templates, and whether they to be continued or not. In the meantime, I've made sure that if there is an IMDb ref, then have given a second one to back it up. | |||
| :::Having given some thought with the ''List of people without biographies'' at the bottom. I've come around that only ones with articles should be on the list. So have no objection with those few being removed. | |||
| :::I agree with ]'s comment that it looks pretty dreary, but not sure how to go about making it more interesting/inviting. Perhaps adding here and there with people's small photos which can be clicked on to see better. The problem is it just a list with only one or two lines for each person. There isn't really enough room to include small images. Perhaps ]'s suggestion about a Boltonian version of the ] is a good idea. | |||
| :::I've never given any thought with the list to be a potential ]. In fact I didn't know they could featured lists. I'd have to see other ]s which have been featured to give any response. ] ] 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I could do an image for the people from Bolton. That wouldn't be a problem at all. Could we agree on 6 or 8 names whom we could have? I'm thinking ], ], ], ] for four of them, but others may beg to differ, of course! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm happy with the four names you suggested. The problem is that the choice is limited. There are some I'd choose but they don't have any images available. | |||
| :::::I was thinking ] might be another to use. And possibly one or both of the ] and ] images could be used. The ], ] and ] pictures aren't brilliant but would like to see at least one female to be included. | |||
| :::::Although notable, they don't have to be too well-known. The ] image looks like from a newspaper or book, so don't think it would suit. The ] one might be ok, and possibly ], but is a bit dark. | |||
| :::::I was thinking of eight, but six might be ok. I don't want to tie you down to which particular ones. There might be one or two you'd prefer instead. Obviously I imagine some might need cropping down a bit. I'll leave the final decision to you. ] ] 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about using a similar style to that used in the ], with a ribbon of images down the right hand side? And converting the list to a table? --] (]) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I quite like this idea. It’s much more complicated. It’d need someone to convert the list into tables since its beyond I could set-up. The columns could include the person’s name, dates (i.e. years born/died), short description, and references. If its possible I’d still like to see the "Table of contents" with the A to Z at the top. ] ] 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Project cleanup template == | |||
| I've just discovered that ] lists their very own ]. It looks quite good!... I wondered if we felt we could <s>steal</s> adopt something simillar for this project? <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tick}} '''<s>Stolen</s> Done'''. :) ]] 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] for the articles with the tag on (none as of yet) <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 15:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can't believe I forgot about that! Thanks Andrew. ]] 15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was suprised to see the London one does not put it into a category other than the ] so it is basically useless! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 16:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't know about this template either, it looks nice and useful. BTW, two articles have already been tagged, quite a few more to come I suspect. --] (]) 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == History of immigration to Manchester == | |||
| I know we've already got the ] page, but I came across and was wondering whether there was any possibility of creating another GA/FA? ]] 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For more about Little Italy see and . I'm pretty sure there is one of those thin, A4 sized, local history books about it too. It's going to be a pretty big subject though with all the waves of immigration from the Romans onwards. ] (]) 10:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds like an interesting project! I'd be more inclined to call the article ] (Immigration implies that it is written from the perspective of the existing inhabitants). Would be a massive task. Is there an example article where we can look for inspiration or guidance? <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 11:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're right actually, it would be a massive task, and the proposed name by Jza is much better. I can't think off the top of my head for a example to work off, I could be wrong however. ]] 11:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Coal mines == | |||
| I have put up a page ] and obviously, many of the collieries are in the Greater Manchester area. I do not have much information on closing dates of the pits so if anyone can add dates, would be appreciated. ] (]) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you seen list? It might be worth adding as an external link. ] (]) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for that, I forgot an external link (now added).... I have copies of the paper documents but , they have online of all the reports... thanks again ] (]) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course it's early days, but I think using tables rather than a raw list would be the right way forwards for this article. It could include mentions of owners, opening and closing dates, former (1894 - 1974) and modern local government district amongst other bites of info. | |||
| :::Photographs would help with improvements (of course), but also defining (perhaps with the help of a map) exactly what a where the ] is paramount in my point of view. Some of the demarcation like ''"Chadderton, Chadderton"'' ''"Bank House, Crompton, Oldham"'' (the latter part being ambiguous/redundant) and splitting by non-statutory areas like (Wigan area) may also cause confusion. Just my personal point of views here! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Points taken - the table with the owners etc could be done, I have all the info, but time is a major player there. The splitting into non-statutory areas is in line with how the coal field was divided by the Mines Inspector.... I will work on a map with the reporting districts, as to the things like Chadderton, Chadderton - that is the Chadderton pit in Chadderton, but see your point. I understand the problems you see with the list, however this is one of those pre everything days so the info is taken as it was originally recorded... the splitting into Lancs, GM and Merseyside only complicates the issue. The list is there.. just needs me to sit down now and "fettle it" as they say.] (]) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You've addressed a few of my concerns. I think the demarcation (like "PIT NAME, PLACE" just needs explaining in the lead then in that case; I thought the "areas" were non-official territories used for conveinience for readers, but this was my mistake! Looks like an interesting project though. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Shaw and Crompton == | |||
| Hello team, | |||
| I wondered what the project felt about and other changes being made to ], one of our FAs? | |||
| Of course I've been closely involved with its development and am mindful of ], thus I'm asking for wider opinion here. Does the team believe I should start a straw poll? Or perhaps just revert this per ]? Input welcome. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sourcing a government agency surely means it must be true and can't really be put into question? Signs to Shaw say "Town Centre →" so why would they lie? <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Erm, it is an error which they have confirmed in writing, as I have asserted in the discussion. Ask them yourself if you like. In the mean time I'm afraid that a couple of road signs do not make Shaw and Crompton a town; I understand ] has signs directing traffic to the city centre but it is not a city either! ] (]) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Rather than stonewall the points made at ] and repeating your points over and over on new pages, perhaps we can keep the discussion in one point? For those members of the project who haven't considered the wider implications of this debate, Chrisieboy's proposals would have mentions of town-hood for Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Stretford, Altrincham and beyond our county removed outright, not just for Shaw and Crompton. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is simply not the case and you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me. In any case, I agree, talk should be confined to the relevant page. I just wanted to respond to Andrew, as you had used a diff of his comment here to support your argument there. ] (]) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It '''''is''''' the case, because if anything (by your logic) a town has to be granted a Royal Charter, or be a civil parish that declares itself a town (as Shaw and Crompton appears to have done so!). Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Stretford etc are not even civil parishes, and thus cannot be towns. You can't simply apply your logic on one sole article (which happens to be one I'm involved with, and whom you had one minor content dispute with months ago), you need to be consistent across the entire UK!!!! If S&C loses this (which it won't because of verifiability), then there's probably only around 15 or so towns in the UK by your school of thought, none of which are in Greater Manchester! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If, as you say, it appears to have done so, simply provide a reference (or a date) for the resolution of the parish council declaring S&C a town. Any such resolution would be a matter of public record. In any case, as per your own suggestion, please confine discussion to the relevant page. ] (]) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Certainly will do. You have 7 to 1 user opposition and around 20 sources to take on. Oh, and a question for you. ;) <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| To add further confusion, the NWRA appears to consider Trafford and Tameside to be towns, as . I doubt that many others would agree. --] (]) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The towns of <s>Greater</s> Manchester it seems!... not to mention forgetting the ]! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, I take it you are agreeing to provide the reference, as you are obviously not agreeing to keep discussion in one place. ] (]) 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What is a town? == | |||
| I would suggest that the only way this debate over whether Shaw and Crompton is a town or not can be resolved is to define our terms. There is no legal definition of ''town'' in the UK, so the opinion of the NWRA carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion. | |||
| So, what are the features that all towns have that distinguishes them from other urban areas that are not towns? --] | |||
| *A minimum built-up area? | |||
| *A recognisable commercial centre? | |||
| *Transport routes converging on the area? | |||
| *A minimum population? | |||
| --] (]) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Possible breach of ] if we come up with our own defintion, but I see the logic. I've always taken the stance that a place is a town if <u>reliable</u> local publications assert it; a kind of ]. Then of course there is the dicitonary definition of town to consider: ''1. a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government.'' . Using local convention (possibly coupled with consensus) avoids arguments of village, hamlet, town, district, borough, parish, suburb etc. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not suggesting OR, simply adopting or clarifying what appear to be well-established official conventions. For instance, this is the view of the UK census: "The traditional concept of a town or city would be a free-standing built-up area with a service core with a sufficient number and variety of shops and services, including perhaps a market, to make it recognisably urban in character. It would have administrative, commercial, educational, entertainment and other social and civic functions and, in many cases, evidence of being historically well established. A local network of roads and other means of transport would focus on the area, and it would be a place drawing people for services and employment from surrounding areas. It would often be a place known beyond its immediate vicinity." It further says that urban areas themselves should cover an urban area of at least 20 hectares, with separate areas not more than 50 metres apart. I'm simply suggesting that as there is no legal definition, and unlikely ever to be one, that we need to come up with a working guideline. Otherwise we'll keep having these "It's a town", "No it isn't" discussions. --] (]) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes seems absolutely fine. My wording was off - I was implying we need to be careful of breaching ] if we take this further. The census defintion hits the spot for me! Might be worth taking this to ], ''then'' possibly codify something in UKCITIES? Might it be best we hang back for just a little longer whilst Chrisieboy still contests the mainstream/traditional definitions? I wouldn't want any of us to be accused of a possible ] or making ]! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Probably a good idea. I'm still hoping that Chrisieboy will offer his own working definition of what constitutes a town, to lift the Shaw and Crompton discussion out of the realms of pantomime farce. "Oh yes it is!!" "Oh no it isn't". --] (]) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I know! Quite right! Actually I was a bit mischeivious and said ] had told me Shaw and Crompton is a town and you have to believe me... ;)... I thought it was a funny way of making a point about ].... I laughed, even if others didn't! <small>hehe</small>... DDStretch has just left an interesting comment at the S&C talk page however, also advocating local convention. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He's a bright lad that DDStretch. :-) --] (]) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::PS. Just as well you decided not to put yourself forward for that recent RfA, making jokes like that. ;-) --] (]) 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy ;) <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (reset) Malleus Fatuarum, ], states ''Traditionally, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a town is any settlement which has received a charter of incorporation, more commonly known as a town charter, approved by the monarch. However, since 1974, any civil parish has the right to declare itself as a town'' (LGA 72 s.245(6) refers). That is my working definition of what constitutes a town. ] (]) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So towns without Royal Charters or civil parishes aren't towns by your definition? What would you call ], for instance? --] (]) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::My view is that there is no clear definition of a town but it's generally accepted as a settlement that's bigger than a village and smaller than a city. Most people would call it a town and so my vote is to call it a town and civil parish. ] (]) 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for this feedback guys. I've started a straw poll at ] as an indicator of where consensus lies. Input there would be very much appreciated. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Photographs == | |||
| Hello team, | |||
| Some ] for a change!... I've been roaming a few other sites of late (please forgive me) for photographs we can use here. I've managed to negotiate with a keen photographer from the area to release his entire online catalogue of work to a creative commons licence combatable with WikiCommons!! | |||
| Some of his work is truely fantastic (I've uploaded an example static image to ]), and very well suited to what we do here. His work is found at . Feel free to save them and upload to commons for use here as appropriate. My personal aim is for us to have a proffessional standard photograph in the infobox of each town in the county. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm a television cameraman by trade, I'm waiting on the arrival of a Canon 20D from a mate of mine, at which point I'll do some photographs for various towns :) ] (]) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fantastic! That sounds great! I was wondering if I should put together a matrix of which towns (or villages, or even districts) have photographs and which don't, to give us an idea where we're upto. A massive task I know, but I know ] we could do it. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would require a bit of effort, but I for one think it's worth it. ] (]) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree, it would give a lift to what might otherwise be pretty dull looking articles. Respect to the photographer for releasing his work under a cc licence, and of course to you, for setting it up. --] (]) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Matrix idea sounds good for keeping track of photos needed. I'll start (in an area I am familiar with!!) by putting one together for GM's railway stations. I know from looking through many of the station articles while working on ] that quite a few stations do have photos, so it will be interesting to see exactly how many are still needed. Let me work on that now: I'll create a user sub-page... ] (]) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<u>Most</u>, but by no means all of photographs are also avaliable with an appropriate licence for porting to Wikicommons. Ironically (or perhaps by fate) there are several photographs of railway stations, most on my favourite line, the ]! I particularly like photograph of his, but it isn't clear where exactly it is. Lots of lovely grim shots here! <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've just spent ages browsing some of that lot; plenty of really interesting, evocative stuff! I've started the station table ]; surprisingly few GM stations have any pix. I have included the total for each station, and a more specific breakdown as to whether the photographs (if any) show the station entrance area and exterior shots of any buildings, the platforms, or anything else (if that makes sense). In my opinion, the ideal scenario would be photos from both outside the station (showing the buildings, entrance etc.) and within (from the platforms), but one or the other is obviously better than nothing at all. Some stations don't really have anything in the way of buildings, forecourts, entrance areas etc. anyway (I'm thinking of stations on main roads, where there is little more than a set of steps up or down to the platforms). Anyway, I'm sure a GM resident with a car or bike could nip round quite a few stations on a nice sunny afternoon and take a few pix :D (I wish I could, but I'm stuck down here in Sussex for the time being!) Will carry on when time permits. ] (]) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is an awesome collection of old images of Manchester here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/older_pics_of_manchester/pool/ - just look at this one, of Victoria station: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2128266003_1d52567ebc_o.jpg ] (]) 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Don't be afraid of approaching some of the photographers whose work is crown copyright. If you explain that their work will be creditted to them, have a link to their profile and that Misplaced Pages (a not-for-profeit) is one of the most visited websites on the net, most tend to change their licencing. A few turned me down however, including (sadly) . That said however, I think we've plenty to go on for now. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I may be showing my ignorance ... == | |||
| I may be showing my ignorance by asking this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. | |||
| Is there a way, similar to the ''Random article'' button in the navigation panel to the left, to get random articles just from the GM category? Strikes me that if there was, that might help to improve some of our articles that otherwise seem to be a little bit unloved. --] (]) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Park Hospital == | |||
| The first hospital into the NHS doesn't have a Wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trafford_General_Hospital&action=edit Anyone know anything about the hospital? I can contribute an old image of the place. ] (]) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nice little source == | |||
| I found an interesting PDF at . It's from the Greater Manchester e-Government Partnership and has some stuff about each borough of the county (though calls it a conurbation). <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''] ·''' (])</span> 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Archtransit == | |||
| I would like to bring the project's attention to ] ANI thread regarding the conduct of Archtransit, one of our members. I'm sure some of you will have interacted with him before, so I think your opinion would be appreciated. Regards, ]] 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I already expresed my opinion at his RfC. It's an absolute bloody disgrace that he wasn't desysopped some time ago. --] (]) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And I'll frankly tell you what else is a bloody disgrace. You, as another new administrator, drawing attention to Archtransit's misdemeanours for no obvious purpose, other than perhaps to divert attention from your own mishaps. Kind of sad. --] (]) 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What are we doing wrong? == | |||
| Obviously not too much, I was just trying to attract attention. :-) | |||
| We've now got 16 FA/FLs, but only 10 GAs. I'm hoping to get ] up to GA in the not too distant future, but I'm wondering if we have any other articles that might be close to GA with just a little bit more input? --] (]) 02:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know any that are ''very close'', but I think there are some that could be GA if you squint hard enough. For example, I like ]; there's only so much that can be said on the subject and I'd like to see it reach GA (although I have editted it a hell of a lot). I think ] isn't actually too far off. Also a couple of metropolitan boroughs are shaping up nicely, including ]. ] (]) 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] (]) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It has been suggested to me that ] could be a candidate but it needs some work on the references using cite templates which I've not got round to yet. I've also done some work expanding the ] article and it's just been given a B rating by the UK waterways wikiproject. Personally I think the Irwell is very important to the project as it was the main power source for the industrial revolution. Could someone re-rate both the articles for this project as they are both start class at the moment? ] (]) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:02, 26 October 2024
Shortcut
|
WikiProject Greater Manchester Talk Page Welcome to the Talk Page of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Please remember to remain civil and to treat all users with respect. Please only use this page to discuss the project, to learn more visit the Main Project Page |
|
 | WikiProject Greater Manchester was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 10 December 2007. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
FAR for Trafford Park
I have nominated Trafford Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)