Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Ashton-under-Lyne

Well done to everyone who helped get this upto GA standard, particularly Nev1! Great stuff! --Jza84 | Talk 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal just got FAC too :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2 ~~FAs~~ promotions in as many days - brilliant! - congatulations one and all - of course it was all down to my brilliant copy editing :) Richerman (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey it does help. My writing style is terrible. Anyone can pick up a book and copy stuff over - properly paraphrasing and making it universally readable is a skill for sure!

Wonder what we can target next? I'm hoping to get back to editting at normal rate again soon (apologies for my dip of late. Really struggling in real life at the mo - credit crunch and all). --Jza84 | Talk 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal is next on my list for GA. Its getting there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Only joking - honest! A brilliant push by the Parrot for the MBB, I think I'll give him a barnstar. Richerman (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm

Largest on-shore windfarm in the country. Major landmarks over Rochdale and Greater Manchester. Loads of free pictures ([1]). Plenty of relible sources ([2], [3], [4], [5]).

Question: Is this worth an article? I think it may technically be in Rossendale mind. --Jza84 | Talk 23:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this. Those turbines make me angry. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! :S Well, technically they are in the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale anyway ([6] - just checked). --Jza84 | Talk 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely worth an article, potentially with a (well-sourced) "criticism" section...? Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

There's a problem with archiving this talk page, at the moment archive 16 is nearly 260kb long, massively longer than any of the others. Does anyone know how to fix this? It makes navigating the old discussions a bit tricky. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I will fix it, I did with the others. Caulde 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Caulde 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick response, thanks for sorting it out! Nev1 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back Caulde! --Jza84 | Talk 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Greater Manchester

Is there any particular reason that Blackrod is missing from the list of Cities and Towns, as it is a town in the same way that Horwich and Westhoughton are (i.e. has town council status and a Mayor)? Paypwip (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope! I think I originally listed all those settlements that were under Category:Towns in Greater Manchester at the time. Blackrod could've been missed because it wasn't in the category back then. I've no issue with it being added. :) --Jza84 | Talk 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added it. Paypwip (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we think that Little Lever is a town? It's listed in the template. --Jza84 | Talk 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not listed as a town now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Capital of the North

Capital of the North has recently appeared. As it stands, it looks like speculation, opinion and OR to me. Could anything be made of this subject, or is it a straightforward candidate for a prod? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for a prod, definitely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted all of the references on this article are to wiki articles no third party references at all. Keith D (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing reads like a discussion on a talk page rather than an encyclopaedic article. Paypwip (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete IMO. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw the article before I checked the discussion here and took it to afd as soon as I saw it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital of the North. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MBB at FAC again

Right, time for another go at this. Comments welcome. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! It should be a lot easier this time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you're just a masochist :) - best of luck! Richerman (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly been through the FAC grinder a few times if that's what you mean. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well ok - you're both masochists. Richerman (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW its slightly related but would someone check Manchester and Bolton Railway to see if it deserves a B rating or better? Also, in the review above someone has again questioned using a private site with images as a source - anyone here got a view on that? Personally I think its absolutely fine, especially as I have corresponding images of my own that 'prove' it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it's certainly better than a C-class, so I've upgraded the rating. As for using the photos as a source, I don't have a problem with it as it's hardly used to support a controversial statement. Ideally another source could replace the current one, but I've had a look and couldn't find one I'm afraid, does the WRG have any alternative names? Nev1 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No other sources really. The WRG is mostly a volunteer group. The newspapers sometimes pick up on these things but I didn't see any photographers there when I was on that group. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

With regard to ~~crossing completed things out~~, can I do that or does it have to be the person who raised the question? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it yourself! I did that once and Tony1 wasn't too impressed (it was his comments I'd crossed out)... fortunately the FAC still passed. Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Righto. People are slow to do it, and often not at all - which I reckon puts people off reviewing it, unless they read carefully all the comments. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, to a casual reader it looks like there are problems outstanding. You may like to drop the reviews a polite note asking if their concerns have been addressed and if so could they be "capped" or struck through. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I did and they've both responded by striking through the text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid breaking up the conversation below, Nov 2008 is the 200th anniversary of the completion of this canal. How do the FA judges view newly promoted articles being put for the front page? I hadn't even considered it (I was thinking of proposing it on the anniversary of the 1936 breach) until it was mentioned to me today. There is no precise date, just a reference to a completion of the locks in Nov 1808 in one of the sources I've used in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a points system you'll find here. You'll see that it effectively penalises new FAs. I'm sure that Richerman will be able to fill you in on the details, as he did the work to get Peterloo Massacre on the main page recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

6 points for it being 200 years though... Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at this. Why not, it can't be that hard, and I can always try again :) I'd rather not wait 100 years though! 6 points for the 200 year anniversary is the prime reason, otherwise I'd leave it until next year. I think Richerman has done this? So can anyone give me a hand? I have a little more data and bits to put in the article, but I have zilch experience with the whole FA requests thing. Also, given my trade, and the equipment I have, I can easily do a voice for the entire article. If you could stand my Lancastrian accent, that is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Why not, it can't be that hard ...". Famous last words :lol: Several of us gave up trying to get Peterloo Massacre through the process, but Richerman stuck with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Right well it's been nominated for the 15th November, albeit early - I've been recommended to nominate it on Nov 1st. Its possibly 9 points although I reckon that there may be some arguments over that :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The nine points look good to me - six for the bicentennial, two for no similar articles in the last six months and one for a new contributor. This man is becoming unstoppable! Richerman (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! This would be great stuff if it gets to main page. --Jza84 | Talk 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd be chuffed for certain :) Its just a good job that Paul Hindle reminded me of the anniversary... Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyan Methodism in Glodwick

Any thoughts? This is setting alarm bells ringing in my head. --Jza84 | Talk 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously copied from somewhere. Check out "... public worship is held on the Lord’s Day in the evening. But these services are conducted in a garret which is not easy to find, up two flights of stairs, extremely difficult to access; the room itself is incommodious, unwholesome, and intolerably insufferable." Mr Stephen (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, obviously copied from something, probably this: Fifty years of Methodism in Glodwick 1863 to 1913, Oldham Local Studies Library, Accession number L1900, Classification number RO:FS. Noticable that it cites quite a few page numbers, but doesn't say what they're pages of. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little apprehensive about contacting this user - I've pulled them up on a few things before and wouldn't want to appear to WP:BITE. Anybody with more tact willing to give them a nudge? Do we think this is a worthwhile article - it seems awfully niché to me. --Jza84 | Talk 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The page creation states "ew article. Entered block of text. References, links and images to be added over the following days" so I'd give them a week or two to add more. It could be a copy-paste operation from a page they've already authored. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion, that we retitle this to Trinity Wesleyan Methodist Church, Glodwick, and write it about the church building and its congregation. --Jza84 | Talk 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Wheel?

It's a redirect to the Yorkshire Wheel. There's a great free-to-use image here, but I'm sure the wheel is still in the city centre. What's happened? --Jza84 | Talk 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you can still book tickets for it. Paypwip (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Something isn't right - unless the wheel has been changed for something that looks very similar. It was certainly there in August when I took this picture Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in both Manchester and Yorkshire. Someone's got their facts wrong on the Yorkshire Wheel article. Paypwip (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit to being confused Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That news article was dated June 2008, the Yorkshire Wheel was built in 2006 Paypwip (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty conclusive Paypwip (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we suspect a bit of cross-border rivalry in the edits then? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Some of these wheels have moved about a bit (The Manchester one has been in Paris) so I think someone's assumed it had come from Manchester without checking. Paypwip (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely still in Exchange Square, live(ish) pictures. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it last night as I was driving into Manchester - assuming it wasn't a cunnning cardboard cutout left there when it got stolen and taken to Yorkshire! Richerman (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page alert

Trafford will be appearing on the main page on 12 October. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Well done! Are there any issues we need to be aware of for the page? Anything we can improve between now and then? --Jza84 | Talk 10:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of making the table of electoral wards more like the one in City of Salford, I'm not sure about what else, it probably needs a new set of eyes. Nev1 (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The pic of the town hall is taken late evening I think. I should be able to take a better one tomorrow. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, especially since it would be on the main page. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok new pic in. For some utterly unfathomable reason, the colours are a bit washed out. The file in both png and jpg looks perfect on my machine, but viewed on Wikipedia in Firefox and Chrome it looks a bit wishy-washy. I have no idea why, but its a better image anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok well I fixed that. Processing the RAW image in Raw Therapee rather than Photoshop did the trick. Still don't know why a file looks different in a browser than on my windows box, but meh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a better picture as well, but it looks pretty dark on my display(s). I'm using Firefox as well, running on both Windows and Ubuntu. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

pffft, some people just don't have a photographer's eye :) Its correctly exposed but I could always lift the shadows slightly. Are you looking on an LCD or CRT? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)a

Both LCDs. I'm quite happy to admit to not having a photographer's eye though, if I'm the only one the midtones look a little too dark to. During the summer I went to take a picture of the town hall, but I picked a cricket match day, so it turned out a picture of burger and ice cream vans. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks really good to me, for what its worth. A fine upgrade, and fine photo.... I'm on a TFT screen using Internet Explorer. :) --Jza84 | Talk 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks perfectly exposed when viewed at full size, but for some reason seems darker when reduced. I am viewing on a Mac using Firefox. I also looked at it earlier at work using Firefox on WinXP (also LCD). There is some vignetting going on there - maybe that's the reason. Is that intentional, or is it your lens? Paypwip (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing myself; full size looks fine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Vignetting is on purpose. The difference in exposure will almost certainly be because of the extra white space around the image when viewed as a thumb. Unless your monitor has a faulty power supply :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that all three of the monitors I've looked at this on have faulty power supplies. The colours are clearly not accurately represented. I've driven down that road most days for the past 15 years. It's never looked grey to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to purge your cache to see the amended version? The newer version is much more vibrant than the last. --Jza84 | Talk 10:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It could just be my poor old eyes, but the colour balance just don't seem right to me. Look at the little red "do not cross man" on the traffic light for instance. But if it looks OK to everyone else I'll shut up about it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be an issue with colour spaces, profiles, etc. Try this version, which I've converted to an sRGB colour profile and lightened slightly - see if the balance is correct. Then compare it to the png file in the commons directory. The png file looks very washed out to me, which is why I changed it to a jpg. I think Malleus may still be seeing a washed out version. If the file linked looks better for everyone then put that one in instead of the current file. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was just a caching problem. The current picture looks fine to me now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF)

I'm just off to bed but I've just noticed somebody has put large chunks of unreferenced information with no edit summaries in this article, pushing the agenda of the Greater Manchester Momentum Group (see http://www.gmmgroup.co.uk/) If anyone's still about could they have a look? Richerman (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact it seems to be a sockpuppet putting back unreferenced information that's been removed once by Joshi Richerman (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyan Methodism in Glodwick

Can I try to calm your fears over this article. The block of text that I copied into this article is based on an unpublished review of 'Fifty Years of Methodism in Glodwick', and the page references are merely to help me during the next phase. There are other sources that will also be referenced. The final article (and it will take me at least 3-weeks to get it into shape) will be quite different. The current text block merely gives me the framework that I need to work on. What I intend is to provide an article that describes the socio/economic influences that the non-conformist methodist church brought to bear on the area. Give me a bit of time and then tell me what you think. As far as the title is concerned I (like Jza84) am uncertain about the best strategy. I'm a Wiki Rookie, but guess that the main critera for a good title is that Wiki users can find it easily if they use the search facility. Although the article will have a broad interest in regard to the sort of things that non-conformists got up to throughout the UK and abroad, there is no doubt that its focus is on their actvities in Glodwick and Oldham. Hence, there are several type of searchers who might be pleased to find the finished article; those interested in (1) local religious/social history, (2)the influence of non-conformist churches on society, (3) history of temperance (4) development of elementary education. Key words for the title might include 'methodist', 'society', 'Glodwick'. We might also include the word 'church' providing that it refers to the 'broad church' and not a place of worship (the influence of the non-conformists went far beyond their chapels). I don't like the proposal of 'Trinity Wesleyan Methodist Church' for exactly this reason; it is too narrow. I suggest that you give me 2 or 3 weeks to indicate what I have in mind. If then, you don't think that it makes an acceptable article I will be happy to scrap it. Perhaps at that point, assuming you think it has value, we could have a scrum-down over the title? Incidentally, I would appreciate your comments on the Bagley & Wright article. Ian (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave the article in your care until you feel it's finished, but in future you may want to work in your userspace. You can created pages such as User:Oldhamhistory/sandbox where it doesn't matter if there are copyright violations or the referencing makes sense to no one but yourself. Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice. I didn't know about this. Two questions now arise. Firstly, can you tell me exactly how I set up this 'sub-page' so that I can do my bumbling in private and (secondly) when I do this can I simply delete the existing article so that it doesn't upset more experienced Wikipedians sensitivities. Otherwise I imagine that I will have two articles on the same topic (!?). Help! Ian (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To create the page just click on Nev1's redlink above and it'll be created automatically. Only the mighty administrators like Nev1 are allowed to do dangerous things like delete pages. We mere mortals have to ask a big boy to help by adding {{csd g7}} to the top of the page you want deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a variation on {{csd g7}} that will do the job, but that's not quite right. I find it easier to remember {{db-author}}; just stick it at the top of the article and a janitor will sweep it away. In the good old days, people like me would simply 'userfy' the article, that is move it from where it is now (in article-space) to where you want it to be (in your user-space) In the spirit of living dangerously, I've tried it... Mr Stephen (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The move is fine, but it leaves the old page as a redirect, which probably isn't ideal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the redirect; I know that, and it just took me five bloody minutes to find {{db-rediruser}}. Re the template; what I was trying to say in my hamfisted manner was "there isn't a template {{csd g7}}" :) Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, I meant {{db-g7}}. I just plucked it from the Twinkle CSD tab and stupidly didn't check the template name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of people know that!

Did you know that Trafford General was the first NHS hospital in Britain - although it was Park Hospital in those days? see here I see it gets an unreferenced mention on the Davyhulme page but nothing in the Trafford article that I can see. Worth a mention? Richerman (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I knew that :) If you're ever near it you can walk down the main entrance, the corridor is full of great old pics and a history lesson about the place. IIRC it was opened by that Bevin bloke. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh bugger - how come I'm always the last one to know? Richerman (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Definately worth a mention. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should really be called the first NHS hospital, it was just one of the 2,688 hospitals taken over by the NHS on 5 July 1948. It was however where Bevan chose to stage the inauguration ceremony for the NHS (wonder why he chose Park Hospital?) and where the first baby under the NHS was born. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of articles

I've been browsing the article assessment page, but there aren't any instructions on how to request reassessment. How do I do this? (The article in question is Manchester Canoe Club) All the best, TheMorid i a n 08:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually just a mention here. I've classed it as 'start' class based mostly on its size, but I don't believe there is a more formal method. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. I was about to say exactly the same thing. :) --Jza84 | Talk 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The best place to ask is here, and I've started a section on the assessment page in case anyone else goes there first. Nev1 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Money question

I've created Manchester, Bury and Rossendale Railway and was reading this book which gives an idea of capitals, sums of money, etc. The book gives figures of money without using the £ sign - it uses 'l.' I think the figures in £ are about right but would appreciate any help on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, L is an archaic alternative to the £ sign, short for the Latin librae, also the source of the French word for the pound, livre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Salford

A new editor has added a section on "Job losses and cuts" which seems rather biased as it talks about how much money the University is spending on various projects in the same section, for no good reason that I can see other than to make a contrast with the money that will be saved by redundancies. There's also a mention of what the academics think about the cuts and in general the section seems very unencyclopaedic to me. I took some of it out earlier today only to have my edit reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war so what do others think - is this becoming a soapbox? Richerman (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I reverted it. That anon is also removing reference material. --Jza84 | Talk 22:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I'm sure anon will be back soon. Richerman (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The way the information was presented was using wikipedia as a soapbox, but I think that it could be integrated into the article and hopefully that would prevent the changes being reverted. We have a reliable source in The Times, so there's no issue there. I think it could be condensed into a one or two sentence paragraph to go at the end of the history section, any thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably worth trying. I did already move the bit about spending to the "Major investement projects" section which is where it belongs, although it could really do with shortening a bit. Richerman (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heywood, Greater Manchester (again!)

Hello team,

Just a nudge that I've made a significant overhall of a large part of this article. It had been bothering me for some time (!). However, I'm still hoping that some of our usergroup can still apply some of their own knowledge and expertise to this article and bring it even more upto scratch. Help to the History section in particularly would be much appreciated. :) --Jza84 | Talk 01:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any sources on Heywood, but you've done a good job of expanding it. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not far off moving from start-class (as it was a few weeks ago), to being a B-class, maybe even GA. I've almost exhausted my sources though, and that History section does look challenging! :S --Jza84 | Talk 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone willing and able to help push this to a GAC standard? I really don't think we're far off achieving it. --Jza84 | Talk 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit wary when you suggested it could be GA, but it's improved since then and looks better. Worth a shot IMO. The culture and community section concerns me slightly. We might be able to scrape through with a stubby section if we get a lenient reviewer, but if not what should be done with it? I'd leave it as it is unless a reviewer asks something be done (it does, afterall, conform with WP:UKCITIES), but I'd like to have an idea what to do in the event it has to be expanded/merged into other section. The bit about the newspaper could go in the history section, but what about the sports stuff? Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about C&C. Really, I envisaged it as a Sports only section, but then the Heywood Advertiser factoid would be out of place as you say. I'm sure we can plump tge Sports bit out (I managed it for Royton and Milnrow someway, somehow!). If we can pool some stuff from google books and perhaps Emerald (I believe User:Richerman has access to it), I think we could crack this one. I am going to have a look at imagesofengland next to try and fill out the Landmarks section.

This article has been a toughy, as I've only travelled to Heywood once.. at night! --Jza84 | Talk 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess

Is there anyone who knows anything about Burgess or is interested in him? Probably best known for his novel A Clockwork Orange, Burgess was born in Manchester and grew up there, so falls within the scope of our project. At the moment, the article is in an appaling state: even after extensive pruning it's over 76kb long, has about 9 different types of clean up tag, and is largely unreferenced. I don't think there's any quick fix to this article, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks team. Nev1 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What a mess! I don't think I've ever seen to many ^{[citation needed]} tags in one article before. I'll certainly try and do what I can to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It really is in a dire state. Occassionally an IP editor tries reinstating some of the unsourced material. This led to the article being semi-protected (now expired) for the sanity of those trying to improve it, but this was a couple of months ago so may not be an issue any more. Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can tidy up a bit of the grammar and remove the unnecessary stuff but I know nothing of the subject. Personally I'd recommend removing anything that doesn't have a citation, and keeping an eye on it to ensure it doesn't get added back. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about him either, before I came across the article, I didn't even realise Burgess was from Manchester. I've got access to a biography, but am a bit pressed for reading time for the forseeable future. I'm also tempted to say everything uncited goes, but that leaves only one or two decent paragraphs... Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, this may be a good place to ask for reference material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate all your efforts. I know there are a lot of citations needed tags in the article, I put them there trying to make the IPs aware of just what problems there were - unsourced quotes and facts, allusions to what others thought, etc. I don't think I tagged indiscriminately. Then there was health list, which contained his problems with flatulence and a bout of chicken pox. It was just a huge mess of stuff, including what tea he drank. You can see where it was in July here. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heywood Hockey Club

I'm not sure aobut the notability of this club, unfortunately I don't know about the threshold of notability for hockey clubs. It's only got about 120 hits on google [7] [8]. Does anyone else think this article should go? Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We have Bolton Hockey Club and Rochdale Hockey Club too. I'm tempted to delete, but we could merge them into Hockey in Greater Manchester or something if there was a desire to keep? --Jza84 | Talk 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rochdale Hockey Club is the same as Heywood. Bolton HC doesn't seem notable either, the league it plays in is a red link. The hockey in GM idea might be worth looking into, but I know next to nothing about hockey. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We had to play it at school because someone nicked the footballs. Terrible... neither seem to have won a notable award/trophy, so I think a deletion is in order. --Jza84 | Talk 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, neither club is notable. I played hockey at school as well, and have the scars to prove it, having been whacked across the face with that hockey club thingumyjig. Delete. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a WP:COI? hehe.... --Jza84 | Talk 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. But I'm beyond caring. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Greater Manchester

This page needs sorting out - many of the articles in this category have a good selection of photos but still have photoneeded tags in their talk pages. I go through on the odd occasion and remove a few at a time, but things would be quicker if everyone could have a look at it :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call- I'll have a ~~luck~~ look (yikes!). Ties in nicely with wondering how we're progressing with getting all the towns to have quality static images? --Jza84 | Talk 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing geographical coordinates

Many Greater Manchester articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.

It is now possible to get lists of Greater Manchester articles that have no geographical coordinates via Wikipedia:CatScan, for example:

Greater Manchester articles missing geo-coordinates.

Alternatively, if CatScan is down or very slow, you can find them by looking through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data.

The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox).

There are about 146 articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make Greater Manchester articles more visible on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It doesn't take more than a minute or two per article to do. Is there a way of saving the search results from the scan tool above, to save others the bother of using it? I am adding coords for a few articles now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that we'll have articles missing coords in categories by country, or nearest offer, soon. CatScan can be very slow. I think by hand or by regexp would be the only way of getting a usable list out of CatScan ... there is an export to CSV switch by the scan button, but you'd still need to post process it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put a copy of the list of articles, wiki-formatted, at User:Mike Peel/WPGM missing coords. Mike Peel (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of these are localities that should use Template:Infobox UK place rather than the coors template. Just thought I'd give folk a nudge about that. --Jza84 | Talk 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congestion charge/TiF investment articles

I'm really concerned that these top priority articles aren't getting much coverage. The referendum question has been published and a date set. This is probably the most important thing to happen to the region (collectively) since the abolision of the county council in 1986.

Could we look at making these a priority as part of new, revised objectives? For a start I think we need a navigation template to tie the various articles together (I think we have a couple of forks etc). --Jza84 | Talk 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a navigation template for Transport in Greater Manchester in User:Jza84/Sandbox2. All users are invited to make additions/changes to it. I'm hoping it can tie some of our articles together a little more. :) --Jza84 | Talk 15:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey map request

Hi there, I'm seeking some Ordnance Survey maps from the late 19th century that clearly show the locations of Manchester United's old grounds, North Road and Bank Street. The ones I have in those articles at the minute are from around 1945, so they don't show where the grounds were. Any help you can give would be fantastic. Cheers. – Pee Jay 09:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This might help Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a useful site, but I'd rather not have to pay for the map. Cheers anyway. – Pee Jay 10:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to pay. Maps are free. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There ya go.] Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried this one? If thats no good try googling "old map of Manchester" or you can get them from the local history library, seehere Richerman (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't live in Manchester, so visiting the local library isn't an option for me. I'll try the Google option. – Pee Jay 10:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have an old map that shows a "football grd" on Bank Street, between Ashton New Road (of which North Road comes off) and Stuart Street, next to an "Electricity Generating Sta" and a "Chemical Wks", just to the south of where the Velodrome is now. Unfortunately, I don't know the age of the map (1920s?) as it has lost its front cover, and it is no more specific than just "football grd". If you want, I can upload a photo of the page somewhere for you to have a look at. Mike Peel (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like the right one. If you could upload it so I can have a look, that'd be sweet. Cheers. – Pee Jay 10:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate page is at [9]. Top-left of the right-hand page. Mike Peel (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both Parrot of Doom and Mike Peel. Those maps are exactly what I was looking for. If there's anything I can help you with in the future, please don't hesitate to ask! – Pee Jay 11:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since you ask, I've been looking for a map of the boundaries of the Irwell Valley for a while! :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)