Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Twin Towns

I noticed on the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham twin town section the info table and have added it onto a few article like the Chadderton page. Does any body have any objections for it to be included on any of the othere Manchester articles? (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)).

I would prefer to limit this to the Borough articles. Twinning was established and is maintained by local authorities and their successors. The twinning with "Chadderton" was actually established with Chadderton Urban District. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles.... in Wigan

As some of you will remember - on and off in the last couple of years we've had problems with a user who edits Wigan related content. He styled himself as "Jemmy H", and is a regular on forums like Wiganworld.com who tries to prove and disprove the status of areas and localities in the borough of Wigan. He never cited his sources, repeatedly edit warred, and refused to desist from personal attacks and so on.

I'm afraid he's back. Same articles, same agenda, different ip. He has editted as:

I tried my best with this guy a while back, and we pretty much lost one of our members (User:Man2) because of him. I'm tempted to WP:RBI, but what do we think here? Is there any scope for salvation? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should issue a firm warning, asking him to provide sources, hopefully engage him in useful discussion. I'd rather convince this guy what he's doing is pointless or encourage him to become a useful contributor rather than block him; I think RBI should be a last resort for very disruptive users. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree as he seems quite keen although misguide. He could be an asset if his efforts are channeled in the right direction (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)).
I've left 92.239.85.29 (talk · contribs) a note explaining things, let's see how things develop. I don't know if there are any other IPs doing the same thing, but I'll keep an eye out. He seems to be pushing information regarding to Pemberton, Greater Manchester so will most likely edit articles related to that. Nev1 (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Update) Jemmy and I were discussing whether or not Pemberton is a town on my talk page, activity seems to have died down siince then. If he returns I think we should engage him in discussion again rather than blocking. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheetham Hill and Cheetham

They're tagged for a merger, and it's probably about time we resolved this one! What do we think with these two pages? I'm thinking a merger akin to how Broughton, Greater Manchester deals with Higher and Lower Broughton - perhaps in a single Cheetham Hill article (common name and all!). --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actioned this per WP:BOLD, but let me know if this is problematic please. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Front Page

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal is to be on the front page of 15 November 2008. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great news, I'll help out reverting the inevitable vandalism on Saturday (the first hour seems to be the worst in my experience). Nev1 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be at work all Saturday so that would be much appreciated. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's up there now - congratulations! Richerman (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this!

This is a cracking photograph. But which church is it, and, if I wanted to add it to one of our district articles, where is it? Is it Hulme? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is good, isn't it? This is the one; listed Grade II*. Some of the details on the listing are out of date, as usual with Images of England. According to my street atlas, it's actually located between Chichester Road South, St Mary's Street and Parsonage Street in one corner of Hulme (so yes, Hulme would be the best article to put it in), right on the boundary with Trafford borough. The blocks of flats are indeed in Old Trafford; they're just off the Chorlton Road, it appears. So, no longer in ecclesiastical use, but still notable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It is located here. Unfortunately, as the description on Geograph states, the building is now flats. It doesnt appear to be listed either. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
scrub that about it being listed (there was an edit clash). On the basis of the Grade II* listed buildings article, (that article has this redlink) it is probably worthy of its own article. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds a great idea. It certainly looks like a notable building if nothing else. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm (2)

I've been spying on the Did You Know Next Update page (as usual), and the wind farm article is in the next batch of hooks to go on the main page. Look out for it this evening. Good work! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is great stuff. I'm wondering now if it could it become an WP:FAC? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, we made it onto the front page. I don't see that there's an awful lot more that could be added to it, so it shouldn't be too hard to get it to FAC Richerman (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Definately worth a shot I think. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"... shouldn't be too hard to get it to FAC". There speaks an FAC tyro. :lol: Nothing is easy to get through FAC, trust me. Worth a try though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ooh missed this one. I said it shoudn't be hard to get it to FAC - meaning we could get it to the standard where it's ready to be assessed - getting it through would be a different matter - phew!! did I get out of that one? And what's a tyro anyway? Richerman (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Check out this neat online encyclopedia: Tyro. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article's pretty close to being ready to be put forward, although there a few things I think should be fixed before you take the plunge:

  • "...and formerly had its own railway line": can any more be found out about the line? Was it connected to the mainline and when did it go out of use for instance?
  • The first sentence of the history section seems a bit redundant as the following sentence seems to summarise the quote.
  • There's a little about the 18th and 19th centuries (was this the first time the area was exploited?), but next to nothing about the 20th century. I think even something as simple as "coal mining in the area was over by the 20th century and the area remained unused until the construction of a wind farm" would go some way satisfying 1b. Or was it unused, was public access allowed?
  • "Although Bury Metropolitan Borough Council supported the proposal, objections were raised by Lancashire County Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Rossendale Borough Council": can we have some details of why Rochdale and Lancashire objected?
  • "The reply from Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour) was that": the bit in brackets seems a bit clumsy and since I'm not entirely sure what it means I've not changed it myself.

Other than the few (pretty minor) points I've made, the article looks in good shape. Best of luck with the FAC. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

I've taken the bull by the horns and nominated the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine at GAN, one of the project's aims. I think it meets the GA criteria, but still needs some work for FAC. As always, all comments/assistance gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have one question: what happened to the SSEM? What it dismantled because it was obsolete and had accomplished what it had set out to? And would that be why there's only a replica on display at the Science & Industry Museum? Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It was experimental, so it got modified a lot. If memory serves the bits were offered to a museum, who declined. It was scrapped to make space c1950. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's right. Bits got added, replaced, redesigned, until by April 1949 the SSEM had evolved into the Manchester Mark 1, which was decommissioned in 1950. The SSEM wasn't designed to be kept as a working computer, it was just a proof-of-concept. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It remains to be seen how the SSEM's GA review will go, hopefully any issues raised can be dealt with promptly, but the trouble with encyclopedias is that one thing leads to another. Following the link from the SSEM to the Manchester Mark 1 leads to an article in even worse shape than the SSEM's was originally. Arguably the Mark 1 is an even more important machine than the SSEM, as it began the UK computer industry (anyone remember that?) via the Ferranti Mark 1. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Kings Court

Anyone know anything about Kings Court? I get the whiff of a hoax. Google suggests nothing for Kings Court or the developer Aspire, the website referenced in the infobox has nothing to do with retail developments. The lack of mention on the web seems strange for a development which appears to be that big. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me as well. I've prodded it for deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The website has nothing to do with the article in question. Glad to see it destined for the dustbin. (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Moonchester

This has been brought up before, but would anyone object if I deleted this article on a mascot? It's unreferenced, and I can't see many reliable sources turning up, and in my opinion non-notable. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, not like Chaddy the Owl of course. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Gone. Nev1 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Westwood Moravian Church

It's a brand new article, and not too bad either! Might be worth a shot at DYK?, but failing that a bit our communal TLC wouldn't go amiss on this one. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone in the Manchester area near the Manchester Cathedral?

If so, would you mind taking a picture that is similar to Image:Resistancechurch.jpg? I know it's not your prerogative since it's more a video game article than a Greater Manchester article, but it'd be helpful. Thanks! - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to bring my own gun? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt! - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I was jesting!... I presume you want a photograph of the cathedral's interior on a normal day (i.e. no sprites or guns!), ideally from the same angle? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
That'd be ideal, yes. Thanks for this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Mark 1?

Now that the SSEM has established a template for GAs on historic computers, it ought to be relatively easy to get the Manchester Mark 1 to GA as well. Anyone else up for it? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal Exchange, Manchester Merger

Just had a quick look by two articles that I know have existed for some time Royal Exchange, Manchester and Royal Exchange Theatre, Manchester. The former discusses the building itself, while the latter discusses the Theatre which occupies a large part of the builidng. However, both overlap into the other's "territory", especially latter. The buildings and structures template actually links to the article about the theatre. I cant help thinking that the might be better merged. What do others think? Pit-yacker (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Mike Peel (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester articles needing geographic coordinates

40 articles in Category:Greater Manchester articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Greater Manchester is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Architecture of Manchester

Given the lack of references in this article, I was considering changing it to C-class (from B). Does anyone object? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems more than reasonable to me. The article has more problems than just its lack of citations anyway, and definitely isn't a B class IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Triangle, Manchester

The above article has this rather ridiculous sentence "The group Manchester Area Psychogeographic claim to have carried out a levitation of the Corn Exchange, on February 10, 1996." It originally said they had carried out a levitation and I changed it to "claimed to have", however I'm not happy about it being in at all, even though it is referenced (rather scathingly). Should it come out? This is also wikilinked to Manchester Area Psychogeographic. As this seems to be completely lacking in notability as the group no longer exists, and the links don't work other than one to their own defunct home page, should it go up for deletion? Also there is no evidence that the link to John Eden is going to the right person - if not it could be construed as libel. I wouldn't want my name to be linked to that sort of unadulterated crap. I notice also that there is a wikiproject Psychology banner on the talk page but on the main Psychogeography article's talk page it says the same banner has been removed Richerman (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm prepared to speedy delete this if there's consensus. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You've got my support. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this group has come up for discussion before now - I've certainly seen it before. Certainly the claim to have levitated the Corn Exchange should be removed since I don't think that Wikipedia is a place for discussion on the mutability of the most basic glaws of physics. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You actually left a comment on their talk page 14 months ago. They did claim to have some witnesses of this amazing phenomenum - the people that worked in the chippy on the ground floor. Perhaps they felt a sudden cold draught when the walls came away from the floor, or maybe they got splashed with hot fat. Strangely enough no-one else seems to have noticed. It's so frustrating - you levitate a massive building whilst mysteriously morphing all the cables and pipes into a stretchy, electrically-conducting, water-channeling, super material, and everyone is looking the other way :) Richerman (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Area Psychogeographic is gone. Nine newsletters and a "levitation" no one else saw just isn't notable. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

...is now at GAC. There are some requests for more info on the talk page, if anyone can help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've created a parish map from a boundary map taken from A Vision of Britain - I wanted to ask, does anyone know how reliable these maps are? I ask because the source map seems quite imprecise in that it doesn't correctly follow the river, which has always been the boundary between Radcliffe and Bury.
The map is here. Comments welcome. Without reading too much right now I'm presuming the smaller area is before Radcliffe expanded into the larger area, which (hopefully) was the boundary until 1974 when it was merged with Bury? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope I'm not treading on any toes, but I've dug out the population data for Radcliffe Ancient Parish throughout the 19th century and added it to the article. I'm not familiar with the boundaries, but the dataset looks right. Fingerpuppet (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, it passed today. Many thanks for all those who helped, including Fingerpuppet who today has provided me with a bunch of figures that will help me complete the economy section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New source of images

Life Magazine has released some 10,000,000 images here. Some of them are pretty old, a search for Manchester reveals 127 images (although there are Manchesters in the USA). The site may be of use for those looking for old images (ie me!) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but what's their copyright status? They don't appear to be freely available, and under UK law they could be copyrighted by the database thing... Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I've taken an image from there and placed it in Lancashire Cotton Famine - I can't see anyone being able to claim copyright on an image from 1862. I've seen other images on wikipedia that are for illustration only, under fair use articles. Its a minefield.
One annoying thing about the site is that it puts a watermark on the larger image sizes, and also the smaller ones when you right-click and save. Its a simple watermark that anyone with tattyshop could remove, but an easy way around it is just to screenshot the page and crop. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
See [1]: "If scanning material from a publication from 1982 or later database right must also be borne in mind. This right normally lasts 15 years from creation or substantial amendment of the database." If I'm misunderstanding that, then great. Mike Peel (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the firing neurons in my brain react by turning damp and wet when reading things like that :( It does say that it doesn't apply to the US, so perhaps if a US copyright licence is used then at least the images may remain? I don't know. I'll just add images that I consider old enough, and let the experts fight it out! Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

1981 census data

I've finally managed to get hold of a copy of the 1981 Urban Area census data (thanks to the ONS emailing me a copy), and I've added the data for Radcliffe, Salford and Oldham. Is there anywhere else where the table's been added that's missing the 1981 data? Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head Wigan needs them, but there are probably other places (including some which don't have population tables). Could you set up a sub page in user space with all the figures? That way, if they're needed in the future we'd know where to look. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm planning on updating Greater Manchester Urban Area with 1981 and 1991 data so I'll just put them there in Wiki format rather than "inventing the wheel twice", so to speak. I just thought I'd get the data added to the relevant articles first before I did that. (edit: I forgot to mention that I've also got the full version of the 1991 data, so that includes data for places outside the GMUA too - although there is a population threshold of 20,000 IIRC) Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That's great, and thanks for adding the 1991 figures to the Wigan article. I hadn't been able to find them because it's not part of the GM urban area. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance of updating the Wigan Urban Area article? Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that one to my "to do" list as well. Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask, for the Radcliffe article, what is the source for the 1981 data - since it isn't in the source quoted in the table. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's in the census data that was emailed to me by the ONS, but unfortunately it's not available on-line, and only includes sub-divisions with populations of over 20,000. I'm going to email my contact and see if I can get hold of the missing data. The title of the dataset is "1981 Key Statistics for Urban Areas GB Table 1", and it's in PDF format. I'm not too sure about how to cite it, so I was rather hoping someone would come up with something clever. The 1991 data is complete. Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll probably have to treat it as a paper source rather than online. How about 1981 Key Statistics for Urban Areas GB Table 1, Office for National Statistics, 2001(?) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). Does it come with any author information? Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No, there's no details with it at all - no explanatory notes, just the dataset tables. Looking at the formatting of the document, it's definitely from 1981 rather than a later creation. Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
1981 Key Statistics for Urban Areas GB Table 1, Office for National Statistics, 1981 might be the best we can do then. It's got the vital stuff so I think it should be ok. Nev1 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Fingerpuppet, do you know where I might find information on local trends? As someone who grew up in Radcliffe I witnessed first-hand the decline of its shopping precinct, local businesses, pubs, and general social decay. The trouble is I'm unsure what sources I could use to verify this, lest it become original research. For instance, the precinct used to have a Tandy, Timpsons, several banks, newsagents, a pet shop, pram and toy shop, greengrocers, butchers...basically everything a person needs. Now it has hardly any of those, and the long line of something like 20 pubs in less than a mile must now number about 5 or 6... Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, I'm not sure about that one - it's not really anything that's available from the ONS. You'll be able to find totals of people employed in retail, for example, but probably not the number of different employers, especially not at that level. There may be things available at a local authority level, but the Urban Area data isn't that detailed, so you may be out of luck regarding Radcliffe. There may be something in the State of the English Cities Report, as it does include certain Town Centres, but I've always found SOCD to be counter-intuitive and rather less helpful that the EuroStat LUZ data - even if it does go to more detail. Leave it with me. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Cancel that, SOCD doesn't have enough historical data to be useful. I'll look elsewhere. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. I've tried emailing the council on a few matters but rarely get any reply. I may have to visit the library, I have to go anyway for another reason but its hard to find recent publications. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I've just been looking at the data provided on the links on the Greater Manchester Urban Area and there seems to be some cunfusion. First of all the reference for the 1991 populations appears to provide data for the GM Urban Area in 2001 [2] and secondly, the source providing data for 2001 provides differing information to this [3] Is it me or is this confusing? GRB1972 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That first link is definitely to the 1991 stats and the second one 2001. The problem is there's no date visible on the first set, hence the confusion. Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund

User:TIF Commentator, despite my requests, keeps adding material to this article and referencing them with just square brackets to the link. While not the crime of the century, its bloody annoying when I've spent several hours tidying up all the references in that article.

Since this user has ignored my requests on his talk page, what should I do? I'm very tempted to just undo every edit he makes to it, until he starts formatting the references correctly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad that he's actually providing the references. Is there not a bot around that can automagically convert it to an inline cite web, preferably complete with title and accessdate? I would avoid reverting his edits, as that way leads to edit wars... Mike Peel (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A bot would be a good idea, unfortunately I've not come across one that does that. I've dropped TIF Commentator a note explaining how citing works, hopefully a working example will help them get their head around it. If it doesn't work, I'm not sure what to do, undoing their edits seems a bit much, but it's not fair on others if TIFC's edits create more work for others. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have changed quite a few myself in the past but got fed up with doing them. Perhaps if it carries on their edits should be reverted a few times with an edit summary explaining why, and maybe the user will get as fed up as we are and change their ways. Richerman (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but let's bear in mind that this editor has made 53 edits and has only recently been informed of the need to format references. Nev1 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It might also be worth bearing in mind that this article will be in the news in a couple of days, as a current event. It would be nice if we could get to grips with the page and tidy it like we did the Denshaw page. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If we could improve it enough could we get it into the news? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure! Of course, WP:MAIN has its own "In the news" section too, but I'm a main-page virgin, for want of a better term. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions for how we could improve it? I think the article is probably closer to B-class than C. A handful of {{fact}} tags need addressing, but generally I think the content is ok. There's too much subdivision for my taste, with some one or two sentence sections, but maybe there just needs to be more information added? Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Which part would it come under: politics, or conflicts? ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd place it in the "rampant socialist dogma" section. You can probably guess which way I voted :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The theatres of Manchester (again)

I have merged the Royal Exchange articles. As a first stage I have just put all material in one article, however it will need a thorough copyedit. On a similar subject, are there any objections to a merger of Manchester Central Library and Library Theatre??? Pit-yacker (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_22&oldid=1136051323"