Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Worth bothering?

First of all, a free biscuit to whoever knows what and where this is, and secondly would it deserve its own article? A clue - its near Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I know where it is, but I don't know what it is (apart from the obvious). It seems to be next to a refuse destructor, maybe they offloaded household waste there? Ah hang on - did they take the ash from there to dump somewhere, probably the Irish sea? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't know where it is - probably off the Bridgewater or the MSC. Is it a former canal boat repair dock? Richerman (talk)
It's the Wilburn St Basin on the former M&I navigation, where they used to take Manchester's night soil for carriage to Chat Moss, along with manure and ashpit contents. The chutes are still there. Its here. It's an odd thing, completely out of the way and unnoticed by most people. I have to get down there again and take a pic from the opposite bank, the footbridge has something written on it that I want to see. Also, right near there was where the New Quay company's Emma sank with the loss of about 40 people. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of this book?

  • Banks, George Linnaeus (1878), The Manchester Man, J.W. Allingham Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of copies in the Salford Local History library. If you want me to look something up I can nip across there at lunchtime. Richerman (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it out of copyright & hence available free, gratis, and for nothing? example Mr Stephen (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ooo thanks Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've only been able to find volume 1 on gooogle books and that doesn't have the bit about The Emma Tragedy which I think is what the Parrot is looking for. Richerman (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I did however manage to find a Procter book I'd been looking for, and tidy up a reference :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vance Miller and Hathershaw

Both likely to be in the press for the next day or so - I've just seen poor old Maple Mill on fire! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maple Mill news story: [1]. Do we not have an article on the mill? Mike Peel (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not that I'm aware. A few pictures are knocking about, at Hathershaw and mill town for example. It is one of (if not the) largest former cotton mill in northern England, or so I read recently. There are some beautiful photographs at flickr, particularly of the fire, although most are copyright protected :(. It appears on the incomplete List of mills in Oldham. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We do now. I have put up a stub and a info box.Maple Mill, Oldham Can we now try to populate it.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Manchester#A_few_problems

I think Manchester needs a bit of attention. There are a lot of incorrectly formatted or plain broken references now. I doubt it would pass an FA review, so I thought it was worth mentioning here before someone nominated it for a review. I'm unfamiliar with the article so can only offer token help, but that won't be for a while as I have a busy period at work approaching. I've linked the talk section above - this was only 10 minutes of looking, I've no doubt that more problems exist. Thankfully they should all be easy to correct. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Carrington Moss

I have a lot of time on my hands. I just created this article, and will submit it for DYK. If anyone has any ideas or input, it would be much appreciated. The place is a mile from my house so pictures will be forthcoming. I reckon I can get it to GAN in a couple of weeks, but right now I need more information on the makeup of the soil/bog/etc. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking good! Was the last sentence of the first paragraph intentionally commented out? – I presume so. (It looks a bit odd with the comma after "Mersey"!). A DYK reviewer might insist on an inline citation directly after the Starfish site fact; putting another instance of ref [23] after "enemy aircraft" should do the job. Just depends who is reviewing and how rigorously they apply the "rule"! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I keep looking at that. Its because I don't have a conclusive source that tells me exactly how large Carrington Moss is. There are sources in the article that state how much was purchased by Manchester Corporation (1,100 acres), but of course that may not be the extent of the site. Unfortunately Trafford Council's website isn't helpful on the matter. I'm wondering if there is a nature website that may tell me more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha, the DYK hook has been verified. That was unusually quick! Surprisingly I found nothing in the Victoria County History, but could this journal article be of use, if you can track it down? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There's some confusion about the extent and naming of all of these mosses that I struggled with on Chat Moss. What Manchester Corporation bought was actually Carrington Moss Estate, not Carrington Moss. Carrington Moss Estate was, as you say, 1,100 acres, but the Shell Refinery, for instance is outside the estate's boundaries according to a map I have. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My understanding presently is that Carrington Moss geologically is much the same as Chat Moss (they're not far apart) and both formed at the same time. Looking at maps, the 400 acres that Manchester Corporation kept for themselves is quite obviously the area on the maps covered by tramways and split up into squares. The rest of the land surrounding it is smallholdings. The oldest maps on old-maps.co.uk show the area before reclamation, and farms are plainly visible around the borders of the moss. A lane has also been built straight through it by 1882.
Is Carrington Moss Estate what was once owned by the Earl of Stamford? Presumably then the farms that existed at this time were not part of the estate, but were they along the edge of the Moss and therefore easier to drain and reclaim, before the large scale reclamation from 1886? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Carrington Moss Estate was what Manchester Corporation bought from the Earl of Stamford (and Warrington). Nicholls says that of the 1,100 acres 750 were unreclaimed, used as the grouse moor the article talks about. I haven't seen the map you mention, but on the estate map I'm looking at (from Nicholls's book) there are only three farms shown, all on the edge of the moss, as you say (but within the estate): Asphodel Farm, Corporation Homestead, and Birch Moss Farm south of the Glazebrook to Stockport road. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The term "Chat Moss" is similarly used to refer either to the whole mossy area, which is where the 6,000 odd acre extent comes from, or to the part owned by the de Traffords called Chat Moss Estate, which Manchester Corporation also bought to dump waste on. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Refs 15 and 17 will take you to the maps. If the weather is ok tomorrow I may get the train into Manchester to have a look at these. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look at those maps tomorrow. Reading that link reminded me of something. I live not too far away from Boysnope Wharf, where today's there's a rather nice looking golf club. I wonder how many of its members are aware that their club house is built on the site of a shit-shovelling depot? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Coincidentally, someone told me today about Richard Buxton's 1849 Botanical Guide to the Flowering Plants, Ferns, Mosses and Algae within 16 miles of Manchester the full text of which is on google books here. If you look at the end of the geology section on page xxi it says "the deposit of till no. 3 is very general in the district and forms the base of all the low mosses in the vicinity of Manchester". The make up of till no.3 is given on page xix. As Carrington is one of those low mosses I don't think it would be synthesis to mention that would it? It does actually mention Kersal Moor by name so I'll certainly be using it for that article. Richerman (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure because the bit at the side of the soil description gives localities that are central or north and east of the city centre. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem isn't it? Actually it says the no. 3 till forms the base - as it's clay I suppose that's what makes it boggy as the water can't drain away. Anything above that is probably peat formed by the breakdown of the sphagnum moss over thousands of years - but that doesn't get you anywhere nearer to a reference, unfortunately. Richerman (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have some bits and bobs to add and a copyedit, but basically I think this isn't far off GAN now, so I'm going to nominate and keep working on it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't let the grass grow under your feet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Moss Side

Hi folks, I hope all is well! Any chance a couple of you could place this on your watchlist. I had it on mine, but lack of watching had slowly seen some airbrushing and distortion of quotes etc. It's a frequent target for anti-Black rhetoric and silly gangster claims. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Well bloody hell - I mean wow! - I'm almost lost for words. Everything I hate about American society all wrapped up in one page of mindless, tedious crap. I thought the articles about computer games were bad enough but - The Ramblin' wreck - is that considered notable?........ I despair. Still, I shouldn't complain, I have learned something today. I now know that "The biggest structural change was a support system attached to the car's frame. The support system runs the length of the running boards and allows the increased weight of cheerleaders or Reck Club members standing on the runningboards" and also "According to Tech lore, Bobby Dodd was so enamored with the Lincoln gold that he changed the football helmet and uniform color to match the new Ramblin' Wreck paint scheme". Who'd have thought it! Richerman (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Whether or not it is notable I don't know, but it's quite poorly written. I despair of articles nominated at GAN, the grammar in many is awful (mind you I'm no expert). If things like that can be TFA, then I can't see why Gropecunt Lane can't. At least the latter is interesting. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty poorly written article, I agree. It's longer that Gropecunt Lane though, not as "thin", so it's OK. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mellor

Prompted by ancient history of Mellor, I've written an article on Mellor hill fort (now at GA). The "ancient history" article has serious issues, it meanders through time and somehow classes medieval as "ancient". I think that now there's an article on the Iron Age settlement at Mellor that the article on Mellor's ancient history should be merged into the history section of the Mellor article. What do other people think? A lot would have to go to prevent it from swamping the article, but I don't see the point in it anymore (unless it was to be moved to history of Mellor). Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by the B-class rating given to this article. It all seems to be based on one work and there are only two inline references given. Its also full of POV words like "astonishing" and "nicely-crafted". I'm changing it to start-class Richerman (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I graded it a long time ago (rather optimistically) when the qualification of a B-class article was that it was better than start but not a GA, it's certainly not a B-class with today's more stringent criteria. I'm not too fussed about it's rating anyway as I think it needs to be turned into a redirect, with anything salvageable moved into the Mellor article. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh ok - that explains it. I would agree it needs to be moved into the Mellor article - it's a bit of a hotch-potch at the moment. Richerman (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From a 21kb, I thought there was about 2kb of info worth saving. Because the article lacks sources, there are now a lot of fact tags in the Mellor article. The old "ancient history" information is still in the history so it can be retrieved if necessary. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unbuilt buildings

I have just downgraded Canopus Towers from High importance to low importance, in line with a number of other "proposed" edge of Manchester City Centre development articles. However, given that the developer went bankrupt and consequently, IMHO this development will almost certainly never be built, I was wondering if we go that bit further and delete? For similar reasons I have also downgraded Owen Street, Manchester. Perhaps it is time for a review of a number of these articles? Pit-yacker (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so. There's so little in either of them that recreating them if construction ever begins would hardly be a Herculean task. In general I'd probably delete every article on a building project if construction work hadn't actually started. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, if the company has gone bankrupt, it's a fair assumption that the building's not going to be built. If another company does pick up the baton, which seems unlikely, the article can always be undeleted. The list of tallest buildings and structures in Salford probably needs upadating. Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canopus_Towers Pit-yacker (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominating to FAC

Well, I intend to nominate Cheadle Hulme to FAC asap. I'm pretty sure it will not pass, but it is probably as good a way of getting feedback as any from "experts" in this area. Any further feedback would be appreciated - I think I've exhausted all my "skills" on this. It mostly needs copyediting and polishing up. Majorly talk 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that would be unwise. FAC reviewers quite rightly expect an article to be presented only when its nominator believes that it meets all of the FAC criteria, but with the best will in the world this one doesn't. Just one example chosen entirely at random: "The Marquess was a Catholic, and in 1643 the estate was confiscated from him due to persecution of Catholics in the English Civil War." (confiscated from him -> his estate was confiscated). I'm sorry to say I think there would be a 1a) feeding frenzy, to say nothing of the problem of unnecessary detail I outlined to you earlier.
Nevertheless I wish you luck if you decide to go ahead with an FAC nomination. Who knows. I could be entirely wrong. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not usually a fan, but this might be a good time to go for a peer review. I think it's improved to the stage where every article gets at least one review. Just a thought. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, I don't know what I'm doing with it. I'm completely on my own, and unless I ask people to help specifically, I don't get help. It's all very well picking out examples, but I have thoroughly exhausted my own knowledge of 1a so I'm not going to find any problems, especially as I'm the one who wrote it. I need someone to actually give it a decent look over, and get its prose up to standard. Majorly talk 18:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem I see is the excessive detail; I don't see that much can be done before some essential pruning, and I guess we'd find it difficult to agree on what should stay and what should go. I think Nev1's idea might be a better one than getting eviscerated at FAC though. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Peer review it is then. Majorly talk 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a good article. Why not go for FAC after PR, if just for the feedback and pointers? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, my thought was the peer review might pick up some of the prose issues as I feel the content itself is fine, and then once those are sorted it can be passed straight onto FAC. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wigan troubles....

Just a note (for those who remember this one) that we've had intermittent problems in the last few years with an ip editor who styles himself "Jemmy H". He's been blocked a few times for vandalism, distruption, incivility, soapboxing and, basically, archaic perspectives on geography.

It looks like his ip had changed since I last looked - I found him at 92.239.71.235 (talk · contribs) (and he signs his name as Jemmy here).

It would be useful if folk could stick a few of the following on their watchlists:

Jemmy H frequents a few forums (such as www.wiganworld.com and www.standish.org.uk) where he outlines his views against "expansionist" Wigan (to say the least). I suspect he uses Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance his debates. I haven't contacted this gentleman this time. His former ips are 80.192.242.187 (talk · contribs) 80.193.161.89 (talk · contribs) and 92.239.85.29 (talk · contribs) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that, I had hoped that after the dispute over Pemberton back in November he'd given up, but apparantly not. Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is why I stick to small places, nobody touches them :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, Wigan is now the only borough without some Good/Featured content to it's name. I think it would be worth informing WP:MERSEY of Jemmy as he's also edited St Helens, Merseyside ([2]). Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the kind of mentality I've had to contend with before, so I'm not looking forwards to any escalation. WP:RBI is probably the best strategy here. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Last time Jemmy engaged in discussion but seemed to get bored and wonder off. I'm not keen on blocking this guy, I think he should at the very least be warned first. He's disruptive and annoying, no doubt about that, but I think RBI is a bit over the top at this moment. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
....Sorry, I meant should the distruption continue/get worse. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine is currently on the front page, any help reverting the inevitable vandalism would be great. Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Aims

Can anyone add an article to the aims list, or is there a set list somewhere? Majorly talk 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing hard and fast about the aims. Usually we just discuss them here. Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
For my next project, it'll be quite difficult, but I'd quite like to get Stockport to GA. Majorly talk 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a great idea and has my full support. Mr Stephen has made a good start and the history section is well developed. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good aim to me as well, and reminds me once again that we still haven't got Salford there yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
.. I've just noticed that getting Stockport to GA is already listed as one of our (medium term) aims. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Didn't see that. Majorly talk 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's one of our "Top" priorities too, per the importance scale. Would be awesome to get it to GA. I'll try and slot in a few factoids from my books once it starts to pad out. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Jza's back, and he's the main contributor to the article, so maybe it will pick up. I've got a few commitments at the moment, but I'll see what books I can get my hands on at the library next week. The content's mostly there, the economy and sports sections need some attention and there are some fact tags to be dealt with. Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, back. Once I've fixed up what was possibly Wikipedia's most scandalously bad article, I'll be back to local issues for sure. Salford ain't far off a GA - I don't know why it keeps stalling :S User:Richerman is also keen on the area. Maybe God could help? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If you think that's bad, you should take a look at the behemoth I've taken on that is Jean Michel Jarre. It doesn't help that the only biographies aren't in English :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we all seem pretty much agreed that Stockport should be a GA, I've added it to our project aims. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme railway station

Just a note that Majorly's nominated the above article at GAC. While WP:GM doesn't have any Good Articles on railway stations, there are some such as Preston railway station that may be worth looking at for ideas. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually used Jordanhill railway station as a guide; it's a similar sort of size. Majorly talk 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking good. One point that a reviewer will probably pick up on is the use of the term "Stafford line", which appears suddenly in the "New station" paragraph without previous explanation. It might be better to describe it as either the Macclesfield line or the Stoke-on-Trent line to avoid confusion. Alternatively (and I acknowledge that the route is known as the Stafford line today), some sort of explanatory note could be incorporated in the prose to show why it is being called the Stafford line. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm unsure of why it is called that myself. Majorly talk 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's see what the GA review brings; it may prove not to be an issue. If it is commented on, I'll try and work towards a suitable wording; I can offer a book reference for the term "Macclesfield line", which should do. (Note to self: Macfarlane (1989), p22!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good news, the article was promoted to GA without too many problems :-) Good work guys. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Broughton Suspension Bridge

I've just expanded the above article from a stub to a small article, and intend to put it up for DYK in the next day or so. Could others have a look at it and see if they can add anything or improve it? I don't think the title capitalisation is right for a start, and I wonder if it needs any more catagories. It's obviously past stub class now as well, so could someone reasses it too? Richerman (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note with User:Iridescent, who has written quite a few bridge articles (albeit in London, though I expect the structure and content of such articles is similar). Majorly talk 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, London Bridge fell down as well didn't it? :) Richerman (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reassessed the article as C class. If the article had been about the bridge's collapse rather than the bridge itself I'd have assesssed it as a B, but as it is I don't think there's enough on the bridge yet for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the image licence is correct, as it states that the image has been released into PD by the copyright holder - but the author is unknown. You might be better off using {{PD-old}}, and entering into the description what efforts you've made to trace the author and copyright status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's some stuff I found, including a report in The Times:

Also, from The Times, Friday, Apr 15, 1831; pg. 3; Issue 14514; col C

I've uploaded the above report to my Flickr page here Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've trawled through just about every report I can find on it in google and google books but they all get pretty samey after a while and don't really add anything. I've changed the licence on the picture to PD-old now (I couldn't find that one in the upload licences) but they've changed it to 100 instead of 70 years now. Perhaps if I move it to wikimedia I'll have better luck as they do seem to be inconsistent with the number of years. I'll see if I can find the original in the library to see if it has the author, but I doubt it. The library are happy to let you use them as long as you say the image came from them. Richerman (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it says here the picture is from 1883. Do you think I can give that link as evidence? Richerman (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You could if you emailed the site owner and asked how he arrived at 1883. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this related? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As it looks the same and that was the only suspension bridge there it must be, but the text is too small to read. There doesn't seem to be much left of the wooden bridge though! Richerman (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This person may well be able to help - the illustration is mentioned on that page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Quickly dropping by (will comment more fully in a few days) – if you can demonstrate that the picture was published pre–1923, then upload it to Wikipedia directly (not Commons) and you're safe; en-wiki is governed by Florida law, where anything published before 1 Jan 1923 is out of copyright, and not the stricter British copyright law that applies on Commons. Use {{PD-US}} as the licensing tag. See the tags on File:First Wandsworth Bridge.jpg for a similar example of a "valid on en-wiki, invalid on Commons" bridge photo. The usual "it won't be available for other languages" argument against uploading to Wikipedia direct instead of Commons doesn't apply here, as it's unlikely any other language project is ever going to need this photo. – iridescent 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I see - that explains the variation in the number of qualifying years. Actually it is on the wikipedia site as it was taking ages to upload to to commons on Sunday night. Looks like that was fortuitous! Thanks to all for your help - it's been verified for DYK now. Richerman (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort-of-arbitrary break

Warning: long post alert!

OK: here we go. My secret formula* for a bridge (or any transport infrastructure) article is:

  1. History of Point A;
  2. History of Point B;
  3. How people traditionally got from A to B and why it was unsatisfactory;
  4. Who proposed the new project, why they decided on the method they used, who designed it and how they funded it (that last is one of the most important elements, but is easy to forget);
  5. What impact it had on points A & B, the surrounding areas, and other competing services;
  6. Any particularly interesting (not necessarily "notable" in Wikipedia terms) that happened there, notable artistic depictions etc (19th century painters loved bridges);
  7. If it was replaced, the circumstances of the previous incarnation becoming problematic (in this particular case rather spectacularly);
  8. Repeat 4–7 until current incarnation reached;
  9. Any interesting (again, not "notable") things that have happened there recently;
  10. How busy it is today, and how it's currently used.

*All my personal opinion, so don't take it as any kind of WP:MOSBRIDGE policy, but no article written to this format has yet failed at GAC/FAC.

On this particular one at the moment:

  • 1-3 are completely missing; there's no explanation of what was in Lower Broughton and Pendleton at this time, or why people would want to go from one to the other and why existing bridges/ferries/fords weren't suitable for this. Was it built in anticipation of a racecourse being built, to encourage people to visit the racecourse? If so, say so; as Giano is so fond of saying, assume every Wikipedia reader is a bright 14-year-old with no prior knowledge of whatever you're writing about.
  • 4 needs massive expansion. Why did Fitzgerald build it at his own expense? Was it a public gesture, a loss-leader to encourage visitors to a commercial enterprise of his, or did he plan to charge tolls for it and recoup the money that way? If the latter, how much did he charge and was it successful? Who designed the suspension bridge, and was there a particular reason they chose an (expensive) suspension bridge over a cheaper deck-arch or cantilever design, given that the river was only two feet deep so the "cross a deep gorge without affecting navigation" issue that led to the Menai Bridge and Clifton Bridge being built as suspension bridges didn't apply?
  • 5 doesn't currently exist at all; every area in England changed drastically in this period, and there really ought to be something about this. Even if it's impossible to separate out "population and industrial growth due to the bridge" from "population and industrial growth due to canals & railways", the changes ought to be mentioned.
  • 6 I'll leave to someone familiar with Manchester history, as I've no idea what if anything happened there - but I'll be very surprised if someone significant didn't produce at least one painting of it.
  • The collapse is covered perfectly well, but is there any coverage of why they decided to rebuild it to the original design, given that the collapse would presumably have put locals off the idea of suspension bridges? (I strongly suspect the reason will be that they were able to salvage and reuse most of the collapsed bridge, but it ought to be spelled out.)
  • Why was it rebuilt in 1914, who designed the new (current) bridge, and how much did the replacement cost?
  • Are there any figures available for current usage? (I note that in the photo it's deserted – is this typical?) Have new roads/railways affected the numbers of people using it?

None of the above should be taken as criticism – there's nothing wrong or missing – but just as highlighting the holes that ought to be filled if you want to take it further. (The fields in {{Infobox Bridge}} make quite a good "what have I missed?" checklist for bridge articles.) Not all the points need to be covered, but they all ought to be at least touched on if you're planning on taking it to GA/FA size (even if you don't plan to put it through the GA/FA process). It looks daunting, but it's do-able even on unpromising bridges – see Chiswick Bridge or Wandsworth Bridge for examples of the format as applied to patently uninteresting structures, without too much hassle (this expansion of Chiswick Bridge was done in a single sitting of a bit under 3 hours). As I've already said to Majorly, with any UK transport-related article a visit to Ian Allan is always a good starting point (the Manchester branch is at 5 Piccadilly Station Approach); the bookshops of local museums also often have better local history sections than any commercial bookshop, as well as stocking older books that have already been remaindered at commercial shops and withdrawn from libraries. Assuming you're in Manchester, I suspect the UMIST library may well have some very good coverage of this particular bridge, too. – iridescent 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was just looking at DYK for now, but I'll give it some more thought when I have time. Actually I used to work at UMIST and used to go in that bookshop you mentioned quite a lot. However, I now work at Salford Uni - almost opposite the Salford Local History Library, so that's my main resource now - and an excellent one it is too! It's now just a little-known pedestrian footbridge, although it is quite well used. I had to wait a bit to get the picture with no-one on it :) The suspension bridge was used for wheeled traffic as well, although I think when the Cromwell road bridge was built it would have taken all that traffic away. I'll add something about that to the article. I would imagine that, as the soldiers were coming from Kersal Moor and they crossed at that point, that was the first bridge they came to, I'll have to see when the others were built. It is now built to the same design as at least one other bridge a mile or so along the Irwell at Woden Street so I think there was a bit of early mass-production going on. Of course the article is about the suspension bridge and the present day bridge is really not notable and just tagged on the end to round the story off. Richerman (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Salford

I've made a start adding some more sources to the Salford article and there are quite a few "clarification needed" tags. Does anyone have a copy of Salford: An Illustrated History by Glynis Cooper? It could be used to solve at least one of these tags ("Salford hosted Stuart on his ride through the area") and might be useful to clear up a few of the "citation needed tags" as well with a bit of luck. I'd do it myself, but I can't get my hands on a copy. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I could probably get hold of a copy tomorrow if nobody else does before then. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Friends of Real Lancashire

Hello folks,

I'm a little concerned with Talk:Lancashire#Friends_of_Real_Lancashire. The page may be worth watching. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a wikimedia UK. What's "real Lancashire" anyway? Cheese? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a traditional British cultural region and "Real" county that was never abolished and is used for many important functions. It's so important I've started User:Jza84/Sandbox4 to help elaborate on how "real" it is. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've certain I've said this before somewhere, but I find the historical myopeia surrounding this "traditional counties" issue to be completely incomprehensible. Obviously though there are many for whom it's a topic of pressing importance, and their excessive enthusiasm for their case needs to be held in check. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. It's effectively a kind of nationalism. It's a reason why we lost User:MRSC and User:Ddstretch, which is something I cannot forgive. I'm not here to airbrush out their existence, but the ancient counties need to be used in context; they are important parts of our history and culture, and I agree some modern units were unfortunate, but an abhorance to entities like Greater Manchester and Merseyside is not a fair reason to supplant reality with spin. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An example I have occasionally made use of in the past is that I was born in Mercia, so I have always refused to recognise the administrative units introduced after our 10th-century decline, and I care even less for the those introduced by successive governments during the 20th century. Sale, for instance, hasn't been in Cheshire for over 30 years now, but there are still loads of people who ... I'm digressing, a good heads up. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire Cotton Famine

There's some work being done on the above article at the moment by ClemRutter and myself. As it's a high importance but rather low quality article, any help would be greatly appreciated. Richerman (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any books relating directly to the famine, but Hugh Mason might be worth mentioning as one of the few mill owners who refused to cut wages during the famine. Nev1 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Good call, I'll add it in when I get time. Richerman (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Finished. I have done as much as I can do- and will not be touching the article for the next month, except to add a couple of tables if I find them. Can I now pass over to someone else. I have been working well outside my comfort zone, so I can't trust my judgement anymore. It needs to be read by someone who has some historical training. I am confused why some of my sources refer to the Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Act 1863 then other 1864. My references should be accurate- but thats another job. All my spelling and grammar can be given a good shaking. Perhaps someone would like to rate the article now. I have left a couple of red links for new articles that need to be written. Further examples of legacy works can be added. Still time for me to move on. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Manchester

There's been a bit of an edit shuffle on one of our most important articles, something that we ought to resolve. There are a few claims that the Manchester article's lead reads like a tourist promotion, and not NPOV - perhaps we need to revisit this so we keep our FA status? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to give in gracefully on the "second city" and "Capital of the North" nicknames as they're the main bone of contention. Personally I agree that they're really only used by organisations that are in the business of promoting Manchester and as such are just peacock terms. Richerman (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confident that the lead needs rewritting from scratch - I don't think it does Manchester justice. I think the second city needs mentioning for context, and alot of the historical stuff is accurate, but I've not been keen on the lead for some time now. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think both terms should stay but I agree the wording around them could be different. It shouldn't say 'nicknamed' as it does now, it used to say 'considered to be' but I have no idea when it was changed. They both give the reader a gauge on the importance of Manchester nationally and internationally, something which say our population doesn't do effectively. The issue has been debated time and time again with the result always being they should stay. The talk page archives are dominated by the debate so for all that to go to waste just because a small minority think it's just a promotional term would not be in the best interests of the article. I agree the lead could be changed but if you want to see a lead based on self-promotion, just hop over to Leeds which is far worse using as many population estimates as they can find. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
So, perhaps something like "terms such as "Capital of the North" are used promotionally, advancing its claim as the second city of the United Kingdom and as a global city".... could be used, with a tweak? That is, afterall, verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the word promotionally should be avoided as it does make them sound like a peacock term. Something like "terms such as "Capital of the North" are used to describe Manchester's status, advancing its claim as the second city of the United Kingdom and as a global city" maybe? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Richerman on this, let's just drop the second city and capital of the north stuff. Don't see that it adds much and it's hardly worth fighting over. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In general I certainly don't think whether it stays or goes is a concern for the article's FA status anyway. FAR is not much different from GA in the standard expected, far from that expected at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I unwatched Manchester a couple of months ago. I was torn between several viewpoints. The intellectually honest route is that actually Manchester is all of those things, despite Leeds' old advertising campaign (catchline—"The Capital of the North") and the three-line whip of Birmingham's politicians to use the phrase "second city" as often as possible. The easier path, which I took, was that I wasn't employed by Manchester City Council and if it was important they could damn well pay someone to watch the article, so I'm content to let the trolls, Manc-haters, and their enablers have their way. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
PS forgot "and promoters of other cities" Mr Stephen (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mr Stephen, these are important perceptions of the city. They're important for Leeds, Birmingham et al too, and if verified I really don't mind them stating it too. I feel we need to find a way to express that Manchester is a very, very important English and British city, that's going to be pallettable to editors and informative for readers. It's in a strange position in that it's not especially populous, but is part of a major metropolitan area. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(<-) We're still getting vistors to the talk page (incidently who edit Birmingham and Leeds related articles!), who claim that Manchester would not stand up to FAR, and needs significant rewording and reworking. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

James Purnell

There's a minor edit war on James Purnell's article about who he's in a relationship with. As the article is a BLP I've left a note that unless the information is scrupulously sourced it will be removed as wikipedia's articles on living people can potentially impact on their lives. This is just one instance, but it would be worth keeping an eye on the project's BLPs, especially those of politicians which could be used for smears. On a similar note, the recent expenses scandal, although sourced, may be given too much weight in some articles. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I thought this was limited to Phil Woolas (an article I watch for BLP issues) because of his association with the Gurkha, but clearly this is pretty widespread. I know it can be unpopular, but "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy" per WP:BLP. Our MPs might want watching..... I imagine Hazel Blears is another target for BLP issues. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Salford -> Salford, Greater Manchester

I think most of you know and agreed with the recent page move I proposed and actioned in the last day or so, but thought I'd let everyone know here too.

Assuming this is going to stay, we need someone with access to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to change all the links to Salford to go to Salford, Greater Manchester. The sooner we do this, the easier it will be to make the transition smooth for our readers. Can anybody help? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Manchester in the 1830s

Whilst searching on Google books I found a fascinating snapshot of Manchester in the 1830s here in the Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. There are lots of interesting facts and figures about Manchester and the surrounding districts. Richerman (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be a little wary of using that publication as a source - I've found a few inaccuracies while researching other articles, IIRC the Haslingden Canal was published as extant, when not a sod was cut. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, we all make mistakes. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Richerman (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Some thoughts on this, which I hope to take to FAC at some point, would be appreciated. Thanks, Majorly talk 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The licence for the aerial photograph should probably be the same as the licence for the first (old) photograph. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like good feedback. WP:PR is underrated and underused IMHO. The article is really moving along nicely, but my only real concern is that the right aligned images in the History/Background sections clash with the infobox, and push down the text (in my browser) causing a rather unsightly area of white space. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

I'm thinking of doing an improvement drive to this article, and try and bag us our fifth district that has GA or FA status. There is already alot of verified peer-assessed stuff on related articles that can be directly lifted so this could be an article transformed pretty quickly. Any assistance with this, such as rewriting sections and creating the tables found elsewhere on districts, would be much appreciated. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_27&oldid=1136051305"