Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

England at GAC!

Alerting all WikiProject Greater Manchester members that England is undergoing a reveiw for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can... England expects that every man will do his duty.... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wigan's first GA!

Today the article on the DW Stadium (formerly the JJB) was promoted to GA. It was mentioned in the project's article alerts, but not the news feed as I'm usually the one who usually updates it and I'm not quite omniscient! Because of this, I've transcluded the project's article alerts onto the main project page. It's probably better than the news feed as it includes DYKs and other stuff. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But...but...Wigan isn't in GAGM, its in....LA(ncashire)!! Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, funny you say that, as a new Category:Places formerly in Lancashire was created this afternoon with one article in it - has implications for our WikiProject and I've been discussing it at my talk with User:MRSC.
Well done to the writers of that article - I certainly missed it! Tyldesley next I hope! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it was all the work of Ginger Warrior (talk · contribs), not someone I've come across before. That new category would involve a lot of leg work, plus an inevitable Cheshire category if the type gets endorsed. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Places in Lancashire - what on earth is the point of that category? You might as well have Category:People who used to be babies. I propose it be deleted tbh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Not only because it's going to have thousands of articles in it (what, two thirds of Category:Geography_of_Greater_Manchester, including all those suburb stubs?) but because it's unlikely to be adopted nationally and will open up a massive can of worms about its wording etc. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
More than that, what would be the point? Its easier just to edit any article we find so that it includes the 'historically a part of...' text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, really yeh. I don't think the category would pass the criteria for speedy deletion so may have to go to a poll at WP:CFD. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Category for discussion

Not wanting to detract from the glory of Wigan's first GA, as a side issue discussed above, I have nominated Category:Places formerly in Lancashire for deletion here. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyldesley at GAN

Tyldesley is J3Mrs's first GA nomination, and it's also the first Wigan settlement to be nominated, so it would be good if we could keep an eye on it and help where we can. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some decent chunks of text that appear to be uncited, but I haven't really read anything yet. For a first GA it looks pretty good though.
I'm heading over to Ashton tomorrow to buy a new office chair, if the weather is as lovely as it is today I'll be getting a pic of Myra Hindley's missing house while I'm over there. Any requests while I'm in the area? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll watch list the review page so I'll help out where I can.
Assuming that's Ashton as in under-Lyne, the article isn't too badly illustrated, although a better picture of St Michael and All Angels' Church would be good. The co-ordinates given in the article are bang on, and looking at Google maps it look like the best angle is somewhere from the south-west as the other sides are built up. I'm not really familiar with other landmarks in the area that don't already have a decent picture, although maybe the Portland Basin could do with something better (again the co-ordinates in the article are pretty accurate) Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been to Portland Basin a few times, its where I park my car before riding down and up the Peak Forest Canal. Will do. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Project aims

I think we're at a time again where we need to reconsider our project aims and make sure we're focussed on the right things. I know we discussed the possibility of using this tool to see what kind of articles are most popular in terms of visitors, but I'm not sure if anybody submitted a request?

I'm thinking that there are some articles that should be dear and important to us all collectively that are not getting the focus that is needed:

We talked about taking Stockport to GA and Chadderton to FA too. I'm confident that congestion charging in Greater Manchester doesn't really need to be a major project aim as anticipated too now. What do we think? Are there any articles that folk feel need tackling? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to collaborate on 1996 Manchester bombing. I'm drained at the moment though to work on anything substantial by myself. Majorly talk 18:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I tried to file a request for the popular pages list the other day but there was a problem with the server. I've filed one just now and it can be seen on the list of current requests. The request key is a39ee82 and is necessary if anyone wants to alter the request before it's accepted.
Our aims have already been tweaked so that getting Stockport to GA is given more emphasis. I think Chadderton should be added to the list too. A while ago I was working on getting Wigan to GA, and while it's pretty well developed now I've stalled and there are still several sections that need referencing. Local knowledge would be very useful for the geography section.
The Metrolink is very important and will become more so as it expands, so decent article would be desirable. The M60 is unavoidable when travelling across Manchester, so I suppose responsibility for the article falls to us. I wouldn't know where to look for sources though. The 96 bombing is of course a very important subject and I would fully support developing it as one of our project aims. The article needs some background on why the IRA were bombing people and more on the aftermath, ie: Manchester's regeneration and the international reaction to the event (I've already started on the section about the events of the day, but that will probably be the easiest section as there should be no politics or POV involved). The town hall? I agree it's important, but our aims are already quite wide ranging. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My focus would be on Manchester's history, which I think our coverage of is pretty poor. I've mentioned the Moors murders before, as an article that's bound to get a lot of hits when Brady, now an old man who's on hunger strike, inevitably dies. I'm becoming pretty happy with that article now, and I think it'll soon be ready for GAN, but Brady's own article is still pretty poor. Re the '96 bombing, the point has been made elsewhere that writing about any Irish topic provokes Republican wars. I've had to temporarily abandon an article about an 1867 trial and execution of 3 Fenians who were convicted of the murder of a police officer during an escape, so what chance of keeping the Republican warriors away from a far more recent event? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. Despite my apparently negative comments above, I'd fully support getting the '96 bombing to at least GA as one of our new project goals. The Republican edit warring has got to be tackled head-on at some point. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Surprisingly, while you were editing the Manchester Martyrs article I was making a start on the 96 bombing and received no complaints. Perhaps Manchester Martyrs garner more interest because of the executions whereas no one has been charged for the bombing. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten a bit carried away with other things, but I agree with Malleus that the Moors murders article should be a priority. Imagine TFA, with those two faces staring out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If Tyldesley goes ok, I'm happy to add stuff on the articles I've started on, Astley, Atherton and Leigh. There's a lot I can write on Leigh, but it's complicated, which is why I'm spending more time thinking than writing.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Be careful, its addictive. I started with an unimportant little canal and ended up writing about all kinds of stuff I never knew I was interested in! Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm already realising that, trouble is I'm easily distracted and highly disorganised.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I find that it's just like reading an encyclopedia (perhaps unsurprisingly), where one thing just leads to another. Speaking of which PoD, when I was browsing through the newspaper archives looking for info on Myra Hindley, who most people still think of as unique, a woman involved in child murder, I came across someone far more prolific, Amelia Dyer, who ran what was then known as a baby farm ... very tempting. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to worry about you Malleus! Medieval massacres, witchcraft, executed murderers, infantacide... :S --Jza84 |  Talk  21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wait until you see my magnus opus on the Manchester plagues. Be afraid, be very afraid. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
... my interest in which was sparked by this rather unprepossessing plague stone outside the entrance to Gorse Hill Park. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The plauge in our region would be a fantastic topic to learn and edit about!!! There was plauge in Chadderton, for what it's worth (mentioned fleetingly in article)! I remember clearly from Simon Schama's A History of Britain that there was a compelling case made by Schama that the plague put an effective and abrupt end to feudalism in England and created England's infamous and iconic moaning middle classes; because of their short supply following the plauge, peasants were empowered to the point where they could demand greater pay and rights from the aristocracy that had worked them into the ground, or else just up-root and move to a lord who would meet their requirements. The elimination of so many peasants (and lords) also meant that any survivors inherited their family's (and even friend's, and even their lord's!) land to the point that they could have their very own cottages and gardens - in true English spirit. A very under-rated piece of England's history really. I'd love to see the magnus opus! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You've summarised my point about Manchester's history being rather poorly covered very well. The plague affected the whole country of course, but when and why did Manchester become a hotbed of radicalism? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You're not suggesting.... you've found the answer in the plague, right? Wouldn't suprise me one bit. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that at all, but there were parallels, in reverse if you like. A highly skilled workforce replaced during the Industrial Revolution by mechanisation for one. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The Luddites etc? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the plug riots for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So....

...given the above, can I assume the following?:

I'm not sure where than leaves us with:

What do we think? Are there any other articles that people would like to see prioritised for the Autumn? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing is a major article that we ought to focus some effort on, no question about that. The congestion charging thing is historical now, so not any kind of priority as far as I'm concerned. Let's be bold with Wigan amd Kersal Moor and just nominate them at GAN. Manchester Metrolink deserves a better article, so I'd support that as a priority, as does the M60. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wigan an Kersal Moor being nommed right away for GAN, and I'm going to nominate Chadderton for FAC tomorrow probably. Worse case scenario is they say "no" - nothing lost. The IRA bombing could be 2009's Peterloo. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Malleus, with a few minor differences. I think nominate Kersall Moor may as well be nominated now and see what happens (although Wigan still needs references). The article on the congestion charge is ok, but I don't think it should be a high priority as it's not going ahead. The sources for the 1996 Manchester bombing will be pretty much all online and who knows, if we can get it so it's balanced and detailed enough, why not go for FA. Nev1 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to aim high right from the start. If we can't get that bombing through FAC then we're a pretty sad lot. Having said that though, I've got a serial murderer to finish off before I can help. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources for 1996 & the city's response:
  • King, Ray (2006). Detonation: rebirth of a city. Clear Publications Limited. ISBN 0-9552621-0-0.
  • Lester, Sarah (2006). The Manchester bomb. Manchester: Manchester Evening News. ISBN 0-9549042-7-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Williams, Gwyndaf (2003). The enterprising city centre : Manchester's development challenge. London: Spon. ISBN 0-415-25262-8.
  • Peck, Jamie (2002). City of revolution : restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5888-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
and several papers by Gwyndaf (Gwyn, Glen) Williams. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I keep thinking of other bits I want to do to the Kersal Moor article before putting it up for GA and then I get sidetracked onto other things. Probably the only thing to do is just nominate it and deal with the reviewers comments - so if someone wants to nominate it, just do it and give me a nudge. However, maybe I'll just sort out the lead first.............Richerman (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to a question I've asked a few times, at least in part

I've asked a few times whether it's possible to see whether a page is being watched or not, as it's pretty obvious that unwatched pages are potential targets for long-term vandalism. The answer has always been "No, because to reveal that information would provide the vandals with potential targets", a variation on the silly security by obscurity argument.

So I'm not sure if this is a new tool or not, but I present to you a tool that will tell you how many watchers a page has. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

113 people are watching Gropecunt Lane. The filthy devils. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tach! My talk page has more than that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If this is a competition then take that Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ha, chicken feed compared to this one, however, Malleus's talk page beats them all for sheer entertainment value. :) Richerman (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Great tool! I have 97 watchers on my talk! Gulp! - I'd best behave!..... As I suspected, most of the villages of {{Settlements of Saddleworth}} have only a watcher or two (one of them is probably me, the other possibly User:M A Mason or User:Aquilina who have both vanished). Might be worth watching a few, considering Denshaw-gate last year! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My view is that if we tag articles then they ought to be watchlisted by at least one member of the project. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
A good suggestion but not easy to make sure every article is watched unless you put the whole lot on your watchlist (I'll do that now actually). The project watchlist covers all our articles... in theory at least, as it needs updating. Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chadderton at FAC! Wigan and Kersal Moor at GAC!

Chadderton is at FAC here. It needs Alt text, which I'm not especially good at writing (I find it very difficult for some reason!), but bar that, I think it's as good as it can be. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And just in case you're not sure what Alt text is... Richerman (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Richerman. :)
I have also nominated Wigan and Kersal Moor for GAC. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh bugger, now I'll have to get off my arse and get that Kersal Moor article sorted out! Richerman (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's an incentive. I'll get started on finishing of the references for Wigan this . Nev1 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Make sure you get your spelling right though - hee, heee!! (evneinging??) Richerman (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Bah, I don't expect people to pay attention to what I say so my spelling's not important! ;-) Nev1 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
How I'm meant to provide alt text for this I do not know! It's brought me out in a cold sweat! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Alt text for a coat of arms is horrible, but I gave it a try for Ashton-under-Lyne, and this was acceptable to the reviewer. Nev1 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that example helped a great deal! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There you are Nev - I was about to say that all your words are pearls of wisdom but the proof is there for all to see. You'll make an alt texter out of Jza yet! Seriously though, it's great that wikipedia is being made accessible to as many people as possible - I wonder how many people benefit from the alt text? Richerman (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia was (or is? I'm not sure...) meant to be a simillar type of project. I'm not sure how effective or wide-reaching it is really. I think it's an admirable cause, I really do, but I think "alt text" was a little rushed through, and a possible area for conflict down the line. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I come back to Chadderton with a niaive question. On the svg, there is a technical description of the grant of arms- and technically the graphic representation shown is merely an one interpretation of that- would the assessor accept that as an alt? An interesting case where th alt has become the substantive and the substantive the alt! If it is accepted than for each Coat of Arms we can bore down and retrieve the grant of arms? Or are you saying that the assessor doesn't speak Norman English? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect they wouldn't accept it, but it's a good point. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I need a source (or two) for the following:

South Chadderton is the smallest of the three secondaries, and serves 700 pupils from Chadderton and north Manchester. Almost every suburb of Chadderton is served by a primary school, some of which have religious affiliations.

The sources I'd used are either dead or unreliable. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to source the second sentence (it might just be easier to get rid of it), but the first shouldn't be too hard. Here's are three links which together show that South Chadderton is the smallest secondary school in the town and serves ~700 pupils: [1] [2] [3] Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I just have one outstanding issue now at the moment, citing the following:

Citibus was a Chadderton-based commercial bus operator serving Greater Manchester, launched in 1986. It competed with GMPTE until 1995 when it was bought-out by GM Buses North, what is now First Manchester.

Any transport enthusiasts able to help? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Any help? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Brilliant! I'll give it a whirl! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Audenshaw School

I see a new user has deleted the section on the teacher arrested for on suspicion of having sex with a pupil. As there was no explanation I was about to revert the edit when I realised that this is quite possibly the woman herself or someone who knows her. As the case doesn't seem to have been to court yet and she's innocent until proven guilty maybe it would be better to leave it deleted for now. No point in having dragged someone's reputation even further through the mud if the allegation turns out to be unfounded. Richerman (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Wikipedia isn't a news service after all. BTW, I hate to be a pedant but its innocent unless proven guilty :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the same apply to the two kids accused of conspiring to blow up the school and who were found not guilty earlier this week? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
PS, I realise that the kids weren't named in the article, and I agree with your decision not to revert the removal of the sex charges teacher. If she's found guilty will be soon enough to include it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a pedant but I will be anyway? - you sound like my wife ( I hate to say I told you so but....) :) I see someone's reverted the deletion already so I've taken the name out and left a message on the talk page - let's see if that works. Richerman (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
She pleaded guilty, see the MEN's report. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have mentioned the story anyway, regardless of whether she was convicted or not. If the story was notable enough to make the news, then surely we should mention it? After all, since we are supposed to have a neutral point of view, we wouldn't be implying anything either way! – PeeJay 07:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the sources again, I couldn't see a mention of Audenshaw School, just that it was a school in Tameside. According to the latest news story the teacher "has been suspended from her job at a Greater Manchester School which cannot be named for legal reasons", so I'm guessing it was added to the article on Audenshaw School by a pupil or someone who searched for where the teacher was suspended from, which constitutes WP:OR. If they can't mention it, we certainly can't. It's possible that it will never be announced which school she taught at, but it's also not claimed in the sources that the other party involved was a pupil at the school (whichever one it was). Nev1 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Good call. I suppose the reason is to protect the child involved, which is something I hadn't thought of. Actually I have seen it argued that because someone can't be named for legal reasons in this country it doesn't mean they can't be named in wikipedia as it's hosted outside the UK and UK law doesn't apply - assuming the information is available. I think it was to do with the baby P case. It's a pity people take that view as these restrictions are applied for good reason. The public's "right to know" isn't a something I always subscribe to. Richerman (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Bloody Hell, I'm amazed I didn't spot that none of the sources actually named the school! I'm not perfect after all, that's going to be a tough pill to swallow. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how long this will be valid, but as of now this google cache is different to this MEN page. It's obviously been changed for a reason. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
If nothing else, that makes me feel better about my reading skills! That explains how we all missed it, I was really surprised to think I must have missed something as important as that when I first read the sources. Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs and the Manchester City Police?

Manchester Martyrs has come on leaps and bounds, but I'm concerned about the lack of explanation of the "Manchester police" and "Manchester police officers": it needs a link. Obviously it's not the Greater Manchester Police, it's not the Manchester and Salford Police but it may be the Manchester City Police (but look where that redirects too!).

Does anybody know anything about the history of law enforcement in Manchester? If so, I think, in the vein of expanding our coverage of the history of Manchester, we really need to have articles about the various historical forces that have been and gone. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

this may help. Its an interesting subject, each area around what is now GM would have had its own force. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Greater Manchester Police have published a pretty good account in The Police! 150 Years of Policing in the Manchester Area, isbn 0-948946-49-0. I found it in Didsbury library. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement for some assistance in writing up an article on the Manchester City Police. If I don't hear anything, I'll try make a start myself. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge these?

Greenfield Reservoir, Yeoman Hey Reservoir, and Dovestones Reservoir? Also, possibly Chew Reservoir (Greater Manchester) as well, since all three are in a rough alignment (here). There seems little point keeping them separate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but what article are you thinking of merging them into? Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
All into Dovestones, since that's the main point of access for the other three. The others are only accessible by foot. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I think "the park" that encompasses these reservoirs is called "Dove Stones" mind (spotted it on the welcome sign). It may be worth checking if we're going to merge these. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
proposed here Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got round to reservoirs yet and I am a little nervous about a merger as we we will lose the tech details from each info box - volume/ depth etc. These have not been added yet but I feel a better way is to source the info- it must be available. At least we should try to locate it first before we attempt a merge which would make future editing more difficult. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. There are reserviours round the corner from Dovestones too between Windy Hill and Newhey - Ogden Reservoir, Kitcliffe Reservoir, Piethorne Reservoir, Norman Hill Reservoir, Hanging Lees Reservoir, Rooden Reservoir - all in the same Piethorne Valley, but a merger of those could be arbitary. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
True, but these four reservoirs are connected - in fact the smaller three all drain into Dovestones. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I suppose all the technical detail on the individual reservoirs could be held in one neat table anyway... --Jza84 |  Talk  12:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Could we hold on the merge a month so we can think this through a little, and build up the articles first. Sorry to be a pain, but what I would really like is a Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about reservoirs. A parallel here is the Longdendale Chain, with its five reservoirs Bottoms Reservoir (Derbyshire) etc. That is an article about the group, and an individual article about each one. All of them are stubs/start- and they need some direction too. Have any of you guys got any suggestion on any of them, I am watching each one so will pick up any comment there, and that could be used to draft the howto, which we could apply here- Audenshaw, Denton, Thirlmere and no doubt into the Mountains of Mordor! --ClemRutter (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Cup Final riots

Might just be worth sticking this back on a few watchlists. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bert Trautmann pic

If anyone has a picture of Bert Trautmann lying around, can they upload it and add it to his page? It would help greatly in the quest to make it to TFA on the main page. Thanks. Spiderone 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the press officer at Manchester City? They may be prepared to release a low-resolution copy of a photograph. Stranger things have happened, Thomson Holidays were very happy to release copyright on an old image of Radcliffe that their archive department gave me. Parrot of Doom 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Former county?

This one, I'm sure is bound to open a can of worms.

As I mentioned on Talk:Manchester, the ONS (via NOMIS) are now referring to Greater Manchester (and all the others) as a former Metropolitan County. Now, I'm not about to claim that that means that Manchester's back in Lancashire or anything such, so everyone can breathe easy there.

However, I think it's interesting that it is referred to in such a way by a UK Government agency - though the term Metropolitan County is somewhat outdated anyway, with terms like city-region being seemingly preferred. However, as it's such a controversial issue that I didn't want to make any changes without running it past everyone here, yet I think that it should be mentioned in there somewhere.

Thoughts? Fingerpuppet (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems strange. If they are "former" metropolitan counties, then what are the "current" metropolitan counties? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Are they calling Cheshire and Bedfordshire former non-metropolitan counties? MRSC (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There's an attempt to bend over backwards at. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheshire and Bedfordshire are listed as "pre-2009 local authorities: county / unitary", and they don't list any "current" Metropolitan Counties - they have the Metropolitan Boroughs listed as "local authorities: county / unitary" (which of course, de facto they are) along with all the Administrative Counties, so Lancashire, Cheshire West & Chester, Blackburn with Darwen et al. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If the civil service can't decide what they're called, its no wonder the subject is so contentious here! Parrot of Doom 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be a bit of category confusion between local authorities and their areas. MRSC (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Moors murders

...is currently at FAC. Its early days yet, but if anyone interested would care to have a read through and make changes, or pass comment, that would be most appreciated. I think this article has the capability of becoming one of WP:GM's finest. Some things that would be nice are a period photograph (1960s) of Manchester Central station, a photograph of a slum terraced street in Gorton, or just anything that's happened lately which we've missed. Parrot of Doom 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be instructive to include a mention of the attitude of undertakers to burying Myra Hindley. The prison services were turned down several times by the local firms (IIRC they had sounded them out for some months). They had to bring in a firm from some distance away. Again IIRC the worry was that no-one would want their loved ones in the same hearse that had carried Hindley (or even might have carried Hindley). Powerful juju. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
PS Here you go:
  • Funeral pariah. Grauniad: 'Myra Hindley was cremated last night but even in death she was so notorious that 20 local undertakers refused to handle the ceremony. So how bad is too bad to bury?'
  • Few witness Hindley's final journey] BBC: 'These men have been hired from more than 200 miles away.'
Mr Stephen (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A sentence or two about that is definitely worth adding, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Parrot of Doom 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Just the right touch; not too much, not too little. --Malleus Fatuorum 08:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Won't the "fair use" photo of David and Maureen Smith have to go if it's at FAC? Richerman (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, just read the criteria - they are allowed. Richerman (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Following the deleted Category:Places formerly in Lancashire (deletion discussion), we now have Category:Places formerly in Cheshire. Is this different, or do we go round the loop again? Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as pointless as the previous category. Parrot of Doom 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I created the category (apologies, I was not aware of the recent CFD discussion) in line with similar categories for other counties radically altered in 1974 - Category:Places historically in Berkshire, Category:Places formerly in Oxfordshire, etc. The key reason is to aid readers who come across references to places in the historic counties. If you read a book (published before 1974) which refers to Stockport, Cheshire, you may well want an easy way of finding articles on places in the county as it then existed. It's not to do with over-categorisation, it's a finding aid for material about the historic county of Cheshire. Mhockey (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Lists of English county boundary changes. I have started this series of articles to replace the categories. Please remove the categories and start a list article. I recently did some work on the Bucks one and it was amazing how many changes there have been. MRSC (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the category without seeing this discussion, but it was per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_8#Category:Places_formerly_in_Lancashire. We've been here before. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For completeness:

I think these are the only ones. MRSC (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Found another! I've nominated Category:Places historically in Berkshire (CFD) for deletion too. MRSC (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are wider issues here, which I have raised here. Category:Places formerly in Lancashire is not a very helpful precedent - it had only one article and was itself uncategorised. At that time there were several similar categories, some of which have since been emptied and deleted.Mhockey (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Praise-sharing an email

In real life, last weekend, I spoke to Nicki Jameson, whose book was one of sources used for 1990 Strangeways Prison riot article. Can I share the follow up email I received.

Dear Clem

Was good to meet you. As promised, I am writing so you can pass on my thanks and comments to the Manchester Wiki Project for the good work on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Strangeways_Prison_riot They did a brilliant job!

In fact, there's not much to add, except they might want to put a new book on the bibliography, as Mike Mansfield, who represented Paul Taylor at the riot trial has just published his autobiography and there are several references to Strangeways (including ones to our book)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0747576548/?tag=googhydr-21&hvadid=4624490851&ref=pd_sl_2ijbm8l1m1_b

--ClemRutter (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great feedback. We must be doing something right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This is fantastic! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well done! It does however highlight how poor the Strangeways article is. For such a dominant landmark, perhaps elevation to GA might be a project aim? Parrot of Doom 11:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_30&oldid=1136051271"