Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38

Greater Manchester articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Greater Manchester articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? River Mersey, which is start class, is included whilst River Irwell which is GA class is not. Scout Moor Wind Farm at mid importance and FA class isn't included either and neither is Kersal Moor low importance GA whilst the Ting Tings at low importance C class are. These are just a few of the articles I have noticed as I have an interest in them but I'm sure there will be lots of others. In fact we have 35 FAs and 57 GAs in total - where are they all? It doesn't give me much faith in the process. Richerman (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I had this discussion last time they did this, so can answer at least some of that. They calculate by totting up the importance various projects give it, so although River Mersey is low-priority for Manchester, it's (presumably) top-priority for Liverpool, plus gets a hefty boost from the Beatles project etc. Can't explain how The Ting Tings made it onto the list, though; probably something to do with total page views. – iridescent 10:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, It seems to be a deeply flawed system if FAs and GAs are not being used because they are only covered by one project. They seem to have used only top importance articles for these but missed Urmston for some reason. Richerman (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It is flawed, but I suppose an equation is fairer than picking the articles by hand. When there are less than 50,000 places some FAs and GAs are bound to be judged to be not important enough; Nico Ditch for example. It's interesting to compare this with the articles selected for the 0.7 release two years ago. The 0.8 version has about 50% more articles than 0.7 (47,300 compared to 31,000), but there are about double the number of GM articles compared to last time. Amazingly L. S. Lowry wasn't included in the 0.7 release, I wonder how we missed that. I'm not sure that the four Man U lists (players, managers, records & stats, and seasons) are really worth including though. There seems to be a lot more pop culture this time round, ie: more music stuff and footballers; how the Ting Tings made it, a pop group with one album and no real impact, I don't know. For the most part, the GM articles selected seem to be in decent nick. My other main area of concern (apart from North West England) isn't as well represented in either numbers or quality so I think I'll be working on Harlech Castle to see if I can make something decent out of that article before 11 October. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that by concentrating on popularity it's appealing to the lowest common denominator. We're supposed to educate kids, not feed their obsessions. There's enough about football and pop groups out there already. As for military history, I expected to see the Battle of Britain on the front page in time for the anniversary but it's not even up to FA - what a shame. Richerman (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I ve made comments elsewhere on lack of any post 1850 textile mills ({{Lancashire Cotton }})- a strange omission- I don't suppose children are supposed to ask about the Industrial Revolution and the drivers of civilisation as we know it.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
... or big engineering projects that didn't happen yesterday, therefore haven't been broadcast on Quest. Reminder to Richerman; it's the anniversary of the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal on 1 January. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The representation of WP:MILLS is woeful either side of 1850. The only individual site selected was the Derwent Valley Mills; when the likes of New Lanark and Saltaire are excluded (both World Heritage Sites) it makes you wonder what other mills need to do to be included. I suppose it doesn't help that neither New Lanark and Saltaire are even B-class. Nev1 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a subject I'm very familiar with, but my strong impression is that the cotton mills were largely responsible for the factory system we take for granted today; an important topic, whether or not wikipedia considers it to be "vital". Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing on the Lancashire Coalfield either, I might have a go at that. (sometime) It's an odd list, all that football, (and I really like football, but what about Rugby League or cricket?) too "lightweight" when you consider the area was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution, canals, railways. Is it set in stone, or can it be changed? Typical of the dumbed down diet being fed to schools.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You can make suggestions (the blurb at the start of this thread includes the link) but I think you'll have to be canny about it. Some people *cough*WP:SHIPS*cough* are demanding more articles, but I think the sensible thing to do would be to suggest a swap. However, if you propose dropping List of Manchester United F.C. seasons for the Manchester Ship Canal you might get objections from WP:FOOTBALL. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There's no "might" about it. The choice clearly reflects the liberal educationalist view that people shouldn't be told what they ought to know about, but should instead be given information on what they want to know about. And if you're a United fan, what's more important than the perfomance of your team over the last few seasons? Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't worth bothering, but I did. If something is plainly wrong, like the lightweight bits of that list, someone should say something. You guys from the WikiProject Greater Manchester have produced some excellent and interesting articles, I thought I may as well say it.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They're perhaps only interesting to us. Anyway, I've just noticed that there's no wikipedia article on plague stones: so much to do. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(to Nev1) For what little its worth, us WP:Football types put statistical lists as low importance, so its not coming from our end and objections aren't particularly likely. Recent pageviews must have a huge weighting, as there's no other explanation for David N'Gog being in the football list. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Malleus is suggesting Manchester Ship Canal for the 0.8 release as the article needs a lot of work yet, however, he and I have already discussed having a go at getting it up to FA and any help with that would be welcome. The anniversary in January puts a bit more urgency on that but, in the meantime, are there any articles we want to recommend for version 0.8? My suggestions are Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, Trafford Park, River Irwell, Bridgewater Canal and I'd happily drop the football lists and the M6 motorway which isn't the most riveting of subjects and shouldn't be rated as B as it has a 'citations needed' tag. Richerman (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Fred Dibnah, for one. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with that, and Blaster Bates for Cheshire. BTW, have you noticed that we've now got three opposes for Moors murders on the main page? The issue for me, and I think for you as well, is the feelings of Winnie Johnson. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the only real oppose is mine as the others seem confused about whether you want it on or not, even though you've explained your position. Although you've done an excellent job on the article I think it should be left for those who want to look for it. I wouldn't like to think that anyone affected by the murders, such as Winnie Johnson, should unexpectedly see those two on the main page. It can't be pleasant to have the whole thing dragged up again on a regular basis. Richerman (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a monkey's arse about the main page, but I do care about the effect it may have on Winnie Johnson, who is no spring chicken. I'm certain that PoD feels the same. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason I involved myself with the article was because Brady is himself no spring chicken, and his death will inevitably be a media event. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, and I think you did exactly the right thing in getting the article up to scratch for when that happens - I just don't see any reason to put it on the main page. Richerman (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, having said that I see there is a link to Winnie Johnson's web page at the bottom of the article and on there she asks for help in raising funds for a search. Maybe she would welcome the publicity - it really is difficult call. Richerman (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
On reflection I've changed my vote. Richerman (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid my view is unchanged. No protection = no support from me, no matter how many people watch it. Parrot of Doom 21:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb's just move protected the article, so it looks like it might end up on the mainpage. For what it's worth, I completely agree that if it is to be TFA it needs to be protected, so I'll keep an eye on the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
27 September. I'm not convinced this is a good idea. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
For better or worse it's in the queue and scheduled for 27 November with protection until 28th November. Richerman (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gorton Monastery

I was surprised to see this article in such a poor condition, and also rated as mid-importance. Surely enough online resources exist to get this to GA? Its a lovely building. I think I'll pass by it and get some decent photographs. Parrot of Doom 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's one of Manchester's more extraordinary buildings, especially given its location. I'm also fascinated by the Fairfield Moravian settlement. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

2002 Commonwealth Games

The traffic stats for this article show that the number of hits has gone up fourfold recently, no doubt due to the games presently being held in Delhi. I've removed the cleanup tag as it has been there for over a year and spoils the look of the article. The article isn't that bad and if anyone was going to sort it out any more they would have done so by now. Richerman (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of people from Greater Manchester

Hi project,

The various lists of people from Greater Manchester could do with being watched by a couple of extra editors and screened for vandalism, unsourced additions and WP:BLP violations. For instance, there appeared to be some legitimate additions on the Tameside list (Ian Brady, Ricky Hatton etc), but also some silliness (Kellie Holland, "Superstar DJ and the future of music"). Examples of this are here. A few extra pairs of eyes would help keep these obvious vandal targets nice and respectable and of high standards. Hope all is well guys, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have these lists deleted than waste time and effort in maintaining them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
When the alternative is having every footballer who spent a year or two in a town cluttering up articles on places, I'd rather have these lightning rods in place. Nev1 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I've always seen them as a necessary evil. I suppose they probably have some value to readers if they were, for instance, a school pupil asked to report on famous people from a particular town. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's an ever-dripping tap though. I recall with Didsbury, for instance, the battle over J. K. Rowlings apparently spending a couple of night in a hotel there, during which time she may or may not have had the idea of writing the Harry Potter books, or perhaps written a little bit of the first one. What does that tell me about Didsbury exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
...that it must be a very bland place if that is the best a user has to offer for its article! Or that the user has not grasped what Wikipedia is about. Or that there should be a policy/convention. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Preston

I know it's up north, but the Preston article was recently split into 'district' and 'settlement' articles per WP:UKDISTRICTS. I wondered if you guys would be able to pass commment about making these two articles sit more like Salford does? I've left a proposal at Talk:Preston. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Church of St Edmund, Rochdale

The county's newest Grade I listed building now has an article at Church of St Edmund, Rochdale. Its there if anyone is interested in expanding this and taking it to DYK etc. The building is dedicated to Freemasonry and has been compared to Scotland's Rosslyn Chapel. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Skyline image

Was the image here the same image as that used at the top of this image? Parrot of Doom 16:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the issue of the deletion process. They don't check for duplication. If it is the offending image then it wouldn't be too hard to change the top image to one of the others available on the commons showing similar scenes.[1] The gentleman (Rob) left his email address if you'd like the honour of asking him POD. Koncorde (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked the deleting admin whether it was the same image (there was also another collection) and they're going to be deleted. As far as skyline photos which claim to be free there's this and this. I've used the first one in the Manchester article for now until there's some agreement on which to use, otherwise once the images are deleted we'd be left with no lead photo. Nev1 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The second of your two images isn't bad. I can create a new montage if you like? Parrot of Doom 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Tong22 (talk · contribs) has already created a new montage (the same as one of the old ones with a new skyline pic). As some of the pictures will be very small when the montage is in the article I'm not sure how much use it is, but further discussion should probably take place on the article's talk page where there's already a (slightly old) thread on the subject. Nev1 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Coal mines

I thought the project was a bit lacking in coal mines so over the last month I have created a few articles. Fletcher, Burrows and Company, Manchester Collieries, Manchester Coalfield, Great Boys Colliery, Bedford Colliery, Shakerley Collieries, Tyldesley Coal Company and Astley and Tyldesley Collieries and have a mind to do some more. I am hopeless at finding my own mistakes so if anybody wants to read them... or assess them, I would be grateful.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Manchester#Suggestion - New Article Barons of Manchester

It would be handy if we could get a few more eyes on this thread to see if we can develop a consensus about whether this edit should be retained. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hi, is there anybody out there? The project is very quiet these days. I took a look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Popular pages which reveals two GA articles, Ben Thompson (actor) and Murder of Suzanne Capper that I hadn't noticed before so I will add them to the project page. I don't know if the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/WatchAll is updated at all. I've added quite a few pages manually, some I've created and pages I come across. After all this time I still don't know how Wikipedia works.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Already there, just not on the watchlist.:)--J3Mrs (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it has to be updated by hand. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think only you and I do it these days:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This link gives a watchlist for any article with a WP:GM banner on its talk page, so the manually updated list may be redundant. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kirkby Branch Line

The article Kirkby Branch Line has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

PROD now removed and article referenced and expanded. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You've done a very nice job on that, and so quickly too! Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Talk:Atherton,_Greater_Manchester#Requested_move, Talk:Partington,_Greater_Manchester#Requested_move Any comments folks?--J3Mrs (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bright Club

Anyone got any thoughts on the article I created on Bright Club? I am most familiar with Bright Club Manchester, but there are ones in London and Cardiff too. Yaris678 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start, but you need to explain what happens at these events. Do the academics give a stand-up comedy routine? Do they try to explain some facet of their fields of expertise? Do they just stand in front of a microphone and speak? Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting topic. I've added some categories. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Hassocks. I wasn't sure what categories to put it in, but I agree with your selection.
Malleus Fatuorum, I have added some more detail along the lines you suggested. I think that is an improvement.
Yaris678 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's coming along. Sounds like a very interesting event. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the page is looking really good now. It is an interesting event. The next one in Manchester is on Thursday... http://www.manchesterbeacon.org/events/view/171/Bright-Club-Manchester-4---Family
Yaris678 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Moss Side

I have noticed that the population in the infobox is less than at the top of the article. The info box lists it as 10,977, with a reference to the United Kingdom Census 2001, while in the article it is lited as "around 17,537", while This lists it as 13,106

Any comments; Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 20:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Phllipbaxter345 (talk · contribs) has taken care of it and the infobox now states 17,537 to match the rest of the article. As these are the latest estimates I think they should be given priority. The Independent may say 13,106 but that is from 1994; judging by the population change graph on page 4 of the PDF the population is referenced to that doesn't sound unreasonable but is out of date. Nev1 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

if there are any of you out there I hope you have a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Thank you to all who have helped me during the past year and wouldn't it be nice to see Bury, Rochdale and Stockport at GAN next year?--J3Mrs (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here, the proverbial bad penny. I've got an earthquake and perhaps a series of plagues up my sleeve; much easier than articles about towns. But if I can help, you know where to find me. Merry Christmas. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas everyone, as always it's been a pleasuring working with the WP:GM people. I've got Arrowsmith's book on Stockport around here somewhere... something for next year. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I plan on doing something on Manchester's Poor Law Unions next year as well, so reports of the project's death are premature. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And I've started on Leigh PLU and the Lancashire PLU list in a sandbox and the coal mines and..... maybe Pit Brow Women who knows.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Let's not allow all of this old stuff be forgotten. It was important to them and it ought to be important to us. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas one and all. As is the way with Wikipedia I keep finding all sorts of odd things to write about, however, I'm always around keeping my eye on the Manchester articles. I'm just watching Industrial Revelations on Discovey history. They've just done the Bridgewater Canal and are now onto cotton - who knows where that may lead? Richerman (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Library addition

In case you'd missed it, the online library has added The Guardian and Observer to its list of online sources, here Parrot of Doom 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a great find PoD, I'd not noticed it. :). It's got much more "local" news. A very quick trawl found a couple of interesting references for my coal mining stuff. Thanks.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd not noticed that either. The Guardian will be especially useful I think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Who Was Who

I'm trying to track down some entries that may be in Who Was Who for the Churchill Machine Tool Company article which I have been rather dramatically expanding over the last couple of weeks. Not in Manchester and so cannot use their libraries' online look-up ... and am in Bury where they don't have it :(

Is there anyone prepared to do a little bit of digging for me please? I'd presume that it is possible to generate PDFs just like with the ODNB and from these I would hopefully be able to fill a few gaps. I can supply a list of names, which basically consist of various directors (about half a dozen). I can probably supply a rough date of death for most of them also - massively WP:SYN but of no import in this situation. Sitush (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop the names up. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oohhh, ta :) You may only get hits for a couple of them but here goes:
  • Sir Greville Simpson Maginness (born 1888) -there will only be one person with that name!
  • Arthur Chamberlain (d. circa 1941 - not his father, who had same name and who died in 1913)
  • Herbert Chamberlain (1845-1904)
  • Walter Chamberlain (b. 1847)
  • Charles Churchill (b. 1838, USA - d. Feb 1916)
  • John William Wright Gabriel (b. 1860, d after 1916) Sitush (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I've taken so long. Of that lot only Sir Greville Simpson Maginness has an entry in Who's Who and Who Was Who. It's not very extensive, but I can email it to you if you send me an address. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, anyone can join Manchester libraries and use their online resources, you don't need to live in Manchester. Technically I don't live in Manchester either, I live in Trafford. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Owt is better than nowt. I've emailed you. Thanks for doing the leg-work (or finger-work, which ever the case may be).Sitush (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Manchester weatherbox

Template:Manchester weatherbox has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_22#Weatherbox_templates Pit-yacker (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo request: BA offices

Would someone mind photographing the Pioneer House (British Airways Manchester office) in Didsbury, Manchester?

The building is at:

  • Pioneer House, Towers Business Park, Wilmslow Road, Didsbury, Manchester M20 2BA

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed merge of Chorlton High Metrolink station and St Werburgh's Road Metrolink station. Please comment at Talk:Chorlton High Metrolink station#Merge proposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

The banner claiming 100% assessment is a year old and overoptimistic! I have updated it, and it is now set up so that the number of banner-tagged but unassessed articles is read automatically. The total number of project articles doesn't auto-update, and will need to be amended manually from time to time. So although the progress bar will move over time, it will only be an estimate: in fact it will tend to be a pessimistic one and overstate the proportion of articles unassessed; once new articles are included in the project total, the unassessed proportion will fall and the bar will rise again. Have fun with it! TheGrappler (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company - peer review

The above article has today been rated a Good Article and the GA Reviewer thinks that it is close to being FAC. The reviewer suggested a peer review prior to going to FAC, so I've kick-started that process. If anyone wants to chip in then I think this is where it should be done. Not 100% sure as I've not done any of this sort of thing before. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GLAM WIKI event outside London

See here. Six months in the planning. Based on event at British Museum but 120 miles closer. Victuallers (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station

As somebody pointed out in the discussion page, the new Chorlton Metrolink station on the site of part of the old Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station will be called simply "Chorlton". Given its imminent opening, I see three options:

  • Rename the article to something like Chorlton Metrolink station (naming consistent with some of the newly constructed stations such as Firswood — currently a redirect).
  • Maintain the status quo.
  • Split the article in two, creating a separate new article for the new stop.

I'm inclined towards the first option, as despite being a new construction, the new station is at the same place and using (at this stretch) the same line as the original one.

The article also needs a little bit of work to reflect the fact it is almost complete, which I am happy to help with once the naming has been ironed out. Is there somebody working on the new line and its three new stops? Is there a reliable source for the exact open date yet? -- Fursday —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Feel free to go ahead with modifications, as to the name I think the page should be renamed and a redirect put at the old name. Theres no firm date for opening yet. WatcherZero (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As there was a considerable period between the closure of the original station and the proposed opening of the tram stop (unlike the staions on the Altrincham or Bury branches), I'd be inclined to split it into two articles - c.f. West Bromwich railway station and West Bromwich Central tram stop. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! Not only does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) explicitly clarify this matter, but it even uses Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station as an example! I certainly don't see splitting as being a feasible idea, as there is always going to be very limited content that can be added to an article about an older station.
And whilst on the subject of the historical station, I'll try and have a look for a source to confirm the story of Muddy Waters and Sister Rosetta Tharpe. I'd heard a 'urban legend' about something similar to this but involving Leadbelly and Bob Dylan, certainly something to be verified and expanded on. -- Fursday 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Option 2, for the reasons Redrose64 gives. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a civic campaign brewing about this - can they not afford the extra letters (or longer signboards)? - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think they are more wary of what one kid with a marker pen could do. WatcherZero (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd maintain the status quo, expanding the article as more facts become available. Once the station is renamed I'd support moving the article to reflect its new use as a tram station. Parrot of Doom 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rushbearing

I've finally got round to creating a new article about rushbearing, which is a custom now unique to the north of England and particularly Greater Manchester. I've added the GM wikiproject banner to it and taken the liberty of giving it a 'C' rating for now. I would be grateful if someone else could rate it independently as I may be just a little biased. I'll be putting it up for DYK in the next day or so, so any improvements would be welcome and also any suggestions for the best verifiable fact for the hook. Richerman (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice addition Richerman. I'll leave it to others to suggest a DYK hook though, as I can't be bothered with the place. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, as always, for the speedy tidy up. I know what you mean about DYK though - some of the stuff should go on a page called 'could you care less?'. Richerman (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Shambles Square/Exchange Square

There's a separate page on Shambles Square which covers its history from the Middle Ages through the 1980's to the 1996 bomb. But does it still exist? Aren't the pubs that used to be in Shambles Square now in Exchange Square? Haldraper (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No - Exchange Square and Shambles Square are next to each other but two separate entities. As you can see from the photos the two names cover different areas. Exchange Sqare isn't actually a square and the area it covers is somewhat undefined but Shambles Square is a definite square, enclosed on three sides. As you can see from the title of this they are named seperately. Richerman (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Shambles Square has actually moved. The present location of Shambles Square was formerly known as Cathedral Gates. Prior to the bomb, Shambles Square was to the south of Cannon Street, approximately at the centre of the block bounded by Cateaton Street/Cannon Street, Corporation Street, St. Mary's Gate and Deansgate. Its eastern side was the back wall of Marks & Spencer. The two old pubs - which were on the southern side - had actually been moved themselves some years earlier.
Exchange Square - the triangular area bordered by Cannon Street, Corporation Street and Hanging Ditch - was itself the result of bombing, during World War II in fact, previous to which there had been buildings here. A lot of the wartime bombed sites had the buildings demolished and became "temporary" car parks, and were eventually redeveloped - sometimes taking several years to do so. This one was overlooked until the mid 1980s when they took away the car park and paved it over. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. Haldraper (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Transport for Greater Manchester

No longer the GMPTE it seems, [2] - so what's going on here then? Hardly an original name, either.

And is the even messier sounding 'Transport for Greater Manchester Committee' the new GMPTA? [3] -- Fursday 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

At first glance it seems they're taking their name from Transport for London. Probably a rebranding exercise to make civil servants feel more important than they are. Parrot of Doom 16:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed Protocols and the backlog

This is an important issue to me too. I have about 70 articles about textile mills on the Category:Unassessed Greater Manchester articles backlog and many others are about bye elections and the like. I did not want to say the obvious myself (Importance:High, Quality:B) for all of them but had hoped that someone might have assessed just one. Looking at the stats for one of them Trent Mill in {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}}, it appears that between 30 and 110 folk a month access it, so it is helping about 500 folk a year.Being realistic- no one is going to go in and assess all of these but if Bob or Richerman could just go in and do over a couple of them- and provide a criteria list, in the same way as dome for the MHP article, then I could knock off the rest! (an do a clean up on the way). Similarly, if the same could be done for one of the bye-elections then the rest would be trivial. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The criteria can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Assessment. Sadly, having burned very brightly for a couple of years the GM project has now become almost completely moribund. I'll have a look at some of them for you as and when I get time. Actually, I've always found the scoring system a bit of a joke as I come across articles all the time that are a mess but have been scored by their wikiproject as a B. It's only really the GAs and FAs that mean much - and they tend to drift away over time. Richerman (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've done a few, so hopefully that'll give you an idea Clem. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus, do you think you could make a verbal comment in my talk page- Bob has put some helpful non-Manchester pointers there. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvement drive for Science and Engineering at UoM

I am hoping to encourage an "improvement drive" for articles connected with Science and Engineering at the University of Manchester. For example I'd like to see the articles on the Schools in EPS reach at least B-clsas rather than stub, and improve the coverage of Manchester Scientists and Engineers, and the Science and Engineering articles relevant to their work. Can anyone suggest how to run such an improvement drive, and can this project help? Billlion (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You could start by studying Wikipedia:GLAM/Derby/Multilingual Challenge. This will give you an idea of the background work, and procedures you need to set up to administer a successful drive. There is a lot involved - the idea seems worthy but you will need to gather together some co-conspirators to make it work IMHO. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You could just start writing them, that's what I did with coal mines. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I have been but there is a limit to what I can doBilllion (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Snap.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are articles named after Metrolink stops supposed to give a history of the surrounding area as well? Please comment initially at Talk:St Peter's Square Metrolink station#Scope. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Hydraulic Power

Is there any protocol for getting articles which are part of this project assessed? I found this one and expanded it considerably. I have rated it B, and listed the criteria against which I assessed it on the talk page. I also checked a number of the other B class Low importance articles on this project to make sure I was not way off beam. Feel free to re-assess if I have not followed protocol. Cheers. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The B rating looks fine to me. It's an excellent article on a little known subject - good to see someone is working on GM articles. Have you thought of nominating it for the Did you know section on the main page? You can do it at Template talk:Did you know but you'll have to do it in the next couple of days to qualify. It's a lot more interesting than a lot of the crap that gets on there. Perhaps you could use something from the "Use" section for the hook. I see that the article is something of an orphan as it only had links to it from talk pages. I've added one to the Manchester Town Hall article but it could use a few more Richerman (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
+ 2, and a link to the Galloways article that I have been working on for some time now. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I did a photoshoot at MOSI in March- Iĺl try and upload them tonight.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have also linked to it from London Hydraulic Power Company. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook

How about something like

Yaris678 (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

or maybe:
...that Manchester Hydraulic Power supplied the energy to wind the Town Hall clock, pump the Cathedral organ and raise the safety curtain at the Manchester Opera House? Richerman (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Feel free. I'm unlikely to do it. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the article actually appropriate for DYK... given that it started in 2009? Yaris678 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If an article has not been created in the past 5 days, to qualify for DYK an article's prose has to increase five-fold. Before Bob1960evens started editing the article on 8 June it was 1,273 characters long, and it is 8,80 characters long so there's no issue there. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Where are you getting these numbers from? Do you mean 8,800 characters? I can only find the number of bytes (which is different). Yaris678 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
From Dr Pda's script:
  • File size: 51 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 12 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 1083 B
  • Wiki text: 12 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 8804 B (1471 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 62 B
The important figure is the readable prose size, which is 8,804 bytes. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've nominated it. Richerman (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

IP removing sourced demography sections

A couple of IPs have been removing sourced information from articles without discussion claiming the sections are false. The IPs are:

I have semi-protected the articles for Ardwick, Didsbury, and Withington each for three days as the information was sourced to the neighbourhood statistics website for the 2001 census. However, the situation gets trickier with Collyhurst and Rusholme. Whereas the previous three articles were sourced, the demography sections here aren't. I'm tempted to remove the demography section from Collyhurst myself as I've not been able to find a source and the edit to Rusholme was to remove a four-year-old unsourced statement. There's clearly one person behind these edits, and while I disagree with the removal of sourced information I think we may have an issue with the latter two articles. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it more likely that the Collyhurst "Vietnamese" figure is actually for asians. I'll try and find it. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The neighbourhood statistics website doesn't give figures for Koreans, just Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis so I guess they're included under "other Asian" (example, although figures are not for Collyhurst). Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Collyhurst is a locality within Manchester so I think we may struggle to source more accurate figures on the area's demography. Parrot of Doom 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hint (which works for London at any rate, although I don't know if all areas do it the same way): while census figures generally just have vague "other black", "other Asian" categories, education authorities often break things down much more specifically. (What language the kids speak has obvious implications for recruiting teachers.) If you're just after a "rough guide to the ethnic mix of an area" sentence, you can generally find "30% of the children attending the school speak Vietnamese", "15% of pupils eat kosher meals" etc type stats, and leave it to the reader to fill in the blanks for themselves. – iridescent 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, good idea. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Potentially useful, and local authorities also have yearly estimates of the population and how it has changed (the tricky bit is finding it). This information is usually broken down by ward. Collyhurst itself isn't a ward, so a demography section would have to make statements about the ward it's in. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Saddleworth Morris Men

While looking through the list of unassessed articles I came across one on the Saddleworth Morris Men, which I can't see as being notable. I've nominated it for deletion here if anyone else would like to offer an opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion: Disagree, It is a side that has being going since at least 1974, ad responsible for the revival of the Rushcart festival, a peasant tradition that goes back to 1380. It gives a good opportunity for linking to many folk song and dance terms such as Long Sword dance which is of course the symbol of the EFDSS with links to Cecil Sharp.. And there are more of them than in other entertainment groups say Rolling Stones. Iĺl pop this on the AfD pages as well. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In what way does the fact it's been going since 1974 make it notable? Or that its got more members than the Rolling Stones? Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_35&oldid=1137381325"