Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Did you know: Royton

If we accept WP's definition ("A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning and weaving machinery") then Royton's claim to the last cotton mill built in the UK is probably incorrect. Carrington Viyella built a factory for spinning cotton in Atherton in 1978, see Holden, Roger N (1997). Stott and Sons: architects of the Lancashire cotton mills. Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing. pp. p 17. ISBN 1-85936-047-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help). Mr Stephen 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Though there are a number of sources that state the contrary. Perhaps a rephrase (in the article), that "sources suggest that....". I've added triva that I know of to get things going in that section - so it may appear a little NorthEast GM heavy which I apologise for whilst we get going. Jhamez84 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, does WP's definition of 'Cotton Mill' mean ... "A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning, 'and' weaving, machinery", or ... "A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning, 'or' weaving, machinery". In so much as, a factory which 'takes in thread, produced in a mill, and produces a cloth, by the process of weaving', is a 'weaving shed' and not a 'cotton mill'? 80.192.242.187 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Seems like the cotton mill article itself needs a little work. We could do with a proper academic definition of a cotton mill first and foremost! Any good textile historians around? Jhamez84 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FAs

Doesn't Manchester City F.C. count? Mr Stephen 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New infoboxes

A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The current outline map of Greater Manchester, which is being imposed by “Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester”, looks awful. Many of the red dots are in the wrong place. The rest of the country have the UK map in relation where they are, but not Greater Manchester, it has to have its own map.
It's now being seen as a "City region" rather than a "County". I can see that Greater Manchester is going to be the northern version of London. There aren't going to be Wiganers, Boltonians, Rochdalians, etc., even Salford, which has city status, won't get away, they'll be seen as Mancunians whether they like it or not. Cwb61 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion. But you are a traditional counties advocate, who has demonstrated the removal of Greater Manchester against policy from articles simply because you don't identify with it. The name of our county is an unfortunate one, but it is verifiably true that it is here.

The Gtr M/c WikiProject is not imposing this new infobox at all (!) - a consensus was formed by members from accross the UK to develop an improved infobox, as the previous one had many failings.

Most city-regions (EU terminology), major conurbations or urbanised counties (whichever you like) of the UK are set to use their own maps once the programming is worked out. Some regions also have them - Scotland, Northern Ireland and parts of the North East use them, as well as Greater London. It is possible however we may have a UK map also.

If dots are in the wrong place, this generally means that the wrong co-ordinates have been inputted in the infobox and need correcting. It is possible however that they may be slightly out - just notify users at the template talk page and someone will attempt to recalibrate the map settings.

I hope this helps somewhat. Though this should be raised at the template talk page as the infobox is not within the remit of the Gtr M/c WikiProject. Jhamez84 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Article categorisation

Before this WikiProject was formed I tried to do a bit of work on tidying up the categorisation of Manchester related articles. At the time many weren't categorised, others werent categorised appropriately and the majority where just dumped into a couple of catch all categories with so many articles that they weren't really an awful lot of use for anything.

Now that there is a Greater Manchester WikiProject, I thought that there might be some logic to standardising the category framework across Greater Manchester. My thought is that it will make articles easier to find and logically group together articles on similar subjects in subjects. I have made a small number of changes and tidying up across Greater Manchester, which has also allowed me to produce the following experimental "Category grid" to give others an idea of what I am thinking about. (trancluded)

Subject	GM	MA	SA	SK	TR	OL	WI	BU	TA	BO	RO
Buildings and Structures	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Railway stations	+	+	+	+	+	+	+		+	+	+
Schools	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Sports venues	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Sport	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Sports venues	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Education	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Schools	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Government	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
People	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

What do other editors think? Has anyone got any comments? Pit-yacker 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this page isn't yet terribly active. I'm certainly overjoyed (for want of a better word!) at this gridding system! Looks fantastic!

I'm considering putting together the first WikiProject Greater Manchester newsletter than can reinvigorate some interest in the project. I would be happy to include mentions of this in the letter! In the meantime, it looks like a suburb addition to the project that any other would surely be envious of. Jhamez84 00:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what the headings and entries in this category grid represent? :-) ---- Eric 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean what are categories and how do they affect an article; see Wikipedia:Categorization. If you mean something like what is the purpose of this grid and its content; its an attempt at standardising categorisation across all the articles related to Greater Manchester, seperating each topic (such as buildings) according to metropolitan borough. That help at all? Jhamez84 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did help, thanks. What about some of the existing categories that aren't represented in the grid, like Parks and commons in Greater Manchester for instance? Ought they to be incorporated into the grid or not? ---- Eric 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In my view, if we are to transculde this onto the Main Greater Manchester Category page, then yes, I think the other categories ought to be included. Jhamez84 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was intending to add further categories as I work through the articles. As well as on the main category page, I was just thinking this might be useful part of a Portal?Pit-yacker 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Jhamez84 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport Line

WP:RM to Styal Line. Simply south 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

Are there any guidelines on the general format of an article on towns/areas within the Greater Manchester area? I expect the answer will be 'No', it depends on the specific town/area, but I've seen so many unremarkable lists of pubs, schools, shops, local factories, leisure facilities .. that I just thought I'd ask. :-) ---- Eric 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Images and Commons

I was wondering whether we should be moving a lot of Greater Manchester related images to commons? The vast majority of images are only on English Wikipedia at the moment. Although, I cant speak any foreign language well enough to write articles, making images easily available to those who (are most likely) not to live in the UK may help them in the writing articles for other languages? I am currently in the process of moving my images, however, I'm wary of moving other people's images just in case they are not happy with it Pit-yacker 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to move mine - I've added quite a few self-made images, as well as some from geograph.co.uk. Jhamez84 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Trafford

Is it still the only UEFA 5* rated stadium in England? If so surely The Emirates Stadium and Wembley will also be rated 5* very soon. Just something to keep a check on I thought.

UEFA don't release information about ratings very often. The most recent UEFA list was published before the Emirates and Wembley were completed. So at the moment OT is the only English stadium which is [[[WP:V|verifiably]] 5 star. UEFA used to email a list on request, but it appears they no longer do so. Oldelpaso 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham

I take strong objection to the application of the 'Oldham' category to everything that is in the borough. There is an article called 'Oldham' which relates to the town and an article called "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' which relates to teh borough. Where is the logic in giving town article's name to artciles which apply to the borough? Why not just set up a borough category? People who do not know the geography will see 'Schools in Oldham' at the bottom of the Crompton House article and assume it is in the town of Oldha since the category name is the same as the town name and not the borough name. If you are going to insist on categorizing all borough articles I insist the category carries the same names as the brough article and not the town article. I will remove the Oldham category as it stands form all borough articles that do not relate directly to the town. 88.104.34.14 02:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here at last! I'm very dissapointed however that you didnt bring it to discussion until after you had finished what can only be described as a bloodbath of decategorisation. You have left articles incorrectly categorised and numerous articles completely un-categorised. Given the numerous requests I made for you to discuss it, I consider it nothing short of vandalism.

That is before I mention that had you taken such changes through the proper channels, the changes could have been completely automated. You have wasted several hours doing something a bot could have been set away to do automatically. As it is, you have made changing category names more difficult. To make any changes it will be now necessary to go through undoing your previous contributions to then go on and make the change.

For the record, besides the obvious mouthful that is having categories named "x in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" I have no idealogical objection to renaming the categories to such form. However, I feel the manner in which you have gone about the change was completely against the spirit of Wikipedia, this convention has been used in various categoires for some time. The categories also quite clearly state they are about the Borough and any article will usually state right at the very start were exactly it is. Pit-yacker 03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You should have done the job properly to begin with. It is just plain sloppy to give the category the same name as an article when it does not directly relate to it (especially when it directly links in with an already existing category. The borough category should carry the borough name. Please sort out the categories before persisting with editing, otherwise I will consider it willful vandalism. 88.104.34.14 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I admitted that it was perhaps sloppy to link to the wrong article in some of the new categories headings, in the actual naming of the categories, I was merely continuing a convention that had held on Wikipedia for sometime with regards to Oldham. Whilst different conventions hold in different areas (In some areas two or more of a parish, borough and town share a whole article never mind categories), I feel that is sensible to discuss such a major change in convention before changes are made, especially, where the changes have left articles completely uncategorised.

Finally, I would like to qualify what I said earlier. I believe that if "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" categories are created, they should replace the current ones in a direct swap. i.e. I consider the current categories to be relating to the borough and in effect they should merely be renamed. Anything else will lead to over categorisation based on the precedent of the town of Oldham has a category hierarchy - why not <insert smaller town> leading to <insert smaller town> has a category hierarchy why not <insert village>.Pit-yacker 03:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A straight swap won't work completely. Take the Michelle Marsh and Jack Wild articles for instance, both fom Royton. As per naming convention Michelle Marsh is from Royton, OMB etc, so 'the people from Royton category' in this instance can be a sub category of the 'people from OMB' category. However, Jack Wild was born in Royton in 1952 before OMB even existed and was part of Lancashire, and wiki conventions state that he is from "Royton, Lancashire" not from "Royton, OMB" like in Michelle's case. That would be plain incorrect so in Wild's case "people from Royton" cannot be a sub category of "people from OMB" because it would simply be incorrect if people click on the "people from OMB" category" and see his name there. To keep the categorisation correct and strict (which is the whole point of categorisation to maintain the integrity of information) then "people from Royton" cannot be a sub category of "people from OMB" unless you have a "people from Royton after 1974" category and make that a sub category which is getting to the point of ridiculousness. I would replace 'Oldham ' with 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' which stops the confusion with Oldham town and shares its name with the borough article, and I wouldn't bother categorising people because wiki uses historic locations rather than modern day geography and there is no way around that without categorising someone incorrectly. 88.104.34.14 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Having noted the repeated deletion and replacement of the Category:Oldham tag from the Standedge Tunnels article I though I would follow the editing links through and have found the above discussion. I agree with the anon user 88.104.34.14 that a Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham may seem more useful. I also agree that a huge amount of disrution has been caused by 88.104.34.14 simply deleting the category within from articles. However please note that such a borough category would also conflict with the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article and that the usage of Borough's in categories in general is not used. Take a look at Category:Boroughs of the United Kingdom to see why. User 88.104.34.14; may I respectfully suggest that you register as an editor. Having an 'Anon' login tends to make other editors associate such a users edits as potential vandalism, which is usually the case, rather than being constructive! Richard Harvey 10:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If having a borough category called the samed as the borough article is conflicting then what is it if you have a borough a category with teh same name as the town article? Isn't that conflicting as well as confusing? I notice how you haven't even attempted to offer a solution to the Jack Wild/Michelle Marsh wiki violations that such categorisation creates88.104.53.2 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It was perfectly fine as it was, that is with the Oldham category applying to everything in the borough. Check out Category:Wigan, Category:Stockport, Category:Rochdale, Category:Bury for examples of similar category usage. I propose we revert all the changes. Mr Stephen 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Stephen totally. As someone who has spent a few years in Royton (and my father was born there, and always considers himself an Oldhamer), I consider myself very much proud to be an 'Oldhamer' anyway. I don't understand these absolutely ridiculous changes. Rochdale, Bury, Bolton etc all have the same layout, and nobody complains about it. In all seriousness if nonsense like this continues I'm seriously considering not bothering with this site any more... I've spent a lot of my time creating / adding articles on here (as have many others) and for someone to just come along and change it all because they don't like it stinks in my opinion. DShamen 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is moronic to have a 'schools in Oldham category' tagging schools that are not in Oldham but in the borough. Royton is not in Oldham. Roytonians are not Oldhamers. Saying that Jack Wild is from Oldham or even the borough goes against wiki conventions, but yet you just want to overlook that slight cock-up! If you really want to declare that something is in the borough then have a category that makes that clear on the article page itself. If you look at some of the article pages, especially the Crompton House School article you will see there are quite a few editors that have been reverting the Oldham classification because they believe it is confusing. You can classify your articles as being in 'Oldham' if you wish if you mark them out but leave ours alone because we will decide whether a certain classfication is suitable and not you. Alternatively, we have a category name which we all agree on. 88.104.53.2 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My father considers himself an Oldhamer, as I said, not 'Roytonian'. Regardless of this, I think that what you have done (without consulting anyone either, I might add) is scandalous. As for 'leave OURS alone'... what the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you run this website? Thought not. They were totally fine under 'Oldham'... it works with all the other large towns in the Greater Manchester area. It made perfect sense, it even said at the top of the screen that Chadderton, Failsworth etc were satellite towns of Oldham (for the more fussy types like yourself). DShamen 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chadderton and failsworth are not 'satellite' towns becasue they do not belong to Oldham, they are neighbouring towns. 88.104.44.134 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to get on my nerves to be honest. It's your opinion against mine, and as far as I'm concerned, they ARE satellite towns to a much larger town bang in the middle, all of them run into Oldham at some point, other than the Saddleworth villages. If being associated with Oldham is such a burden for some of you, why don't you start a petition to have Royton removed from the borough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DShamen (talk • contribs).

Descriptions like "moronic" and "a bunch of numbskulls" (which you have removed, but see diff) are not helpful, and if you continue you are likely to get hauled over the coals for violating policy at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please stop using such language. Also, do not divide articles into "your" and "ours". On Wikipedia nobody owns an article, see policy at WP:OWN. If you think that the Oldham category should be called something else, then fair enough, try to get consensus (this page is probably a better place to do it than at talk:Crompton House). Boldness is encouraged, but mass decategorization has a whiff of WP:POINT about it. Mr Stephen 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of making an issue out of something I personally removed - doesn't it indicate that I realized it was inappropriate by my removal of it? The point is you have achieved no consensus to perpetuate this categorisation which goes against WIKI CONVENTIONS in attributing 'Oldham' birthplaces to people born before the borough was founded and still goes against intuitive logic due to the fact there is an ARTICLE called 'Oldham' which is about the TOWN. You have addressed none of these issues, and until you do there will be no solution. I have told you to rename the category to something to something that does not confuse the category with the town, and it has to be linked in in a way that does not corrupt biographies such as the Jack Wild one. 88.104.44.134 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I question whether we even need a borough category. If you check the borough article it has a section called 'schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham'. The category to all intents and purposes can be left as 'schools in Greater Manchester' (notice how it's not 'schools in Manchester' - you've just got to love the consistency for naming categories!) and link to the schools section on the article page. 88.104.53.2 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, however, there is a Category:Schools in Manchester. This category contains all schools under the juristication of Manchester City Council. I admit that I havent created all "Schools in..." categories yet. However, thats because a) I occassionally I have to do things away Wikipedia, which unfortunatley sometimes takes priority (shocking I know) b) creating categories and recategorisation of articles takes a long time and isnt particularly interesting c) I also wanted to get some feedback on what others thought before creating a whole structure. Pit-yacker 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the council's website, [1] (note the URL is not metropolitanboroughofoldham.gov.uk - why?) they refer to themselves as 'Oldham Council' and, much like the majority its peers, it only uses its full title in formal contexts. We understand how those not living in the town of Oldham itself (especially those in Saddleworth) can take offence at being referred to as part of Oldham. However, "Oldham" is shorthand for area which the council serves and all articles in that category are part of Oldham in the local government sense. It's simply a definition with which 88.104.53.2 does not agree. It's unfortunate—for some—that the name was decided upon in the 70s instead of a vague location (for example: Tameside, Calderdale, Kirklees) to encompass the whole of the borough but it was and this is why these pedantic discussions continue to evoke such passionate debate.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They are called Oldham council because that's the name of the council. The borough is called 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' or 'Oldham Metropolitan Borough' depending on which format is used. You have provided a link to the council which is called Oldham council, so I don't really see what point you are making. If you want to set up a category for the council then go and set it up and call it 'Oldham Council'. But these are geographic categories we are discussing so it's not much to ask for that we use the correct geographic terms, or at least terms that do not confuse the area which another geographic region which is identified by the same name on Wikipedia. Since 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' only includes one more noun that 'Greater Manchester' then why does it need to be abbreviated at all? Why isn't 'Greater Manchester' abbreviated to 'Manchester'? To avoid confusion, to remain integrity, to avoid sloppiness, and the correct usage minimises offence. There is simply no good reason why the borough can't be identified in a way that makes it clear it is the borough and not the town. 88.104.44.134 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the structure of the Macnhester articles, there is an article called 'Manchester' about the city, an article called 'Greater Manchester' about the county, and a category called 'Greater Manchester' which categorizes articles relating to the county. The category clearly carries the same name as the article relating to the same geographic region, and has not been 'abbreviated' to Manchester. Surely good categorizing should retain this precedent and keep things consistent by naming the category 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' the same as the borough article, as has been doen with the Manchester/Greater Manchester articles and category? It seem to me this is the corret way to approach the categorizing, and the onus in you lot to come up with a good reason to depart from this precedent which you haven't done. 88.104.44.134 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also note that as well as being a city, Manchester is also a Metropolitan borough but there is only one Manchester category. Despite the fact that some might not regard a place (especially on the fringe of the city) as being in Manchester. What you appear to be saying is that there should be 3 layers in the hierarchy i.e. Greater Manchester->Manchester City Council->Manchester or Greater Manchester->Oldham MBC->Oldham. I would oppose such a structure as it will lead to pointless over-categorisation - How long before we end up with Greater Manchester->Manchester City Council->Chorlton-on-Medlock - which incidentally the university of Manchester would go in because technically its in Chorlton-on-Medlock regardless of the fact that large numbers of people in Manchester dont know it exists never mind the rest of the world. Pit-yacker 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if you want to categorize something as being in the borough then the category should be called "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" after the borough article rather than "Oldham" which is the name of the town article, analagous to Greater Manchester articles which are assigned a category called "Greater Manchester" after the county article and not 'Manchester' which is the city article. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it really so difficult to appreciate that if you are going to set up a borough category that I want it to bear the actual name of the borough rather than a town in it? Why would I want to create a category for the council? Royton is not 'in' a council. The council administrates the borough and only administration articles should be assigned a a local government category. 88.104.44.134 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "hard to understand", and it's not "difficult to appreciate". Consensus is against you: consensus is that it is done in a different way to what you demand. The categories at Stockport, Wigan, Oldham, Bury etc have been populated by numerous Wikipedia editors who (as far as I know) saw no need to threaten WP with edit wars (see), insult other editors (see), or indulge in mass decategorization (contribs) to try and prove a point. Consensus can change but neither your arguments nor your methods impress me. Mr Stephen 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki precedent, consistency of information, and the principle of minimilization of confusion all go against you. 88.104.81.176 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point that. I friend of mine comes from Moston, which depending how you like it... you can say that Moston is a town of its own right, or a suburb of the city of Manchester. I've lived in Royton, the football ground was just around the corner, I've always called myself anout "multiple inheritance" to be entirely without merit. ---- Eric 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The final straw surely? He's shown a complete disregard for the rules of Wikipedia, once again he's undoing the work of others. I have personally undone most of his edits, but he continues to re-edit them. DShamen 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dshamen is the vandal here with his anonymous user identity 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs). If you take a look at this user you will see that 62.239.159.6/Dshamen has had numerous warnings from numerous editors, and has been blocked a couple of times. I have reverted some changes 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) has made but only because he is vandalising them first. I am simply only reverting the changes he has made (including where he adds information without references. It is obvious they are the same user or are in cahoots because they edit the same articles. I suspect he does his vandalising anonymously so keep his user ID clean. Here are some of the changes he has made to the 'Oldham' articles:

On "Category:Oldham"[2] Dshamen changes the wording from "This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England." to "This category lists schools in the town of Oldham and the wider Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England." If this is a 'borough' category as argued above then why is he changing it into a town category? This reinforces the point that it is perceived as the 'town' category. If it is the borough category then "This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England" is the correct terminology.

This is the way it's always been, and it complies with all other boroughs in Greater Manchester. It CLEARLY states that it includes categories in both the town of Oldham and the borough. DShamen 13:52 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On Jack Wild DShamen keeps changing Wild's birth place from 'Royton, Lancashire' to 'Royton, Oldham, Lancashire'. This is incorrect since Wild was born before the boundary changes making his birth place 'Royton, Lancashire'. In any case, the Oldham Metropolitan Borough is not in Lancashire, it is in Greater Manchester. If you look at biographies "Royton, Lancashire" is the correct term since historical geography is used e.g. Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia (as opposed to Greece) and died in Babylon (as opposed to Iraq).

I never changed this. I simply undid your edit (as well as all of the other far more ridiculous edits you've made). You simply CANNOT justify the changes you've made to the vast majority of them, and I think you'll find that the 62.239.159.6 is a totally anonymous account, therefore there could be any number of users editing with that IP address. The only ones you can POSSIBLY justify are those linked to Royton, as YOU have an obsession with it not being connected with Oldham in any way. DShamen 13:53 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On Michelle Marsh, and numerous other articles he keeps adding 'Royton, Oldham' as opposed to 'Royton , the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham', or Crompton House is in "Shaw and Crompton, Oldham' as opposed to "Shaw and Crompton, the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham". Since the 'Oldham' category was added he has been going through all the article shortening the "the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" to just "Oldham" in the actual body text! Even if the category stands as 'Oldham' I strongly object to the phrasing in the actual articles being changed from "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" to just "Oldham".

If you look at the changes he has made, I think most of you will agree that reverting them was the correct course of action. I would appreciate any help in minimalising the damage caused by this editor.

88.104.69.150 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a comedian. I hope you really can justify all of the ridiculous edits you've made. Every one you've made will be listed on here, and people will realise that what you have done has been vindictive and spiteful... you've thrown your toys out of the pram because you didn't get your own way. For instance, how can you possibly justify removing the 'People from Oldham' category from Albert Walker? As for myself being a 'vandal'... I suggest you check some of the articles I've created and some of the contributions I've made on here before you start labelling me. DShamen 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you really are a different user to 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) (which I sincerely doubt because there is a lot of crossover between your activity going back months that anyone else on here can check) then I haven't undone any of 'your' edits have I? This user has plenty of other warnings from other wiki editors and has in the past been suspended from wikipedia. He persisted in eradicating the 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' and replacing it with just 'Oldham' in many of the articles, a clear case of vandalism. He has made numerous edits to biographies without providing any citations. Since there was a large amount of identifiable vandalism I thought it best to undo all his recent edits where there was no reason or reference given for the edit. I am clearly not being vindictive because I haven't reversed any of 'your' edits have I - in fact it is you that is reversing mine. I notice 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) hasn't complained, you are doing all the complaining and I haven't removed any of your contributions to wikipedia...hmmm...Why are you so upset about me reversing the edits of another contributor where in many cases the edits where wrong and/or unverifiable and unexplained, especially when the editor in question is an anonymous user who has received numerous warnings and a suspension from many different editors. Do you think a person with such a reputation can be trusted to make unverifiable edits to articles? 88.104.17.29 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring over Oldham categories is bad enough, but the indiscriminate mass reverts you have both engaged in are even worse, spanning a range of subjects from Scottish towns to football grounds to dance music. There's simply no excuse for edit-warring on this scale. Suffice to say if either of you do it again you will be blocked. I've protected the two most warred-over Oldham category pages until this Oldham / Metropolitan Borough of Oldham business gets sorted out. Oldelpaso 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at this anonymous user you will see that in a large number of his edits he has removed things from these pages without giving any explanation as to why he did it. He has many warnings, and about 50% of his edits were suspicious. I was just working on the 'Oldham' pages but when I saw the extent of his work I realized the vandalism was much more serious. I decide to revert all his recent edits so many of the 'reverts' were actually putting information back in that had been removed for no given reason. This isn't random - I made these changes to articles edited by just this untrustworthy editor 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs). I made absolutely no changes to edits by Dshamen or anyone else on here. Is it possible that 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) hasn't complained because he can't justify the changes he made and probably would have a lot of explaining too? Why would Dshamen defend an anonymous editor who had been REMOVING information from other pages without an explanation. Before criticising me maybe you should actually look at the changes 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) made first before they were reverted. No-one else's work was lost in the process. If you're fine with an anonymous editor with lots of warnings going around and removing text from articles without giving a reason then just let me know. 88.104.96.109 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that any user fails to fill in an Edit Summary for their changes has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on this talk page, at any rate non of the edits the user has made constitute being regarded as 'suspicous' let alone 'vandalism'. This user seems to be exercising their own free opinion on how the category headers should be written (which is only what was originally written there before the original discussion started). They're perfectly entitled to do this (and Dshaman is perfectly entitled to defend such edits if he so wishes) so long as we don't have a concensus on the issue, so let's get back to that shall we? Then everyone will be happy. ~~ Peteb16 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Futhermore I'd like to propose that we now archive this page and start over again as I've completely lost thread of who agrees with what. ~~ Peteb16 04:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are concerned this dispute has made the debate go off topic, Peteb16, but if you check the talk page of DShamen you will see he has a history of re-editing articles of people being born pre-1974 and changing their birth place to Greater Manchester from Lancashire, and replacing "Metropolitan..." with just "Oldham". Several editors have asked him not to do this on his user page, and at about that period is when this anonymous user started making those types of edits and he 'stopped'. So it is important to establish if they are the same person, since they have a clear agenda to blur the difference between the borough and the town - which neither of us want! The fact that the categorisation system plays into their hands doesn't help matters because it's bad enough that the 'Oldham' tag shares its name with an article about the town rather than the borough article making other proper towns just look like districts or areas, but also on the categories themselves there is an agenda to make them primarily town categories. Putting "Oldham and the rest of the wider borough" is not really appropriate if the category is a borough category. The wording makes it sound primarily like a town category as opposed to being the category for the borough of as a whole. 88.104.16.11 06:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please could we turn this talk page back into a civil discussion. The above heated discussion is completely against guidelines and not really on-topic. We're supposed to be discussing improvements to articles related to Greater Manchester, not engaging in a witch hunt to name and shame anyone who dares to disagree with someone elses edits. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for further guidence and stop this insane arguement, please. ~~ Peteb16 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, it's not helping to achieve any kind of concenus, which ought to be the only point of this discussion. So far as I'm concerned I can see no inconsistency in the current categorisation, and no reason to change it. Oldham just happens to be a metropolitan borough as well as a town, whereas Trafford, Tameside, Sefton ... do not. Big deal. Kearsley, for instance, is a town in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, and is quite correctly categorised as Bolton. In the same way that Royton is quite correctly categorised as Oldham, because in both cases the context is that of the metropolitan borough, not the town. ---- Eric 19:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

At least use some common sense and block this anonymous user... lies, lies and more lies. Still, I'm apparently at fault, so I'd like someone to delete my account as I simply have no time for this website any more. DShamen 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to move this on

As a result of what Peteb16 said about losing track, this is an attempt to summarise the original dispute that sparked all of this. Speak up if you think I've missed something of importance or misrepresented anyone's views. Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Summary of the original dispute
  • Articles relating to Oldham and the surrounding area, namely the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, are categorised using various categories in the format X in Oldham, all of which are subcategories of Category:Oldham. Some users disagree with this, and an alternative usage, X in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham was suggested. Several edit wars involving related matters have also occurred, widening the area of dispute.

The main points raised in favour of changing to Metropolitan Borough naming are: for applications outside the town of Oldham itself, the label Oldham may cause confusion due to association with the town rather than the borough. Some people from nearby towns get offended by association with Oldham.

The main points raised by those in favour of keeping the Oldham naming are: the current method works for similarly named boroughs, such as Category:Wigan and Category:Stockport. Because the categories had been in place for a long time without previously generating major complaints, there is a de facto consensus.

• Other related points raised
  • Metropolitan Borough of Oldham can be an anachronistic term in some cases.
  • Varying opinions over what constitutes a suburb and what constitutes a separate town, and also for districts and boroughs.
  • Disputes over traditional counties have invoked strong passions in the past.
  • Examples given of the methods used for Merseyside (the short form is used) and Hackney (not straightforward).

In general, the comments have digressed, moving into other areas than the original dispute. As for the initial dispute, I really don't mind which is used so long as people don't edit war over it, To me it appears that the people in favour of keeping the categories as X in Oldham are in the majority. If those in favour of changing it to Metropolitan Borough wish to persue the matter further, I suggest they take it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My main point against the category 'Oldham' is that the title is used as the name of the article about the town. You have the same name applying to two different areas. The 'Manchester' article is about the City of Manchester which covers the same area as the category. I think it's madness to identify two different geographic locations by the same name, regardless of the proliferation of the usage. 88.104.38.124 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole like "it's madness" probably doesn't really help your case. Which I have to say seems to me to be both parochial and obsessive. Exactly the same objection that you raise about Oldham could be raised about several other categories; Marple, for instance, is in the Stockport category, but it is not part of the town of Stockport. The point is that categories have a context. The context of the Oldham category, just like the context of the Stockport category, is the metropolitan borough, not the town. It may be that the context ought to be made more explicit, but that's no justification for a proliferation of Oldham categories. ---- Eric 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category introduction

Due to the edit wars over the introduction, I protected Category:Schools in Oldham and Category:Sport in Oldham yesterday. The introduction was going back and forth between

• This category lists schools in the town of Oldham and the wider Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England.

and

• This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in England.

Likewise for the Sport one and several others. Any preferences for either, or any additional suggestions (other than listing it on WP:LAME)? Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference is for the second one. It's simpler, and since fundamentally they mean the same thing, as of course the metropolitan borough encompasses Oldham town, we might as well go with the easier one. M A Mason 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 2

Some Wikipedians are planning a meetup in Manchester on 8 June. Oldelpaso 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell house

Unfortunately, I'm perhaps a bit young to know about the case described in the above article. Can anyone confirm the authenticity of the article? Having searched the Internet, including The Times archive going back that far, there is no mention of it anywhere on the Internet other than on Wikipedia. Nor is there any mention of the death of one of the accussed in 1999. If someone has access to an archive such as LexisNexis (any students/uni staff?) is it possible to get a few more references? Pit-yacker 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me. There is no Amhearset Road in the Manchester A-Z, but there is an Amherst Road in Fallowfield, which appears to be student lodgings see. I suggest you prod it. Mr Stephen 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham categories at Cfd

The 'Oldham' cats have been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Mr Stephen 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the result of the discussion was formally declared "no consensus" then that gives you no mandate to instute 'Oldham' categories over "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" categories. I recommend that these categories are removed or we have both categorization systems until there is a clear consensus either way. 88.104.121.24 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which categories do you mean to be removed? Fingerpuppet 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The ones that were up for discussion - Oldham and the sub categories. 88.104.121.24 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, in my limited experience a "No Consenus" result means the status quo (i.e. Oldham over Oldham MBC) holds for now, as it is also true that there is no mandate to move any articles. To achieve consensus, I guess it is necessary to go back to CfD at some point. However, in my experience an immediate return to CfD will yield no change. In other words, IMHO it is best left to settle for a while. Pit-yacker 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion was about a proposition to rename categories, as no consensus exists to do so, we simply don't rename them. No one has ever discussed having both categories so, again, no consensus exists to do so. Do it if you want, but if you do, you're just adding to the confusion you were supposed to be avoiding in the first place and you're just asking for someone to justifiably slap a deletion notice on it. ~~ Peteb16 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "no consensus" doesn't mean the same as "rename". Fingerpuppet 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no consensus has been reached that technically means that no decision was reached either way. If you don't want me to introduce an alternative system then you have to refrain from extending yours, and that means no further articles should be put in Oldham categories until the format is agreed upon. I won't remove any of the current articles from their current categories or introduce further ones, but only on the condition that you refrain from any further rolling out of a categorization system that you do not have majority support for. That's the only way the articles will remain stable until a proper consensus is achieved. 88.104.121.24 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, it means that there was no consensus in favour of your renaming proposal, therefore the staus quo stands. A decision was reached not to support your renaming proposal. Your use of the word "technically" is irrelevant and intended to mislead in my opinion. ---- Eric 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an option: rename them or keep them. There was no agreement on renaming them or keeping them. I'm willing to hold back with categorsation system until there is a clear decision either way, but only if the current system is frozen since there wasn't a consensus to keep it. I can understand your sour grapes since you were cocksure that the majority would back you Eric, but I put forward a good argument that many editors were convinced by, and you're going to have to just live with that. Since you have no authority to pull 'rank' on me now since your categorisation failed to win the necessary support, we are going to have to wait until the dispute is resolved. 88.104.121.24 23:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see no justification for your personal remarks. But the fact is that a nomination for renaming was made and it was not supported. Therefore the status quo remains. BTW, the present categorisation has nothing to do with me, and I have no "rank" to pull on anyone. ---- Eric 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't refuted either. That's what a "no consensus" means. Since it wasn't refuted then the alternative, to retain the name wasn't supported either. Since you have displayed no intention of supporting the impasse and waiting for a resolution supported by consensus then I will roll out a competing categorisation system next week. The vote related to renaming the current categorisation so the way I see it consensus opinion doesn't prevent me from doing this. If a motion is made for their deletion then presumably there would be another "no consensus" since roughly half the voters support using the proper name, and then we will have two catgeorisation systems and editors can use whichever their happiest with. 88.104.121.24 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No consensus means there is no agreement for any other category system or renaming. Any "alternative system" comes under WP:POINT and following comments like this I doubt you will get much sympathy for any of your arguments. Regan123 00:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's correct - the nomination was to rename them, and it was exactly this failed to achieve consensus. The policy therefore is to keep the existing categorisation. To maintain the otherwise goes against WP:POINT and WP:CON, and should be treated as such, for better or worse. Jhamez84 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, 6 supported the rename and 9 were against it. Not counting your second vote and a vote from an anonymous user whose vote was disputed due to their singular contribution to the site. I would personally concider any attempt to add to the categorisation conflicts as bad faith as it's clearly in retribution to people opposing you rather than for the good of the encyclopaedia. Furthermore I'd say that adding to the confusion for the reader by creating a conflicting category borders on vandalism. ~~ Peteb16 00:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm finding it really difficult to understand how someone can get so excited about a perfectly straightforward and simple geographical category. It beggars belief. ---- Eric 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'd expect this behaviour over actual important issues such as war or religion, but over this? Aren't there less trivial things to do here... Something to do with writing articles? I forget now, it's been so long. ~~ Peteb16 09:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I really love the way that he thinks he owns the place and keeps issuing threats that he can't possibly back up... still, I'll ignore his existence from now on. DShamen 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that the user 62.239.159.6 is in fact a multi user server for DWP & Jobcentre Plus. Nice to know your tax payers money is being spent wisely