Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Stamford park

any opinions on this article? Pit-yacker (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to articles on parks, I'm never sure what counts as notable unless it's the first, the biggest, or something notable happened there. For example, I'd hesitate to write an article on a park in Hale Barns, even though it was designed by Edgar Wood, a noted designer. Aside from the fact that it's got a bronze green flag award (of Trafford's 42 parks, 17 have gold or silver and they can't all deserve an article), I don't see anything particularly notable about Stamford Park. There is CCTV, but it's to deter vandals rather than the more unsavoury things the article suggests. Perhaps a note on the park could go in the Altrincham article and then delete the article on Stamford Park. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a little to the Altrincham article, although there was already something on the park there [1]. I've looked over the history of the Stamford park article and see that it was created a few days ago by a new user. While I am wary of biting the new guys, I really don't believe the park merits an article of its own. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal

Worthy of C-class now? I've been adding ickle bits here and there, its the article I plan to attack once I'm done with the MBB one. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'd say a B-class! Not bad! Not bad at all! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jza, it's already looking pretty good. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No mention of the (1844?) bonded warehouse, or the "Port of Manchester" though. A good article nevertheless, well worth a B. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Would that not be "In 1789 the Duke's warehouse was badly damaged by fire, and, although rebuilt, was demolished in 1960"? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of this 1844 report printed in The Times, a googly which Richerman bowled at me in the Port of Manchester article:
FIRST ARRIVAL IN THE PORT OF MANCHESTER OF A CARGO OF GOODS FOR BOND

We have great pleasure in recording the first arrival in the Port of Manchester of a vessel, with an entire cargo of wines and spirits removed in bond, and for bonding in Manchester. The vessel, a flat named the Express, was wholly laden with a valuable cargo of wines and spirits, in all about 40 tons weight, belonging to Mr. William Gibb, spirit merchant, of this town, whose active and long-continued exertions in the struggle to obtain the privilege of bonding for this great and important borough are about to be acknowledged in the form of a substantial mark of respect and gratitude by his fellow-townsmen. The Express arrived from Liverpool on Saturday evening; but it was yesterday morning before she began to unload. She is lying in the Bridgewater Canal, Knott Mill where the Duke's trustees have constructed a large bonding vault, which Mr. Gibb has taken and had licensed for the purpose, and we believe he is now removing his stock of wine and spirits from other ports to Manchester, for the greater convenienoe of sampling and sale. The lockers, gaugers, and other officers of Customs were in attendance, superintending the unloading of the vessel and thus have commenced the operations of the Manchester Custom-house. It is a gratifying circumstance that a gentleman who took so prominent a part in the struggle to obtain the boon of bonding for Manchester should the first to enjoy the fruits of its success. We hope ere long to record the general operation of the system; though it will require a little time, perhaps, as it, must have a beginning.[1]

— Manchester Guardian
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Bonded Warehouse - that does ring a bell. There is a bonded warehouse in Granda TV's grounds, in Manchester. There are lots of companies in there, I've been in a few times and its certainly a very old looking building. Would that be the same one? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, perhaps not although I will continue looking. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts?

I just stumbled upon this article Royal Visits to Manchester and Salford During the Reign of Queen Victoria and didn't really know what to make of it. It's an orphan but suprisingly has references and quite a bit of text. Only link to it is a redirect from Royal visits to lancashire during the reign of queen victoria. It has been around since March so I'm really unsure if it should be deleted or not and I can't seem to find any similar articles for other cities. It would be a shame to delete it as I have seen much worse articles before. Any thoughts on what to do with it? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was also another article exactly the same at Royal visits to Lancashire during the reign of Queen Victoria but I redirected that one to the Manc/Salford article. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's an unusual article, I don't think I've seen anything like it. I don't think it should be deleted, some of the information can be woven into the History of Manchester article and Salford#History section so that it's not an orphan. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the article could be expanded into a general 'Royal visits to Manchester and Salford' article? I'm not sure how many there have been so it's just a thought. Nev1 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's an orphan no longer [2], but shouldn't the title be changed to "Royal visits to Manchester and Salford during the reign of Queen Victoria"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be, could it not be Greater Manchester instead of Manchester/Salford? Has a royal ever been to one of our other towns? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Stretford in 1857, to open the Art Treasures Exhibition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Was there such a thing as Greater Manchester during Vicki's reign though? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I've moved it to Royal visits to Manchester and Salford during the reign of Queen Victoria for now. Greater Manchester hadn't been created when Victoria visited so it's a bit anachronistic. Nev1 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I know GMR wasn't around back then but I was just thinking it would have given the article a wider scope. If there was only 1 other visit in GMR to Stretford then I guess it isn't worth it. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If the article (at some point) were to be expanded to include all royal visits it may as well include the rest of GMR. Nev1 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Although this is well written and researched article, doesn't it constitute original research? To quote from WP:NOR original research includes "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" which is exactly what this article appears to be. it really reads like an academic history paper rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I doubt if any of the references actually say anything about how the visits "offer an insight into the development of the area during this period" Richerman (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

100 online libraries

I thought that this might be of interest, when researching old topics. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Keith Warrender is to deliver a talk on his book 'Underground Manchester: secrets of the city revealed' at Whitefield Library (Pinfold Lane) on Monday 15th September at 7.30pm whitefield.lib@bury.gov.uk for tickets" £4 for non-library members. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Both look good! Cheers! Any luck with the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal page too? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Its getting there, there are a couple of reference issues to sort out but on the whole nobody reviewing it has really pointed out any massive flaws. Put it this way, even if it fails it will have been worth it just for the improvements in prose and grammar that some have made, and for pointing out some unreliable referencing which was there. Hopefully it won't fail though! Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It didn't get there :( Mr Stephen (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
...yet ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Er... you saw this, yes? Or is the FA process even more arcane than I thought? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. I know why it failed, the reasons are:

"There were a number of unresolved (or unclear) issues there, and the only supporter was an "involved" (GA reviewer) editor, so the article hadn't gained any independent support. (Not that I discount involved support, but I look for independent support as well.) When an article isn't getting feedback after being listed for quite a while, I'm sometimes forced to try to determine what might be causing reviewers to hold off. In addition to the unresolved or unclear issues on the FAC, when I looked at the article I saw many minor MoS glitches: hidden text in two sections, layout issues, and I hit some prose patches that I struggled with. In terms of what was mentioned on the FAC, try to thoroughly resolve sourcing and image issues before the next FAC (that will help things go smoother), and note that Dr Kiernan had a large amount of commentary just on getting through the lead, so a fresh set of eyes on copyedit might help. Usually articles sail through on the next attempt, while lengthy issues right up front can scare off subsequent reviewers; hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

I'm quite happy with that reasoning, and I don't think there are any major problems. I'd already sorted out nearly all the referencing issues (the remaining two will be done this coming week). I'll ask for it to be copyedited once more and than re-submit it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a fascinating book which I can highly recommend. I'll try and get there. Richerman (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good book and interesting, although a little brief perhaps. Also useful because it covers a bit of Salford as well as Manchester. Unfortunately the author committed the eighth deadly sin: there's no index. A while back I watched the Channel M link POD posted about underground Manchester, also worth watching. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal visits to Manchester and Salford during the reign of Queen Victoria

Although this is well written and researched article, doesn't it constitute original research? To quote from WP:NOR, original research includes "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" which is exactly what this article appears to be. It really reads like an academic history paper rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I doubt if any of the references actually say anything about how the visits "offer an insight into the development of the area during this period" There's also a lot of POV issues as well, particularly in the "Historical significance" section.Richerman (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over User:Starlc's contributions (the main author of the article) and have unearthed this PDF. It was uploaded to wikipedia a day before the article was expanded. I'm not sure what to make of it or if this even changes anything. Nev1 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just ask on his/her talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put a question on the talk page for the article but I wanted some other views first. Richerman (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've asked the question now, but User:Starlc hasn't contributed for some months, so I'm not confident that I'll get an answer any time soon. Richerman (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactive users

I've created an off-shoot of our list of participants: Template:WPGM Inactive Participants. I thought that it would be unlikely that a user would return after a six month absence, so put anyone on the list who has not made an edit since 1 March 2008. There are only four, but there are arguably other users who are inactive (such as making half a dozen edits in the last six months or not making a contribution to GM related pages in the same time period). Any thoughts on whether more people should be added to the list? Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I love the format, it;s very clear. I'll try take a look at our list to see if I can suggest some others. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What about including a short note about our definition of inactive participants? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I wrote one on Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Participants#Inactive participants and I've now added it to the front project page. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Shamelessly threadjacking here.... seeing as we're doing some project organisation, is anybody willing to help me to the initial set up work for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside I want to get off the ground? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, what needs to be done? Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Stealing a load of text and images to create articles? ;) (ducks for cover) Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Calm down, calm down, in cyber-space no one can hear you joke. Nev1 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ho ho ho! I hope they don't find those! :S --Jza84 |  Talk  15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Now they're the city of culture will they leave our articles on a pile of bricks or a pile of books? (I know - that's shameful stereotyping!) Richerman (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What sort of thing/help do you need? Paypwip (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think what has to be done is set up the project page. From there we have something to work with, we can notify interested parties and begin tagging and assessing. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a template for tagging articles for the project. It's nothing fancy, I just canibalised the GM one and changed all the links and pictures. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nev1! Looks great!
To Paypwip - just a basic layout for the project page (nothing too fancy), perhaps getting the project banner/assessment system off the ground, posting to key articles to let folk know it's up and running and so on? I can make some of the graphics for the project mind. I've 9 interested bodies so far. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Started Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside! It's open to all to wikify! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. I've made a stream-of-consciousness start (on the Talk Page) at identifying key topics and articles. By bizarre coincidence, I will be paying my first visit to Merseyside in 6 years at the end of this month; I'll be dropping by in GM as well, courtesy of a Freedom of the North West rail rover. If any photos need taking, I'll be on the case...! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
One of Dukinfield's town hall wouldn't go amiss, or a better one for Ashton-in-Makerfield and Leigh! Been trying to get hold of good shots of them for ages now. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearout

A random search of Manchester articles prompts this question - worth keeping? None of them appear that notable to my eyes (at least in their current forms).

There must be dozens more like these. By the way, shouldn't Victoria Baths be a little more important? It could make a great article. Another question, is there some kind of tag in the wikiproject banner where articles can be nominated for urgent attention, or similar? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I think:
  • Green Room: delete with a note in Culture of Manchester article.
  • Worthington is a civil parish, there's plenty of scope for expansion and although WP:UKCITIES doesn't explicitly say so, I think civil parishes are generally considered notable, keep.
  • MAP: after reading this article I still had no idea what the group does, the article has serious problems. It seems to be a group that were around for a few years and had little impact in, well, anything really. I think it should be deleted.
  • South Manchester Reporter: tentative keep, I don't know if there are any guidelines for notability of a newspaper, but 60,000 readers seems notable. Could merge to culture of Manchester?
  • Owen Street is (or rather, if it goes ahead it will be) the second tallest building in Manchester, seems notable to me so keep.
  • Copley: fails to assert notability, delete.
  • Coppice: doesn't assert notability, tentative delete but as Jza84 knows Oldham much better than I do I'd defer to his judgement.
  • Manchester Pals: agree with merge.
  • MIDI school: a school/recording studio hybrid, tentative delete because a quick look didn't throw up any reliable source.
  • Traincare: I don't see why this merits more than a mention in the transport section of the Ardwick article, delete.
  • Manchester today: I don't think a 10 minute programme on an obscure satellite channel counts as notable, delete.
  • Food and drink: redirect to culture in Manchester?
  • Red Issue: I say delete, it doesn't appear notable, but it might be worth getting input from the football wikiproject.
I think Victoria Baths should be high-importance as it's iconic. The project has a template marking articles for cleanup ({{Cleanup-GM}}, but there's nothing under Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Templates about urgent attention. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
My two pence. The ones I have left out, I have done so as I dont feel qualified to comment:
  • Green Room:Delete. Throw in Sankeys - possible merge that with Beehive Mill?
  • Worthington, Greater Manchester: Civil Parish keep
  • South Manchester Reporter: Probable keep. I thought it was free though?
  • Owen Street, Manchester:Delete? Perhaps consider deleting some of the other speculative articles for developments which may or may not take place such as Albany Crown Tower
  • Manchester MIDI School: Delete
  • Manchester Traincare Centre: Probable keep. In the same bracket are the train care depots at Longsight (Longsight Diesel TMD and Longsight Electric TMD which both have articles. You might find a bit of opposition from the Railway types on this as virtually every other one (and station) in the country has its own article
  • Manchester Today - Delete. Not even sure a channel in the dead zone of the Sky EPG deserves an article.
  • Food and Drink in Manchester: Keep as spin off of Manchester?
Pit-yacker (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've flagged a couple more for deletion:
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Greater Manchester at FLC

Now a Featured List candidate: see here. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bury Bolton Street railway station is still in use, albeit not as part of the network. Not on that list though, perhaps a reason should be given if it isn't an oversight? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Manchester overspill estates

Hello folks,

I've created the Category:Manchester overspill estates, and populated it with those I know. If anybody knows of any others, I'd welcome you to add this category to their pages. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hillock but doesn't have it's own page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Partington could be added, arguably: I don't think it's a very big one though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

0.7 DVD Release

Forty-six of our articles have been provisionally chosen for the next (0.7) DVD release of the English Wikipedia.[3] Naturally I'm gutted that neither Trafford Park nor Manchester Mummy made the cut, but are we all happy that those articles are up to the mark? I'm a bit dubious about some of them ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks interesting but I think I'll wait for the film...
Wow, that's a lot of articles to do with GM :-) Unfortunately, about half those articles are B-class or less. I can see some getting improved, but I'm not sure this project has much experience in, for example, music articles. I call shotgun on Ashton-under-Lyne; after doing the history section for the Tameside article I have lots of books on Tameside. When's the DVD due out?
I'm personally disappointed there's nothing on castles there :-( But I'm pleased to see Sale in there. Maybe now is the time to put it forward at FAC again? Nev1 (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have been decided yet, but December looks likely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff! Perhaps we ought to ammend/update our project aims to bring it more inline with some of those 46? I'm also a little surprised by some of the choices (Sale Sharks and Madchester, but no Rochdales or Boltons?), but I'm pleased we've some good content going on there. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat surprised to learn that Wigan FC is considered of greater importance/interest than the Bridgewater Canal. Who made those choices? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The choice was made by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, based partly on how many times each article is looked at as well as its importance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like (and correct me if I'm wrong), that the quality of the article and how many times it appears in other articles also contribute to the overall score, so I suppose we can change what appears and what does not, to an extent. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The equation to work out the rating for articles is complicated (involves logarithms) to prevent spamming. For example Trafford Park needs another 385 points. To get that, we'd need to add about 10,000 links in other articles. An interesting quirk of the system is that Oldham is more important than Salford. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oldham Town Hall

Just thought I'd let you see this. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is how it used to look. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is how it looks today and frankly if they're too inept to find a use for it, they should be shot. Mind you perhaps our rather romantic listed planning laws are partly responsible, sometimes people need to recognise that a modified listed building is better than a fallen over listed building. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Canal Street, Manchester

Does anyone feel brave enough to have a go at sorting this one out? It's an absolute disgrace with only one reference in it - which I put in last time I looked at it. I knew there was an article that I meant to do some work on when I got time but forgot which one it was until someone added this - "One of the pubs well known, respected and liked, was the Union Tavern, owned and run by Walter Green, and his wife Margaret until their retirement and the pubs reputed sale to Foo Foo Lamar, who renamed it the New Union Tavern - Walter having moved from being a publican in the Salford docks area often remarked that the Union Tavern was his best move, as there was "never any trouble" and that his clientele "never asked for credit" - perceptive for a Manchester lad who left school at 15!" I've just romoved that bit bit it's fairly indicative of the tone of the whole article - although most of it's not quite that bad. Mind you, some of the stuff I took out some time ago had references to the Canal Street sign being changed to "anal Street" and "anal treet" with accompanying photos to prove it! Although it's not a subject I'm particularly knowledgable about (he hastened to add). as the centre of the largest gay village in Europe and an important part of Manchester's culture, I think we could do a bit better with it, although I suspect there will be some edit warring. Richerman (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a subject I'm familiar with either, but I agree that it deserves a better article than that. I particularly hate it when articles are defaced by tags, so I hope we can at least source what's there now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I put the tag on some time ago to try and stimulate a bit of improvement and discourage the rubbish, but its not working so I'll remove it as soon as we make some improvements. Most of the stuff about the history that was on already was lifted from another website. The problem is that most of the stuff you find on the web isn't from reliable sources, but good old Paul Hindle has something we can use here and there's a Guardian article here about the history. I think if we can get this one looking better it would be a good illustration of how unbiased the project is in its coverage. I've got some decorating to do now but - I'll be back. Richerman (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies are, apparently, supporters of this article, perhaps they can help too? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunnybank

Hello folks,

I've been looking at Category:Districts of Greater Manchester (which is really quite terrible), and came across, Sunny Bank, Greater Manchester and Sunnybank, Bury. There's clearly some duplication, but can anybody suggest a way forwards? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's cropped up before. At least one should be got rid of, possibly both since I'm not convinced of their notability. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing whatsoever notable about the area, I know it well. I'd delete them both. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Would there be any objection if I speedy deleted them myself? I can wait. I take that as a nod from you Parrot :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, get rid of both of them. Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm thinking we need a Template:Areas of Bury, like that of Template:Areas of Salford, Streford etc etc, as there seems to be alot of Bury suburbs with articles. However, I don't know the area, and don't know how notable this could be (I think some suburbs can be great, like Belfield or Sholver, but others not so much). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Moonchester

Any city fans want to help with this one? I've tried to get this speedy deleted, but this was declined. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was turned down on a technicality, because I don't agree with the editor who turned down your request that notability is assessed. I would have hoped the speedy would take care of it, but it looks like we might have to go to AfD. Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Manchester and Bolton Railway did you know?

I got bored of waiting for some of the train types to create this article (linked from the MBB article) so did it myself. Its only a day or so old. Would it be a good entry for the 'did you know?' page and if so could someone help me format it? I'm not entirely sure what is so remarkable about it that it deserves consideration! Perhaps that it was going to replace the canal, but complaints forced an amending bill to parliament, or such. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would make an excellent nomination - I've just nominated Peel Park, Salford myself :) How about:
"…that the Manchester and Bolton Railway was originally proposed as a replacement for the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal but was eventually built alongside it instead?"
or maybe, "…that the Manchester and Bolton Railway was proposed as a replacement for the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal but was eventually built alongside it after complaints forced an amending bill"
The "hook" has to be less than 200 characters (including spaces) and you need to nominate asap as it has to be on the front page within five days of creation. I wouldn't worry too much about the wording of the hook as they usually get changed anyway.Richerman (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok I proposed it. The only issue I'm aware of right now is this image, but its fairly easy to change that image for one of a Bury type locomotive (which is the type initially used on the railway). Also, who inserts those symbols next to the proposal? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The , and other symbols, and accompanying comments, can be added by anybody once they have looked at the article, checked length/references/date of creation/hook length etc. In practice, there are a few regulars (myself included) who do most of the checking work. Expect to wait a few days—maybe up to a week—before a decision is made, although looking at it quickly I can't see any reason for it not to get a tick. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It made it :) My first DYK! Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done! I was a bit surprised that there were objections raised to the wording of the hook, but everything worked out in the end. The process can seem a bit arcane at times! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the dyk process

look at your railway nom... its about to be deleted. here Victuallers (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bredbury

It's in a bad way. It looks like an editor got carried away writing this lengthy article, but never added citations. Can anybody help? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Greater Manchester

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wigan

The sports section on the Wigan page keeps getting bits added and it now reads rather like a newspaper report with no references. As I've no interest in football or rugby I'm not sure how much of it needs removing - could someone have a look? Richerman (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need an interest in football if you're editting Wigan... ho ho ho. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A quick skim read tells me that most of the Sports content belongs in the relevant articles for that club/ground/manager etc. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a fair chunk of it. To be honest the article is a bit messy. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I thought most of it should be in other articles too - but only if it's referenced. And I shall treat that cheap shot from Jza with the conserve it detempts. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like Jza is going to be made to eat humble pie. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Boom boom!! Richerman (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashton-under-Lyne

Not sure if you've noticed, but User:Nev1 has been helping to bring Ashton-under-Lyne upto the WP:GA standard. We're almost there with this one and so any additional help (photos, copy-editting, suggestions, refs) would be greatly appreciated! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier today. Nev1's done a great job with the article, well worth a punt at GA now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There are still a few thin sections (like Geography and Education), and the geography one is still unsourced, but we're certainly getting close. I've exhausted my sources, and I think Nev1 is at his endgame with this too, so a final communal push would be just the ticket. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anything in Geography is contentious, but if there is, then I'm sure we can deal with it if it's raised as an issue at GAN. GAN isn't FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
True, true. I suppose a GAN would give us feedback and a fail in a worst-case scenario, which is still helpful. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no way it would fail with Nev1, you, and me, mothering it through. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That's another "true, true"! Just worry (in a cyber way) about that Geography section - I can't find much on it. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a little on the geology of the town. Well, I think I just exhausted my sources, or maybe I've just hit the wall, it's a pretty big article now. My original aim was to get the article up to scratch for the DVD release, but I thought while we're improving it we may as well go for GA. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the plunge, it's now a GA candidate. I think we'll be able to smooth out anything that comes up either before or during the review. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Greater Manchester

Good news; the stations list has passed its FLC test and is now a Featured List. At the time of typing, the discussion hasn't yet been archived and the bronze star isn't on, but it has been added to WP:FL. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Great news and well done to everyone involved! Nev1 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice one :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilkington's Group Plc and Pilkington's Lancastrian Pottery & Tiles

User:Mariainkila has been editing both these articles. The former has no references whatsoever, but the latter (which I created) appears to have had added to it a fair amount of unreferenced information. A new user I think - what's the best way of making sure he/she understands referencing/sources etc, without putting him off? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just post a message thanking them for their contributions, but pointing them to WP:verifiability and asking if they have any references for the information they've given as you're concerned it may be deleted. Richerman (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumnus?

I despair. There's a "notable alumnus" called Luke Marsden in the University of Salford article. He's a 2008 Big Brother housemate who was the "seventh to be evicted for failing the wedding task." Anyone less notable is hard to imagine and I'm removing the entry, but I see there's a Big Brother wikiproject committed to improving articles about Big Brother. Is this what the world is coming to? is it possible to have a project deleted for lack of notability? Richerman (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If only it could, I shudder when I see Big Brother contestants mentioned in articles under notable people sections. You're welcome to try to get it deleted, but I think Malleus is more likely to pass an RfA with 0 opposes. A project with less than 300 articles, nothing above B-class, and only 3 articles selected for 0.7; there are taskforces better than that. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I once believed that I was very much in the inclusionist camp, but there really is just too much of this ephemeral pop-culture crap. Big Brother itself is certainly worth an article, but the idea of a Big Brother Project fills me with horror. On the wider topic, I've long had a problem with the Notable ... sections. Too often they just seem to be arbitrary listings of pop nonsense, so I think you were right to remove the Luke Marsden rubbish from the University of Salford article Richerman. What next? An alumnis notable for taking part in a bank robbery? Or for not taking part in a bank robbery?
I'll leave Nev1's comment about my chances at RfA unanswered, although I'd have to admit that he does have grounds for making the comparison. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The sad thing is the project has something like 60 members. The worst part is I'm beginning to sound like my father did when I was a teenager - but then, he was wrong about the Beatles. Richerman (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm speechless! 60 members!?.... Jeez, imagine how Encarta or Britannica would handle Big Bro. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ author unknown (10 October 1844), "First arrival in the Port of Manchester of a cargo of goods for bond", The Times, p. 6 {{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_19&oldid=1136415262"