Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Manchester Guardian archive

I've just stumbled across [1] - the University of Manchester holds a complete run of the Manchester Guardian (now just the Guardian) papers from 1821-1991. Thought this might be useful to some of you. Mike Peel (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This will be helpful I'm sure. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

An excellent find. It's a pity it's not on-line so you can search through it by keyword like the Times archive, but then you can't have everything. It will be fascinating to have a look through it when I get the time. Richerman (talk)

There is an online Guardian archive, it's just not world-accessible, see here. I suspect if you had access to the library, you would have access to the online stuff? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The guides say that public can access 3 times then have to pay £30 +VAT a year afterwards for reference access and even then is limited in access to online material 9

Ah, I see. It wasn't clear from the first link that it was an electronic resource. It seems I can access it with my Athens login details - I'll have to look them up again at work. If anyone wants me to have a look for anything let me know - just don't all shout at once :) BTW there was a piece about Scuttlers on Inside Out North West tonight. They said there's some stuff about them on Inside Out web page on the BBC website Richerman (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be confusing people here. The original post refers to physical copies of the paper, plus other archive material. There is also an online archive of the paper. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That link i put in seems to talk about taking yuor driving licence with you and also mentions the 3 access before paying thingy--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Google earth KML town boundaries

Hi all

Deos anyone know of a KML file that shows the town boundaries ? All I can find are some maps of wards, but the one I want for Tameside is all over the place, for example bits of Ashton and Stalybridge are in Dukinfield ward, and hyde has part of Dukinfield in it.

Any help would be appreciated.--Chaosdruid (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on my Windows box right now but can't you just trace the boundary lines from the map? They're in a checkbox on the bottom left of Google Earth, 'borders' iirc. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wards usually cross traditional, or former boundaries of towns when they are within a post-74 district. For example, much of Royton is in the ward of Crompton. They have to do this so that each ward has roughly the same amount of people in it. The closest thing you might get on Wikipedia would be File:Greater Manchester County (3).png? Or do you mean the urban area of Dukinfield? Does www.tameside.gov.uk not have anything? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not at the greatest scale, but there's always the ONS's map. Beyond that, you're into printed map territory, preferably pre-1974 maps too. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have the answer - there was a Tameside document and it had a very low quality map but I should be able to trace it from there. The google earth boundaries only go down to level 2 as far as I can see, that seems to be Tameside and no further. Cheers for the help guys, would be nice if I could get that pdf but it says doesn't work, so Ill try some fiddling.

I've added quite a bit to Dukinfield but need to finish off, so it's sort of in the process etc - can't remember where to find the "work in progress" tag if someone could do that or point me in right direction would be appreciated - may even give cookies AND milk lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Template - maintenance Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

I'd appreciate it if this could be reviewed, before I nominate it for GA. Thanks a lot. Majorly talk 15:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few initial comments. This two biggest problems I see for GAN are the number of images, causing the text to be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images and the need for a thorough copyedit of the entire acrticle. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there are a lot of images. I'll see if I can rearrange them, or remove any as necessary. Majorly talk 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few comments along with edits to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal- many of the mills.

Could I ask you to post your comments on Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#February_22. I am not sure if this is a step forward or backwards. The debate seems to be over the confusion between a mill and the hulk that remains.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I wouldn't object to deleting those images where some elements of the building remain still. While it would be nicer to show each mill in its glory, until you get permission from the copyright holder I think its reasonable to delete a few of them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited

ClemRutter (talk · contribs) has been doing some great work to this list, but he's facing a challenge about the use of images there. I think some of our team members being aware of the debate and passing comment, perhaps at Talk:List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited, would help find a solution. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The debate has move over to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content where I have made a fairly extensive posting, the guys there don't seem to use talk pages. Please do join in, as it has goto the point where I can't type fast enough to keep up.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use, something I try to avoid as it's tripped me up too many times. User:Jheald has a good idea of contacting the copyright holder and asking them to release their right to low level scans of the images. This would probably be the author, however since the book is 50 years old did you say(?), it would be difficult to track him/her down. A good place to start would be the publisher. It would be a real shame not to be allowed to use the images as they are very good, and I like contrasting the old images with contemporary ones, which I think is of use to show how the use and structure of the buildings has changed. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use seemed the only option. The Publisher was Lancashire Cotton Corporation, and the promotional book has no author. The Preface is signed Blackfriars House January 1951. Blackfriars House was the head office of LCC being near the Blackfriars Bridge, in Manchester. The telephone number was BLAckfriars 4383. The book was Designed and produced by the Harlequin Press Co. Ltd, Printed by the Buxton Printing Company. Courtaulds acquired LCC in the 1960,s, In 1990, Courtaulds plc split itself in to two parts:

• Courtaulds textiles - the fibre manufacture and clothing business
• Courtaulds plc - the chemicals business

The first was bought by Sara Lee and sold to PD Enterprises in Hong Kong, and the second by merging with Akzo Nobel which the EU approved subject to the sale of Coutauld's aerospace business to PPG Industries of ?California. I haven't a clue how one finds out the copyright holder.

However, the receptionist at Courtaulds in Nottingham, will ask around the office on Monday morning to see if anyone can help. I got the number from 118 Yell- all other numbers are defunct. Question. If in the unlikely case that the CEO, agrees to sign a waver- what should that say. There is a template- but I haven't done this before. But in the mean time- I still am convinced the images are fair use.

--ClemRutter (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The normal procedure is for you to send the person responsible for copyright (usually an archivist, but in reality anyone who has the authority under that company's internal structure) an email using the template on this commons page. They fill in the blanks, return it to the relevant email address, and a trusted user then assigns an OTRS ticket, and you're clear. You should make that person absolutely clear on what they're being asked to do, as effectively they will lose control of their images. I recently used this process here. I've done the same on a few other historic images. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have been taking a break this weekend- Monday I will be on the phone to Courtaulds. Thinking about the fall back position- while we get the current intrepretation of clause 3a rectified, we are only left with the unthinkable, so can I just air this one here.

Each mill will need its own article- I have looked at the info box historic buildings and I can modify that to include sections on spindles, ends, engines boilers, transport links (rail and canal) and some articles are almost read to be floated, even Waterside Mill, Ashton has two or three paragraphs that can be penned. But I need to be certain about notability, if a nondescript hamlet in borsetshire is automatically notable, then morally I see that a mill that defined the lives of 500 people at a time for 250 years is well with in the bounds. If Dunford Bridge railway station is notable then Atlas mill must be. Looking at the criteria, it can be said to be notable if it is discussed in a 'secondary' source. Would you say that my 53 mills of LCC is a reputable secondary source? I would- but would this stand up? What have I missed? Does adoption by WP:Greater Manchester make it notable? More tomorrow night. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Large mills are by default (in my opinion) certainly notable - they were massive structures that dominated the landscape and provided employment for hundreds, often thousands of local folk. You can use lots of other sources for your article, there will be texts discussing many of those mills in local history books for each town. You'll almost certainly find each mill on any 20th century OS map, and the name will nearly always be printed next to it. Google Books is often good for this, but for older material you usually have to use the long 's' to search through them (Worfley instead of Worsley for instance).

By the way, I wonder if your image of Wilton Mill, Radcliffe, might find a place in the Radcliffe article. Not just yet mind, as its at FAC, but I remember the building, and I know exactly where it was. IIRC it was demolished late 80s early 90s. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sadly, being part of WP:Greater Manchester doesn't make it notable. If ~50 articles on mills pop up close together , I'd put money on some of them being taken to AfD. However, as you said the mills have affected hundreds of lives over a long period of time; arguing the case for the mills being notable in that manner certainly convinces me. Mills across Lancashire and the North West must be well documented, and while I'd count the book you mention as a good enough source, it would be best to use more wherever possible. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of mills, anyone know what this mill/factory is? Its alongside the Bridgewater Canal here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the gazetteer in Williams, Mike (1992). Cotton mills in Greater Manchester. Preston: Carnegie. ISBN 0-948789-69-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), I think it's the "Eccles Spinning and Manufacturing Company", early 20th century. Apparently GUS stores recently, and currently destined for the chop. See also here, here and here. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the one, the tower says '1906'. GAH. I can understand that it isn't anything unique or special, but it does dominate the landscape and it's a pity it can't be saved. Oh well, its another tidbit for Eccles. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have had another assault. This time, the good faith editor User:PhilKnight has question some files, and deleted others. I haven't seen his name before and he doesn't appear to be reading Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. Obviously, I will be trying to discover his point of view.

An infobox template for mills. I have worked up this template, that is designed to be suitable for all textile mills. It is constrained by the limitation of 80 fields in an infobox. It works for the sample mill. Do I need a project's sponsorship before I upload it to the Template:infobox page. If not I will move it there this evening- if I do could the great and the good cast a critical eye over it and pronounce. (Yes: the image will have to be changed as FU are not allowed in Templatespace!)

Looks good to me, however I'd add a line about architectural style, below the architect's name? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC) "Brick built, renaissance", "Tiled, Art Deco" that kind of thing. [[User:Parrot of Doom.

I will upload it into template space.The field architectural_style is already there at about position 12. Where I could, I kept the same field names as used in infobox building so we can slide across existing mills Masson Mill etc. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC help

Could anyone help with the Radcliffe FAC? There are just a couple of points from User:Laser brain that I need help to resolve. I think if they're not fixed soon it'll disappear from the table, if I can get a support from this user I'll have three supports and no opposes.

• "Use of the passive voice obscures or eliminates the subjects of sentences. Some examples are mixed in below, but someone needs to check for this throughout and correct it where possible." which I'm not sure I understand. I think my grammar is ok but start asking me about verbs and things, and my eyes glaze over.
• "For tables of data like "Radcliffe Compared", prefer a footer row with proper citations rather than footnotes to column labels." - can anyone do this, I'd probably mess it up.
• "I think "BC" should not be wikilinked per WP:MOSLINK, although it's not really a unit of measure. However, it is very common." - I'm not sure I understand the objection here.

Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can have a go a the table, but my internet connection is a bit intermittent at the moment. The point about linking BC is there's no need for a link as pretty much everyone knows what it means, so it's best to remove it to prevent over-linking. I see no harm in removing the link personally. Nev1 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the table issue is sorted, and with BC delinked that only leaves the issue of the passive voice. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Taking the example Lazer used: "The first market in Radcliffe was opened in 1851, built by the Earl of Wilton" is passive because the subject (ie: the market) is having something done to it by the object (ie: the earl); in active voice it would be "In 1851, the Earl of Wilton built and opened the first market in Radcliffe", that way the subject is the earl, and he is acting on the object, the bridge. At least that's how I understand it hope I'm right. Nev1 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the table, but it does at least look similar to the other table in the article now. I've edited some of the grammar but am at the limits of my ability in that regard. Annoyingly I found many instances of inappropriate punctuation and incorrectly formatted dates, which someone else must have introduced.

Can I also ask, what is Wikipedia's position on double spaces after a full stop? I ask because I took typing lessons at secondary school (I can touch type), and two spaces was a rule I still use today. It makes no difference to article layout but it certainly helps me to spot a sentence start when editing. Occasionally editors find my articles and remove them all, which I find quite frustrating. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Both single and double are allowed; they display in the same way in Wikipedia-space. Personally I use double spaces as well. I'll cast my eye over Radcliffe now... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the single space saves a little bit on article size and I've been guilty of removing one of the double spaces as I thought we were trying to keep saved size down, to reduce server time/storage etc, and it seemed pointless to leave it in if it didn't display. Ah well, I shall stop that then lol!--Chaosdruid (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help people, three supports now. Will that be enough? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With no opposes, three supports should be enough. Fingers crossed. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wheeeee :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! A heavy-weight addition to our FA family! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

An obsession? Perhaps ...

I started this article yesterday. Does anyone agree it might be a good candidate for DYK with a little more fleshing out? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not - as long as each section has some prose in it, instead of linking elsewhere (I assume you're going to do that). It also needs categories. Otherwise it fits criteria for DYK easily. Majorly talk 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just thought I'd write the sections for which there was no main article first, and get them out of the way. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would, but it needs doing fairly quickly Richerman (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Danny Boyle

This article will be getting a lot of attention today, and as such I thought it worth posting up here so people could keep an eye on it and tidy where appropriate. I've made a few changes myself but I have a feeling that for many people Radcliffe is in Lancashire, and not GM :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC News uses Greater Manchester... rightfully of course! However it is usually quite proper to say "Boyle was born in [[Radcliffe, Greater Manchester|Radcliffe, Lancashire" or else (my preference), "Radcliffe, then Lancashire, now Greater Manchester". In infoboxes, its always best practice to use the county of the period. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He was born in Radcliffe for certain, but is it really relevant to the article that Radcliffe was once in Lancashire? I think not. Changing the link to say Radcliffe, Lancashire implies that it still is in Lancashire, which it is not. Apologies if my edit description was a little hasty, I didn't realise you'd changed it (I thought another anonymous user had done it). Locally, many people in Radcliffe still see themselves as being in Lancashire. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed there was a change, but that's OK, it can appear a grey-area. I'm confident that Radcliffe's location at the time is important as a) his birth certificate attests his birth county as Lancashire (via civil registration, b) Greater Manchester was a concept of the future to Boyle in 1956, c) this is akin to practice elsewhere (i.e. Martin Luther was born in "Saxony, Holy Roman Empire", not "Saxony-Anhalt, Germany", and Ghandi in "Kathiawar Agency, British India", not "Gujarat, India".). I'm all for putting to rest the traditional counties movement, but I'm conscious of anachronism and I think a great many users would object to modern units in historical references. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok that's fine with me and I understand now. I do however have the feeling that the anonymous editors will be making the changes because they still believe Radcliffe to be in Lancashire - I think therefore that your previous edit was quite correct, and I was wrong to remove it. Sorry about that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Buckton Castle

After the recent success of a short but comprehensive article at FAC (Nico Ditch), I was wondering what everyone thought of Buckton Castle? Is it well written enough, not too jargon-y etc? The situation is similar to that of Nico Ditch, ie: all the existing knowledge is represented and all the sources have been exhausted. The difference is that the article will need updating later this year when the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit produce the findings from their last investigation of the site. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The main image doesn't really say much. I'm in the area over the next few weeks, let me see if I can get a better shot by including things in the foreground. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That'd be great, but part of the problem is there really isn't that much to see. There are a couple of nice aerial shots, but I prefer to avoid fair use images. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As a new lead image is not something that can be easily fixed (although there is the option of a fair use image), I've decided to nominate the article in its current state and see how the review goes. Nev1 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aims

I'd like to add Worsley and Eccles, Greater Manchester to the Aims section on the front page. More to get more people reading them and correcting the inevitable errors than anything else. I want to progress both articles to GA, I'm unsure if I can get them further as there seems to be a lack of decent literature regarding their modern status (its generally history in the library). I know that Worsley is mainly a commuter town these days but haven't really found anything decent to back that up. There are certainly no large employers there any more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that getting them to GA should be made short term aims. While reading about Worsley and Eccles, have you found much on Salford? There's been some good progress, but it still needs more work to get it to GA. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, not beyond the sources already in there. You may want to write something about Salford Corporation though as its mentioned often across the area, and there isn't much online about it. There's no mention of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in Salford either, which seems a shame as it was pretty important. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester History Festival

Some of you might be interested in this: [2]. Mike Peel (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting but I won't be able to go, I'll either be working or its a working party on the MBB canal that weekend, one o't'other for me Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on historical money conversions

A little while ago I suggested an easy way of dealing with conversions of historical values to present day values using the {{Inflation}} template. Experience with a recent FAC has taught me that it's preferable to combine this with the {{CURRENTISOYEAR}} template, so both the amount and the "as of" year are automatically updated.

As in:

The contract ran for five years from November 1948, and involved an estimated £35,000 per year (£1.61 million as of 2024).

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

parishes, towns, boundaries, etc

When writing about a town (Worsley in this instance), is it acceptable to say that when something share's the town's name, it can be included within the town's article? this change seems reasonable, but the college in question is named "Worsley Campus". Its outside the parish of Worsley, and appears to be (but I'm not yet certain) outside the ward. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There must be a reason for it being called Worsley Campus, and so I would think it's worth mentioning as long as it's explained (if an explanation can be found). For instance, it would be silly to leave out Sale Sharks from the Sale article just because they've moved grounds, although that's a different situation. Nev1 (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm it is just outside the ward boundary (the border is roughly aligned with the East Lancs Road). I think its worth a mention, perhaps I should restore the edit but make it clear that the campus is actually in Walkden? I wonder why it's called Worsley. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I put it back in with modified text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - I've used the phrase "self-identifies" before, as meaning that it associates itself with the town/city concerned, like Manchester United playing outside the city proper, or that where boundaries have changed over time. In this case, don't forget that Walkden was within Worsley Urban District pre-1974, and the campus is therefore within the old boundaries. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would appear to be why then - presumably the campus was there in 1974... Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Back soon

Hi folks... just a note to keep you informed that I'll be on Wikipedia in small doses for the next few weeks, if at all. I'll try to get 5-10 minutes each day to monitor the watchlist, but other than that I'm really struggling for editting time. I hope to be back asap. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things are ticking over at the moment, Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine has one support at FAC and no opposes, the same for Buckton Castle. All the project needs to keep an eye on the review for SSEM in case anything comes up. Chaosdruid, you were interested in the Manchester Mark 1, do you know anything about the SSEM? I can help with any copy editing, but since Malleus wrote the article it's unlikely that should be required. Hopefully the review should run smoothly. I've also noticed that Parrot of Doom's doing great work on making Eccles and Worsley mature articles. I've got a few projects on at the moment (both on wiki and off), but hopefully we'll be able to turn our attention to Salford once again for one final push towards GAC soon. Nev1 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

Replica of the Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

Hi, I'm asking all the project to keep an eye on the above article while it's at FAC (the review is here). It currently has one support and no opposes, but at FAC, all it takes is one oppose to derail a nomination. Malleus will not be around for the final stages of the review, so it's up to us to make sure this good article makes the grade. I've got access to Early British Computers and will be able to get hold of A History of Manchester Computers, but since computers are not my forte, every bit of help is welcome. With a bit of luck, the article might pass without any opposes, but that's very rare and we have to be prepared. In an article of this sort, I think the most likely issue to come up will be that it's too technical; not something I agree with, but something that was raised at the GAC. It's an important part of Manchester's history, so let's see it get the recognition it deserves. Thanks for your time, Nev1 (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cotton mill

I have spent some time attempting to revise/improve/survive Cotton Mill. It has reached the point where I am happy to take it out of my sandbox- but the more one edits, the more needs to be done. And there is a lot to do. Technically, it is hard as I feel, it is a a Manchester issue until 1912- then it wanders off to South Carolina- India- China.... etc. I am trying to hold the article to mainstream mills and to be short. (Williams and Farnie,1992) suggest a helpful structure New articles IMHO are needed to fill in the details of every section and subsection. I have started a discussion on the Talk:Cotton mill page. Please join in if you are interested. Expert knowledge appreciated. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work. I'll go through it and make some changes here and there before I write more. Well done on the amount of time you've put in though! Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:12, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Manchester FPA tomorrow (Friday 20th)

Golly! Mr Stephen (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm being a bit slow at the moment, what does FPA stand for? Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[Slaps forehead] It's going to be on the main page! I thought there was usually a notification on the article talk page? Oh well.

There is an important issue I think we have to deal with quickly: the protection of the page. It's very unusual for a featured article on the front page to be protected as it gives the wrong impression to new users (this is meant to be the encyclopedia everyone can edit). I think we should remove protection for the day, but what does everyone else think? Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think tradition demands it. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Two people isn't consensus of course, but we don't have long, and having a protected FA on the front page is very unusual. My edit summary was a little misleading though, as I have left the move protection in place. Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a few hours in the spotlight won't do the page any harm. There will be the usual rubbish of course, but there are a few creaky sentences here and there, and the entire article has gathered a bit of dust since it was promoted. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update) While on the main page, the article got 44,200 views! You can see the net effect of the day on the article here. The discussion on being second city of the UK, and capital of the north has resurfaced, but this time there's a "Gunchester" twist, so opinions on the matter are welcome. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The stats show that Greater Manchester and Second city of the United Kingdom saw big increases too. Birmingham got a lift, but not Leeds. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

22 Cotefield Road, Wythenshawe

The above article has been tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax, and User:WereSpielChequers is wondering whether anyone knows anything more about it? It looks like a hoax to me, or at least the article probably fails notability critaria as a quick google search draws a blank. Nev1 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a hoax. I left some notes on the talk page. I think it could cause some potential distress to the present occupants of the house, and perhaps even some financial loss if they wanted to sell (the house is freehold, it's not a council house as the article claims). --Malleus Fatuorum 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A good point, especially since it's a real place. Article deleted. Nev1 (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Greater Manchester/Lancashire again

Maybe nothing, maybe something, but the Greater Manchester vs Lancashire issue has popped up again. It would be good if we could all keep an eye on our areas. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit. The IP only has two edits so far, but the project watchlist will be useful for monitoring the project's pages to make sure it doesn't escalate. People insisting on the use of traditional counties will probably never go away, but we have policy and political and administrative reality to back up the current stance of using Greater Manchester (and administrative counties in general) rather than opinions. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, first there was that comment at the talk page of Greater Manchester (I have no problem with that), but then came these and I found a discussion at Talk:Bolton Wanderers F.C., which led me to another anon's talk page, so I thought more eyes might be a good idea. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

List of bands from Manchester up for deletion

List of bands from Manchester is at AFD, discussion here. Not the best of articles TBH, but is it a FL in the making? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly deserves to be a lot better; FL would be nice, but it would be difficult (for example, can we be sure we've listed every notable band?). The list needs reformatting, I think perhaps converting it into a table, with columns for "years active", "genre", and "current/former members". Does anyone have any other suggestions for changes to the list? Perhaps an "origin settlement" column (maybe too controversial or difficult to source) or a "biography" column briefly outlining the career of the band? Perhaps it should be expanded to cover all bands from Greater Manchester, or would this be too wide? The current list looks quite long already, but it might be worth considering whether to change its scope. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The debate was closed as a non-admin snow keep. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

P.S. The AGM will be held in Manchester on Sunday 26th April - please pop along and join us if you're interested in getting to know what we're doing! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Worsley and Eccles

Just a quick note to say that both these articles are now up at WP:GAN. Any help would be much appreciated, particularly with the lead for Eccles which isn't that great. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking good, I'll take a closer look later. What's the thinking behind having the population table under economy? At the moment there's no mention of changes in employment, so I think it would make more sense under demography (an explanation of what causes the significant changes in population isn't necessary at GAC, but would be good for FAC). Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite remember but someone suggested it for the Radcliffe FAC, so I pretty much just copied that format. I've removed the 'employment change' bit though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, strange, while it is of course often linked to the economy (there's usually a population boom when railways arrive) it seems more intuitive to me for population to me to be under demography. It doesn't matter much though, and I like the employment change bit of the Radcliffe article, but I've not really found enough information to do it for say Altrincham. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the relevant page doesn't have the same amount of information as gleaned in the Radcliffe article. :( If either of these gets to GA (I think they'll need a bit more work but I can't see a problem) I don't think I have enough sources to get them any further. There's a wealth of info on Radcliffe, but I've been to several libraries and information on these two is somewhat lacking. Worsley probably stands the best chance, but most of the history info is tied up with the canal, which is unfortunate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work! :D Hope to be back in time for the FACs! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme

Hi I'd appreciate some copyedits/comments/advice on this before I submit it to GAN. Thanks, Majorly talk 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should consider merging the population tables and explaining the rise as you already have done. A similar thing has been done in Sale, Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Leech family diaries

You may find this interesting. I plan to go to Chetham's next week, there's a street in Manchester that used to exist, Grape Street (near Granada and Quay St) that may be useful for Gropecunt Lane. If anyone wants me to check something out while I'm there please let me know. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gun crime in south Manchester

Yep, it has its own article. What do we think? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A brief glance and a check of the first ref, I think it looks quite good considering how few edits it has, although there will probably be some original research in there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) While it is referenced, some of it smacks of original research. For example the statement "This appears to have begun in the 1970s at a time of rising unemployment and racism towards the area's significant Black British/Afro-Caribbean community" has a source, but it does not mention racism, and it talks about gang culture starting in the 1970s rather than gun crime. It needs some clean up. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

East Lancashire Railway 1844–1859

I've been doing mucho expansion of this article lately, and am slowly weeding out the unreferenced sections and adding my own material.

Just today I added a large section on the 'Battle of Clifton Junction' (basically a 'who has the biggest willy' competition between two competing railways). The trouble is that so far, the only source I have is from a letter to The Times from the ELR General Manager which, although you would assume a certain degree of gentlemanly conduct, could be viewed as biased. Would this stand up to scrutiny, or should I re-word the story to reflect this if I cannot find another reliable source? I have a feeling that any other reliable sources might just have used the same letter to describe the conflict. I will keep looking though, since other unreliable sources contain information not in the letter.

This is a screencap of the story, in case you want to read it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Think I've sorted it now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're unstoppable at the moment. That's what, your fourth GA nomination still on the GAN page? Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much work on right now so I'm spending my time writing stuff. Takes my mind away from the bills.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a nice picture of the blockade here but I would imagine you've already seen that. I'll have a look in Salford Local History Library at lunchtime to see what they've got. I know there's a rather nice photograph of Victorians walking across the viaduct on a Sunday afternoon for a start and I'm sure there should be something in the local newspaper files. It might be worth you calling in there yourself if you have time as I'll only have an hour or so and I'll be away for a week after today. Richerman (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been over to the library now and they don't have any contemporary reports on the battle as they don't have local papers going back that far. There is a Manchester Evening News article about it from 1972 but I've not had time to read it yet. The librarian suggested the Manchester Guardian may have a contemporary report. There is, however, an MEN story from 1972 on the setting up of the East Lancs Railway Preservation Society which could be useful. I got distracted then and found some stuff about the collapse of Broughton suspension bridge in 1831 that led to soldiers breaking their step when crossing bridges - so that's my next job lined up. There was also a small article about Hanging Bridge which I've copied and I got hold of a catalogue of the Bridgewater Estates Collection held there which you can find out about here. Richerman (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that image and it looks good, but without a source I don't think I can use it. It's probably hiding away somewhere else in a book, I think I'll head to Bury Library and see what ELR material they have. I used the Times Archive to build the story, I found several mentions of it across a period of a couple of months, and managed to balance it with a verified account of what happened.

The Broughton bridge sounds like a fantastic article - I fancied doing a short article on The Cliff but its already quite well written into the Broughton Article. Its actually a very pretty area well hidden away. You might care to investigate the collapse of Great Clough Street, sometime early in the 20th century I believe. A fair chuck at the northern end fell into the Irwell. There are some piccies of it on my Flickr page. The Bridgewater Estates may be very useful to User:Peter I. Vardy who is a major contributor to the Bridgewater Canal article.

By the way Richerman, I happen to work with the husband of the vicar(ess?) of that church at Kersal Moor. Let me know if you think that might be a benefit to you, he knows a fair bit about the area and may be able to answer any questions you have. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm afraid I beat you to it with the Cliff - although I'm sure there's still more to be written about the various landslips there. There was something I found in google books about the hydrology that caused them - I'll see if I've still got the reference. Funnily enough the day before you put that photo of the tram lines on I was standing in that very spot looking at them for the first time in years and never thought to take a photo. By the way it's Great Clowes Street, not Clough - you may have noticed I changed it on the photo description on wikimedia commons - I said I'd get you back eventually for spotting my spelling mistake on the River Roch :) One thing you could ask the vicar's husband is where Edwin Waugh's grave is in the churchyard. I tried looking for it to take a photo, but there are dozens of graves there and I gave up. I did read that St. Paul's church was at the highest point in Salford although I've never found a reliable reference for that. Richerman (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference I was thinking of is here in The Geomorphology of north-west England By Richard Hugh Johnson. Looks like a useful book in general but at £55 it will have to be a library copy methinks. Richerman (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Uni of Sheffield has it. I get over there occasionally, if I remember I'll try and copy the relevant pages. I'll ask him about the grave. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked him about the Waugh grave, apparently there are around 4,500 graves in there, but he's going to see what records they hold. He tells me that the oldest graves are generally closest to the church building. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Grave number 2049. I have the address and telephone number of the warden, who will be able to take you to the grave. I'll email them to you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ramsbottom

I've worked on an extended lead section for this article, but I think it needs the skillful eye of this project's other members. Anybody willing to give it a once-over to put my mind at rest. Also, it looks quite lengthy and might need a copyedit and trim. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can probably add some details about local transport history, give me a kick if I forget. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)