Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Help required

Hi, is anybody out there any good at writing those Demography sections for the settlements? I wondered if some kind soul would help me write ones for Atherton and Leigh....... You never know they might eventually become GAs...--J3Mrs (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do what I did, copy one from a GM FA, and change the stats and sources accordingly :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so dim :( But where do I find the info???? --J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if you look at say, Chadderton#Demography, and study the sources used there, you'll eventually find your way to the figures for the locality you're after. the ONS website can take a bit of faffing around but eventually you'll find what you're after. I'd have a look for you, but I walked a hell of a long way today and am completely and utterly knackered. Maybe tomorrow :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The references given are to ONS spreadsheets. If you download them (it shouldn't take long and the link to the Excel file is fairly prominent) you can then search for Atherton and Leigh. Each spreadsheet has a percentage tab so the most taxing maths you should have to do is some occasional addition. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both, found it, will attempt it tomorrow after bike ride if I am capable, too many little numbers for tonight. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a hand interpreting them, or finding anything in particular, give me a shout! Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Blimey hello FP, I thought you'd retired :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I've just been ridiculously busy over the last few months, and I've got out of the habit of coming here! Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fingerpuppet, stats is NOT my thing I'm afraid. Any help is muchly appreciated :)--J3Mrs (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd better start on Atherton then! It might take me a few days to dig everything out, though. Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Atherton is excellent, great work, I could never have done that. I won't mention that Leigh before 1901 is three different townships :( Thank you again, looks like you haven't been around so glad you are back :)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the 1841 =4,475,1851=4,659, 1861 =5,907 and 1871 =7,531 population figs for Atherton from appendix 19 p.229 in Dr Lunn's book if they are of any use. I wouldn't dare touch the table :)--J3Mrs (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those would be really great. Do you know whether those figures refer to the township or the parish? Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The book doesn't say but the figures correspond with the info you have put in the table. I don't think that Atherton's boundaries changed until after 1891 --J3Mrs (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ewww. I've come to do the section for Leigh, and the historical population data is all over the place. I take it that at some point in the mid-19th century the parish was split? Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, now you know why I shouted Help!!!! Leigh is a combination of three townships, Pennington, Westleigh & Bedford they merged in 1895 oh and a bit of Atherton was added too!!!! just for good measure.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Atherton is brilliant :) I'm sure you can do it, I know I couldn't

Just a suggestion, but I came across a similar problem with Aberdaron, where five parishes merged into one, each joining at different times. Not saying the solution I chose is perfect, but I thought it was better on the table to show each component part, rather than amalgamating them into one figure. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New archaeology unit at Salford

You might be interested in the new archaeology unit just opened at Salford University. You can read about it here. Their remit is to be actively engaged with the local community, so I'm sure can hold them to that rash promise :) They also say "Excavations like the one at Buckton will provide the chance for members of the public to be trained in archaeological techniques and learn more about the history of their community" - that sounds like fun. I have a mental picture of Malleus out there with his spade (which he calls an effin shovel) and his little trowel. The Head of Archeology, Mike Nevell was based at Manchester University so it looks like he's got a new job. Richerman (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like really good news. I'm not so good with "effin shovels" though, too much like hard work, but a big mechanical digger ... now we're cooking with gas! --Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Time team always start off with a mechanical digger until Phil the archaeologist jumps in saying "oive seen somp'en" - so ok, you can have the digger job. Richerman (talk)

Bids for the 1996 Summer Olympics

This might be an interesting article for those hoping to expand Wiki's coverage of the history of Manchester. Manchester hardly gets a mention though.... --Jza84 | Talk 13:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to take this up there are some references they could use here and here

There's a fair bit of info here but unfortunately it's not a reliable souce.

And how about the following from the LA times at http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-29/sports/sp-1361_1_athens-games

Olympic Bid Borders on Theater of the Absurd - Manchester of England Seeks 1996 Games Despite Athens Being Clear Favorite By RANDY HARVEY, Times Staff Writer|August 29, 1989
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — If one can judge by the questions at a news conference, Robert Scott, the Manchester, England, theater owner who serves as chairman of his city's bid committee for the 1996 Summer Olympics, should close his latest show before the curtain rises. For example: Considering that Athens is the sentimental favorite, that Manchester still must build more than half the required facilities, that soccer games in that part of England have been terrorized by hooligans and that the United Kingdom's record on apartheid is out of step with most of the rest of the world, how can Manchester's candidacy possibly be taken seriously?

I thought the bit about apartheid was a bit rich coming form the Land of the Free (as long as you're white)

There's also a rather funny one here about possible alternative games for Manchester.

There's even a "rare" book of the bid on sale on Ebay if you've got 15 quid to spare :) Richerman (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there's a reference here to the MEN Arena being built for the 1996 Olympics. This sounds like a job for Oldelpaso.... Richerman (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that reference is right. I'm fairly sure Parkinson-bailey has something on it. I'll try and check. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was in response to the 2000 bid, see Parkinson-Bailey, Manchester : an architectural history, p 250. google books Mr Stephen (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had changed the MEN arena article to say it was built for the 1996 Olympics as there are a number of websites that say this, but they must all be copied from each other. I've changed it back now with the Parkinson-Bailey reference. Richerman (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCommons

Just been sifting through some of the photos and categories at Wikimedia Commons under the Greater Manchester category. The Manchester category is in desperate need of diffusion - it's a big task, so any help there would be appreciated. Most of the photos categorised under "Manchester" should be in a daughter category. :) --Jza84 | Talk 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Places formerly in...

Comments welcome here. :) --Jza84 | Talk 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldham Loop Line, List of railway stations in Greater Manchester and others

The Oldham Loop Line effectively closed on 3 October 2009 [1]. There are quite a few articles that need updating (I've made a start). Some of them look complicated, like List of railway stations in Greater Manchester (which will lead into List of closed railway stations in Greater Manchester...), while things like Manchester Metrolink will need updating too I imagine. --Jza84 | Talk 13:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help with this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have changed everything I can think of (including templates), and checked briefly (via What Links Here) for less obvious instances. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hassocks. I think that's the FL List of railway stations in Greater Manchester sorted. :) I'll keep my eye open for any other articles and try and update them. --Jza84 | Talk 11:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Chadderton

Chadderton failed to get that FA promotion this time round. It had no opposition and one support. What do we think? Speedy re-nom? The FAC was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chadderton/archive1. --Jza84 | Talk 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to wait two or three weeks before renominating anyway. I think that time would be well spent by trying to make the prose a bit more lively, else it might well not get through FAC again. It's worthy and all, but it's just a bit too leaden to meet criterion 1a IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found that lots of minor issues such as those highlighted tend to put people off reviewing an article. I'd read through it a couple of times as Malleus suggests, and try to ensure that none remain, before renominating. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Not sure where or how I can liven it up. :S --Jza84 | Talk 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look through it, but I have to say that its a bit of a forest of blue text - are there any links that could be discarded? Parrot of Doom 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try eliminate some. --Jza84 | Talk 23:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist mystery

Can anyone tell me why my watchlist has suddenly started listing all edits after 12 noon under tomorrows date? Has the Earth slipped on it's axis and moved forward 12 hours or have I fallen ito a time warp? If so, will I have to wait for 12 hours for a reply to this post? Richerman (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mine is OK, so you must certainly be in a timeslip of some sort. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mather and Platt

Can I flag up the discussion that I am having on Talk:Mather & Platt. As you may see, I have started a new navbox to help address {{Lancashire Cotton}} issues- I am working on the red links. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had exactly the same problem with that editor, most recently on the Trafford Park article, which he also insisted had to be a timeline, and before then on Stretford. I think he's pretty set in his ways, and can't be reasoned with I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing

Anyone want to help me get this to FA quality? I plan to work on it soon. Majorly talk 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help however I can, although I can't guarnattee having much time available. I think the reactions section is the higest priority and will quite possibly be a bone of contention. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not touching anything that has to do with the IRA before this is keel-hauled through GA. Irish articles are best avoided. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's back in the land of 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. Good-oh. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what fun. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ce) I created a stub on one of the judges at John Mellor. The other one was Colin Blackburn. Mr Stephen (talk)

I only wish I'd taken a stills camera with me, when I filmed in there a few days after the event. What a mess. I remember walking through the halls of the Royal Exchange, and seeing some of the metal-framed windows bowed out, and some in. Doors that stopped swinging 12 inches away from the walls, solid wood doors, had left holes in the walls where the bottom had hit the stop, but the top had carried on and hit the wall. You could see M&S, everything in the office building had been swept across each floor, and out of the back. It all lay in a pile behind the building, tables, chairs, computers. Amazing sight. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to upload a free screenshot of anything by any chance? Majorly talk 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even recall who I was filming for, sorry. Parrot of Doom 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Article clean-up

I have tagged the following articles for not stating notability. Anyone know any notability or anyone think a stronger tag may be in order?

Pit-yacker (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be proposed for deletion - they read more like something out of a church magazine than an encylopaedia. Richerman (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Peter I. Vardy might be able to salvage these. He's a prolific editor of church articles in the North West. --Jza84 | Talk 10:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Peter is more interested in listed churches rather than these. I'm with Richerman, they could probably be deleted. Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am - or rather, I am interested in church heritage, which usually involves the churches being listed. This is not necessarily so, but the church must have some interest out of the ordinary, whether it be in its architecture, its history or its architect. I see little merit in retaining any of these articles (although I am by nature a retainer rather than a deleter - there's plenty of room in an online encyclopaedia). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the view that a church etc. is normally only individually notable if it is listed. I write loads of church articles, but the few non-listed churches I have done have (a) lots of third-party coverage in books, the Victoria County History series or similar, and (b) some particularly noteworthy attribute). (An example; another.) I do feel it's worthwhile creating comprehensive lists of churches and other places of worship on a district/borough basis, which can include all the non-notable churches with a couple of sentences of background info. Admittedly this is not a quick task! :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As there appears to be a consensus to delete, I have nominated the articles for deletion here, here and here Pit-yacker (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuck again

Hi, can anyone help please. :) I want to make a page for The Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin in Leigh. I think I know how to do that but I want it to link to a redlink on the List of churches in Greater Manchester and also the Leigh page. There are so many St Mary's Parish Churches I know I shall make a mess of it. I have looked down the list to see how it's been done but that has just left me confused. (sorry even more confused) There are so many things I still don't understand :(--J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The convention we've adopted would be to call your article Church of St Mary the Virgin, Leigh. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Don't worry, there are lots of things that none of us understand. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are a knight in shining armour! Thank you. I will now attempt to put something on it. --J3Mrs (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Manchester United F.C.

The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things ... Manchester United F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Atherton & Astley

I've put quite a lot of stuff into Astley and with Fingerpuppet's help, Atherton. I know I'm always asking :( but where can I find info on the local economy. I'm not local so I don't know about local employers etc. Perhaps someone could look through them and give me some idea what I need to find out. --J3Mrs (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a search of the Manchester Evening News website, it often contains details of factories opening, closing, shopping centres, etc. Parrot of Doom 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be something like that! I have been trawling through WMBC's website and found a couple of things that might be usable and discovered one of the local papers has an edition you can read online complete with ads. Nil desperandum--J3Mrs (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should also join the 24 hour library, which has tonnes of resource material at your fingertips. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So that's where you get all your info! But I'm not in Manchester, or near, can anyone join? --J3Mrs (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Membership is free and open to anyone who resides in the UK. " Parrot of Doom 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Did that thanks,:) bet it won't stop me asking questions though!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Depending on exactly what you're after, there's more data in the 2001 census about employment too, as well as historical census data. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fingerpuppet:) I'll have a look, my problem is I usually don't know what I want until I trip over it:( I found something on WMDC's site re Atherton but I will look at the census stuff as well.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The ONS produces stats on rates of employment which is often useful, and stuff on the industry of employment (eg: farming or retail) which is less interesting, but fairly widespread among the better settlement articles when available and can be interesting when compared with national averages (eg: a high rate of employment in the finance sector). Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I made a start, what do you think. It's nowhere near as good as Fingerpuppet's contributions. Well local history is my thing really. I didn't do it for the Tyldesley so it's my first go :( but I got sidetracked doing something else :( --J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would someone, anyone like to look at Atherton and see whether it's still start class and tell me if there are any glaring omissions as I might be able to visit a local library next week or the week after. :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Industrial decline

Is there an article on the Industrial decline around Lancashire, GM, etc? Something that reflects the end of cotton manufacture up in't'North? I've been expanding Fred Dibnah and wanted to link to this, as the closure of cotton mills turned him to demolishing chimneys, rather than maintaining them. Parrot of Doom 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We certainly need one, or at least a navigation template between them. Deindustrialisation of the United Kingdom, or something to that effect. Lancashire Cotton Famine is as close as we have I think. Cotton town might have something. --Jza84 | Talk 12:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Salford and the disambiguation of cities

Hi team,

I've come to plead for a bit of input in a discussion I'm involved with, but which has relevance to our project. If you remember a while back we (as a group!) agreed on Talk:Salford to disambiguate Salford into its two primary meanings. I've been urging users at WT:ENGLAND to do the same for other cities/settlements with the same situation (such as Braford) with a reasoned proposal and full rationale. It's degenerated from a proposal, to a healthy debate, to an unhealthy debate, to some odd accusations of POV, and then to the single most bizarre (dare I say misguided, or erroneous!?) views about traffic to articles. I'm at my Wiki-wit's end with it and I'm very frustrated with what seems to be a wall of brick.

I don't expect you all to come over and agree 100% - I know you each speak your own mind! - but I'd love you to bring some intelligence or direction to the debate. I think my own presence is attracting the exact kind of input that isn't needed. And as the leading team in the UK I trust your judgement entirely and hope the others will too. The debate rages on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England#City_disambiguation. Thanks all, --Jza84 | Talk 12:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am astounded by what I've just read above. This is a clear case of canvassing. Jza84, you can't get your way on something so you ridicule all who disagree with you and come to pages such as this to try and drum up support. I've come to the conclusion that no matter what arguments other editors bring to the table, if they conflict with your views, you rubbish them, stonewall them, and infer the editors are stupid. You need to get a grip; take a step back and please try to see the arguments of others in a better light. LevenBoy (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the thread Jza linked, and find myself agreeing with much of what he says. Those who think that somehow, people are too stupid to be trusted to click the correct link from a disambiguation page, must look in the mirror first. This isn't canvassing, its a request for comment on a discussion. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a request to people such as you who are like minded, to try and bolster his position, simple as that (and judging by your comments it's worked). He tried it earlier in the debate when some opposition emerged and was successful in recruiting one editor, now he needs a few more. Why didn't he put his request here before the debate started? I guess if I check out the history I'll be able to identify numerous similar cases. LevenBoy (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that every member of this project agrees with Jza84's position on everything? I can assure you that's far from the case. It just so happens that we had a similar discussion to the one occurring at England here some months ago, and managed to reach a consensus that we then implemented. Try putting your crystal ball away, or swap it for a new one, because it's shit at telling you about the motivations or beliefs or other editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, its a request to people who have experience in editing city and town articles - there are plenty of those people here. I have zero interest in bolstering anyone's opinion, I'll add my comments on the matter as I see fit to, based on my views - not anyone elses. I challenge you now to find anything in Jza's post above that attempts to 'drum up support', because frankly you're taking this very personally. Parrot of Doom 17:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"the only way the [Leeds] article will stop being a complete lie will be in 30 years time or so when they both die, and all the rest of the normal people can edit wiki to be accurate". That's pretty disgusting! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He (the poster) is still here at WP. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sad really that some kids are so dysfunctional as to wish someone dead over a content dispute. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take steps to have them banned from editing. This use of external websites to attack the project and its editors creates bad feeling and distrust. MRSC (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It may surprise you to learn that editing Wikipedia is not a war between factions. It is common for editors who have collaborated to request each others opinions. It damages the project every time the open discussion of content is obscured by accusations off ill-intent. MRSC (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Website

This may be of interest, especially to those who have suffered when links have become deadlinks. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Toolbox

Not a GM related question but plenty of clever folk watch this page. Is there a way of getting the tools used on the FAC page, into the toolbox on the left side of my browser? Parrot of Doom 13:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you'd have to write some javascript, unless someone else has already written it. Take a look at User:Smith609/toolbox.js, for instance. You could just add whatever new tools you wanted to your own version of that and then import it into your skin. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I don't understand a word of whatever is on that page, it frightens me :( I have some things over there already, like 'page size' and the 'persondata' up top. Oh well!

It's pretty straightforward. Give me the url of whatever it is that you want to add to your toolbox and I'll add it for you. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mummy TFA

Hi everyone, because of it's spooky theme, Manchester Mummy has been chosen as the TFA for Halloween. It will probably get quite a few views so as much help with reverting vandalism would be great. There might be some overspill attention on Manchester Museum (linked from the main page), Manchester, Hollinwood, Oldham, and anything else linked in the lead, so keep an eye out! Nev1 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Luckily I think that DYK is also having a Halloween theme, so hopefully that'll deflect some of the fire. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to Malleus on another main page FA. He and the Parrot are becoming an unstoppable juggernaut! Richerman (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that PoD and I might agree that a main page FA is a lot more trouble than it's worth. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the article. An article on Altrincham or some other place isn't particularly going to inspire someone even if it's well written, so it's not really worth the vandalism of being on the mainpage, but something like Manchester Mummy or the Peterloo Massacre could spark someone's interest and lead them onto other things. Nev1 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the theory of TFA, but it seems to fall down with articles like Manchester Mummy or Gropecunt Lane, because for a significant amount of the main page day what readers see is a vandalised version of the page. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Greater Manchester to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm staggered to see Manchester Mummy up there are at number 19, but I guess that may have been skewed by yesterday's main page appearance. But I'm almost equally staggered by this article, which apart from being very far from neutrally written appears to have nothing to do with us. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Molseed was from Rochdale. Parrot of Doom 09:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Church of the Ascension, Hulme is #141. In October, it somehow got 2,740 views, although usually it gets less than 100. It might be because of the AfD, which coincides with the spike in views, but it didn't get much attention and only a couple of people commented on it. Manchester Mummy usually gets something more in the order of 400 views a month. Nev1 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Empire building

WP:GM is represented in most corners of Wikipedia, but there seems to be a gap in our coverage at WP:LAME. Can we piggy-back on the revision history at the quite blameless Mossley A.F.C. (it's just one of several articles that this nonsense is going on at), or is it too, er, lame, even for WP:LAME? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty lame. I've protected the article and told the two involved parties to discuss the issue. WP:GM already has a stake in WP:Lame as Altrincham got added for an argument over whether it was worth mentioning the Cheshire postal address in the article back in 2007. It was not. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well done. I missed Altrincham 8-( Mr Stephen (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

In the University of Salford article an entry has been added to the "Notable Academics" section which says

Trevor Cox: Acoustic engineer and broadcaster

The editor who added it is User:Trevorcox who's previous contributions are mostly to articles on acoustics. He does seem to have some notability as it says here he'll be gving the Royal Institution Christmas lecture, but doesn't adding yourself as "notable" constitute a conflict of interest? Richerman (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

His name appears in quite a few results on google news search (archive), so I'd say its fine to keep him there. I went to Salford, it does have a pretty good audio/visual department, and I always enjoyed the acoustics lessons. Parrot of Doom 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Bailey online

I heard this website mentioned on the radio this morning. It has transcripts of all the proceedings of the Old Bailey, from 1674-1913. It's a fascinating history resource, although not so much to do with this project there were some people from this area tried there - Emmeline Pankhurst for one. From what was said on the radio most proceedings early-on took about 6 or 7 minutes, the defending lawyer didn't get access to the prisoner before the trial and all he could really do was to bring in character witnesses. The jury would then go in a huddle and give their verdict. Here's one example from 1674:

There was a French Man also tryed for a Rape; pretended to be Committed on his Maid-Servant , upon the Tryal she gave Evidence that she was one Morning about her business, and her Master arose and as she said took her Virginity from her, being askt what she meant by that, she answered her Maidenhead; but it appearing to the Court, that she had not acquainted any one of it till three days after it was pretended to be done, nor had not accused her Master for it till above three weeks after, he was found not Guilty, and so acquitted.

Yep, any fair minded person could see he wasn't guilty couldn't they? Richerman (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question ...

... but I'll ask it anyway.

I've been assuming that the size of the FA/GA icons on the map correspond to the importance of the article. Is that right? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume so, that the principle I've been using when updating the map as that's how it appeared. But Jza was the one who started the map, and I'm a bit rusty at mind reading. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my intention. It wasn't meant to be anything to get hung up about, just an indication of the scale of importance of the FA/GA in terms of its relationship to the project and other articles. :) --Jza84 | Talk 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'd assumed, but the slightly different sizes for equally important topics was puzzling. Anyway, I went through and standardised on 9, 12, 15, and 18px for low, mid, high, and top importance. Just didn't like to leave it untidy. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lists of textile mills- and new templates

I have been wrestling with problem of how to transfer data from Ashmore and Williams and Farnie into the various lists, with the minimum number of keystrokes. If you look at List of mills in Salford and List of mills in Manchester you will see what I have done. Previous lists such as List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited were pretty but mixed up formatting and data- so were a nightmare to generate or edit. Further if a mill is ever progressed from the list into an article of its own everything has to be re-keyed into the infobox. So:

I have written three templates.{{TMbegin}},{{TMend}} and {{TMtr}} (TM table row) that will generate a formatted list. The first two top and tail the list and if edited will change things like column width and colour- then {{TMtr}} is used for entering the data on each mill. The parameters are so written that they can be cut and pasted into {{Infobox Mill building}} and will then generate a basic infobox with no further work. Data has been separated from format.
In reality I use gedit (texteditor) to enter the mill data as found in a book

Actons Mill@SD584 051

When I have the complete list, I then use OStoWiki to convert SD584 051 to: SD584 051 53°32′28″N 2°37′44″W / 53.541°N 2.629°W giving

Actons Mill@SD584 051 53°32′28″N 2°37′44″W / 53.541°N 2.629°W / 53.541; -2.629

I use gedits global research and replace to @ with |Wigan| in this case, * with {{TMtr|, and }} with }}|<ref name="WF198">| }}.

:{{TMtr|Actons Mill|Wigan|SD584 051 {{Coord|53.541|-2.629|display=inline|format=dms}}|<ref name="WF198">| }}

I save and paste the list onto the wiki page and hope.

Name	Owner	Location	Built	Demolished	Served (Years)
Actons Mill		Wigan, SD584 051 53°32′28″N 2°37′44″W / 53.541°N 2.629°W / 53.541; -2.629[1]

The first reference must be changed <ref name="WF198">A harvard citation</ref> Any other data and images can now be added. The crib line is:

This way all the lists will appear uniform, and the mindless and error prone copy typing task is tamed. As you will see in the template documentation, the screen output varies if there is an image or notes added.

I mention this for three reasons.

To document what I have done, as there are few visitors to any of these pages
To request some one watch my lists as it is a bit lonely.
To say I am pasting a similar comment on the WP:Mills page --ClemRutter (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Irk!

I thought some members might find this of interest. Photographs of the River Irk as it passes beneath Victoria Station. The cattle bridge is especially interesting. Parrot of Doom 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I came upon this photographer on Geograph but here's a link to his flickr Manchester page. [2]He seems to get where water wouldn't:-) (quote from my mum)--J3Mrs (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolton

I edited/pruned this article because I felt bad, (well very bad) about editing Wakefield on the dark side of the Pennines. It had a lot of info, even more words and commas, load of links, few references ......... I was hoping to get a book but its not so easy when you aren't local, so, I was wondering if someone more local could pad it out a bit and maybe find a decent photo for the infobox. Just a thought. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Bolton is a major regional town. We should be able to get something decent in there. I'm personally fond of townscapes in the infoboxes - do any exist at Flickr or Geograph do we know? Or else a quality shot of the town hall? --Jza84 | Talk 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can help with Bolton photographs, I probably won't get any until we get a nice Winter's day though. When I visit I'll also make use of the library. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

David Essex came into my mind then ... "It was only a winter's day, just another winter's day ...". Nice to see you back Jza84. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolton is pretty thin on Geograph, I might use one of Hall i' th' Wood, I looked for a townscape but no luck. Thanks PoD, looks like we're in for some bad weather, that's what happens when I want a good day:-( I started sorting it out because it was so mixed up (I think it's a bit better now) and I went to school there eons ago but haven't set foot there for about 30 years :-( --J3Mrs (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for help, not wiki related

I've applied for a beam pump not far from me to be listed as a graded building (you can see a pic of it in the Radcliffe article). I'm inviting support from numerous parties, including the Association for Industrial Archaeology, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, The Newcomen Society for the history of technology, The Heritage Committee of the Inst of Mechanical Engineers, The Panel for Historical Engineering Works (PHEW) of the Inst of Civil Engineers, the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal society, and of course the local council.

English Heritage have already made a site report and are considering the application, but I wondered if any members knew of any other interested parties, local GM societies perhaps, who might like to see this pump restored, and protected? Anyone I can get interested enough to write to English Heritage would be a big help. I'm reliably informed that there are probably about four of these particular engines remaining in the country (although there are similar pumps doing different jobs), so it seems quite rare, and its almost certainly the only one in existence in GM. Parrot of Doom 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi PoD. Try dropping a note to User:Mjroots. He's very knowledgeable about watermills, pumps and similar devices, and may be able to suggest some specialist groups, agencies etc. on top of those you've mentioned. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Already mentioned on PoDs talk page, the North West Mills Group would be worth contacting. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You should talk to Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit and perhaps Salford University's new archaeological department (Manchester's University's has shut down but I think some of the staff who worked at the Park Bridge community digs have transferred to Salford); they should at least be able to tell you about local groups. South Trafford Archaeological Group might be worth contacting for support as they sometimes do work outside Trafford. Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mike Nevell from the Manchester Archaeological unit is heading up the new Salford Unit. Joe Martin, The Historic Buildings Officer for Salford Council is a good friend of mine and I'm sure he'd be willing to give you any advice, as I know he's had experience in getting buildings listed. You won't be able to get hold of him at work as he's off sick at the moment but I'll probably be having a pint with him on Tuesday. Richerman (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm already in touch with Mike Newell and he has agreed to contact EH and the council about this. Richerman if you could ask your friend about this I'd be most grateful. I have until about the 21/22 December to get as many representations to EH as I can. Parrot of Doom 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What do I do about a reference to a bad website?

I was doing some editing on the articles Guy Fawkes Night and when I clicked on reference 17, Norton safe web told me it was a bad website which uses "drive-by downloads" specifically this I've removed the reference but what should I do to get it blocked? Richerman (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLACKLIST might be a good starting point. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd looked at that but it seems to be all about blocking spam rather than viruses. Richerman (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask! Here is an example of a malware site getting listed. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for assessment

Request for assessment of Rivington and Blackrod High School article. Current status is start but a lot of work has been done on the article since then. Rovington 03:09, 21 December 2009

Hi all. Quick Greater Manchester-ish question you might be able to help with... in my other role as National Rail News editor of the Transport Ticket Society Journal, I have been informed that there's been a fire at Chassen Road railway station in Flixton, which may have destroyed the ticket office. I've had a Google-assisted look for online news but can't find anything. Has anybody seen any online or offline news to confirm any of the details, especially the date and the extent of the damage? (I'm hoping the Cubic FasTIS ticket machine hasn't been destroyed, but I fear the worst...!) Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The ticket office is a small green portacabin. I'm unaware of a fire, although Flixton station was burnt down about 10 years back. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not noticed anything in the local news about a fire recently [3] [4] Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Woodford

People in this Wikiproject may be interested in this discussion, concerning where Woodford, London is titled. (FWIW I expected to see Woodford, Greater Manchester there). Majorly talk 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't but.........

I know I shouldn't but I'd like to wish everyone who has helped me this year, in particular Malleus, PoD, Nev1 and Jza84. A very, very Merry Christmas and a happy editing New Year. I may even get to Greater Manchester, weather permitting.

I'd like to echo this: merry Christmas to all the members of WP:GM! It's been a pleasure working with everyone and I hope 2010 treats everyone well. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Best Christmas wishes to all you lively members of WP:GM from a rather lonely member of WP:CHES - and thanks for the help I have received from you. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas everyone. I can only say sorry for not being around quite so much these days, but I do plan to return to the same level of involvement at some point in early 2010. Just want to also say thank you to those who've kept the many articles dear to me and the project in such great shape, and it's a joy to see pages like Atherton, Greater Manchester have blossomed. :) --Jza84 | Talk 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas all! Pit-yacker (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons help

Hello again all!

Just a nudge for assistance in sorting out Category:Towns and villages in Greater Manchester at Wikimedia Commons. It appears a bot has been run to create lots of new categories. But it means we have lots of unnecessary-and empty-and duplicated-categories (such as Hale, Greater Manchester and Hale Barnes).

For example, I made a call to have a merged "Milnrow and Newhey" category, but the bot has made two new seperate categories. --Jza84 | Talk 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeepers. Would it not be possible to reorganise the GM category, so that we have categories for boroughs only, and put the relevant images for whatever towns are in those boroughs, in those categories? Parrot of Doom 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me :) --Jza84 | Talk 02:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I thought we were doing. One user is keen to distinguish between Stockport and Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. Do we do this- or accept that Rochdale is a town and a metropolitan borough? I can't see that it helps to introduce an extra layer of abstraction and twenty extra keystrokes.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the view that they are distinct, and it's important to make the distinction on our encyclopedia.... but.... for Wikicommons, I was quite happy (for example) that the "Category:Rochdale" served for both as a single category, with a few sub categories once the need arose.

However, I suppose there is an inconsistency in that Tameside and Trafford have "borough" categories, but the rest do not. What would be most useful to readers? --Jza84 | Talk 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to upgrade Manchester Metrolink page

Hi, any takers for the idea to try and improve/upgrade the Manchester Metrolink page? Since it will soon be the UKs largest tram system it is bound to attract more international attention so maybe it might be worth trying to get the atricle in shape for possible FA status etc? Will at least trying upgrade it a bit?? (Apologies if this has already been disucsed in previous archives, have not looked thru them all). :-) --Mapmark (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good shout. I'm sure it has been discussed in principle before, but not acted upon. I suppose what I'd be looking for is to find a tram/rail system article of a high standard that we'd like to emulate; is there an FA tram system article about? --Jza84 | Talk 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Trams don't have any FA, A or GA class articles.... but I'm sure it's well worth getting them involved. --Jza84 | Talk 13:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Woodford, Greater Manchester

Woodford, Greater Manchester has recieved a sudden spike in readers ([5]) owing to it having some low temperatures published in the media. I've done a slight tidy up of the page, but if anyone has any other pointers, today would be a good time to catch our readers. :) --Jza84 | Talk 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I added about education/transport. Majorly talk 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if more can be added to history, other than about the aerodrome, that would be helpful. Majorly talk 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stalybridge

I know I've raised this before, but in 2010, I'm sure we should have a better static image for Stalybridge? Can anyone help? --Jza84 | Talk 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)