One advantage would be that regardless of the weather, the smoothness of the ride would remain constant - not something you could promise, on a typical road. Parrotof Doom02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of them would have been cobbled or macadamised I would imagine, and not tarmacked until wheeled-vehicles became popular. IIRC there's an image of a street in Radcliffe being tarmacked before the second world war, the first in that town. Parrotof Doom11:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Now, that's led me to another possible DYK - that John Greenwood operated, what is thought to have been, the first omnibus service in the UK from Pendleton to Manchester. Some evidence here and the date of 1st January 1824 is confirmed here
Yes, the red brick one pictured in the Salford article. Its a bit pokey in there, far too small a room for the stuff it holds :) Parrotof Doom12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Strange how, even though it was as interesting a feature as the swing aqueduct, you never hear mention of its construction or the destruction of the old fixed pre-ship-canal bridge. Parrotof Doom10:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I'm right in saying that discussion at WP:HSITES when it was being established as a project led to the conclusion that all listed buildings of any grade are notable (although in some cases, like somebody's little privately-owned cottage, it may not be appropriate or desirable to write an article). I think this notability assumption, for want of a better term, may have existed even before WP:HSITES. I shall mention this at the AfD. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)12:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure actually. Don't get me wrong, I think they should obviously be considered automatically notable because, well, that's the whole point of the listing, but if I remember the HSITES discussion properly it was never made formal. Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Even more notable is that the road which uses the bridge was once a turnpike that ran from near the Bass Drum pub on Chester Road in Stretford, down to Davyhulme Circle in Urmston, and then down Barton Road and across the old bridge. Thereon, to Worsley and beyond. Just a mile or so up from the bridge is this (note the spelling of Altrincham) Parrotof Doom18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about taking Chadderton to FAC again, but there's 3 deadlinks ([1]). Does anybody know if there are alternative sources and/or if the originals still appear in web archives? --Jza84 | Talk 17:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You certainly don't have any excuses, and neither do I, as I could easily walk to Urmston myself if I wasn't so lazy. Flixton's out in the country though. All that scary grass and stuff. --MalleusFatuorum01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You must be a Stretford lad then, or maybe one of those posh people in Ashton-upon-Mersey. If you ever see a ginger-haired bloke on a pink/purple road bike with yellow tyres, that's me :) Parrotof Doom01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've only once approached the Manchester Museum, for a picture of Worsley Man. At first they wanted to charge a fee, but after I explained it was for a wikipedia article they were kind enough to send me a free image, with all the necessary wikipedia permissions. A similar issue has cropped up recently with the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company. Surely the relationship could be symbiotic though, in that someone who gets interested in, say the history of trams in Manchester after reading a wikipedia article, might be inclined to go and see one of the real things at the Museum of Transport? --MalleusFatuorum22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I talk to museums a lot at the moment, as part of wmuk:Britain Loves Wikipedia and other WMUK-related activities, but tbh not many from Manchester. I've talked to MOSI before, trying to get some images, but unfortunately nothing has come through yet... I would be happy to approach and talk to others if that's helpful. Mike Peel (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Most museums are publicly funded (I know that the Manchester Transport Museum isn't), so wouldn't it be possible to come to some kind of generic arrangement with respect to, say, images? --MalleusFatuorum23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be useful to mention to them that the museum could be credited in the photo caption such as the example on the right. This would generate interest for the museum from people interested in the subject clicking on the link. The better the image, the more interest it will generate. Nev1 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I had no idea about this wmuk:Britain Loves Wikipedia event until I just now followed your link Mike. Picking up on Nev1's point above, I was rather struck by the observation that The Tate reckons that 50% of the traffic to its web site now comes via wikipedia. I really hope the trial goes well, and encourages other museums to take part in future. --MalleusFatuorum21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
London Road Fire Station
Hi, I have done a bit of work on London Road Fire Station, Manchester recently. For those who don't know, it is very likely to become the subject of a compulsory purchase order between Manchester City Council and Britannia Hotels in the near future over the latter's neglect of the building. I would be grateful for any feedback on the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that area, including Manchester Mayfield, the site of a proposed huge redevelopment for the council? In other words, the council want a load of shiny new buildings and restorations to live in, and they want us to pay for it? Parrotof Doom15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Mayfield is still owned by the government as one of the "anomalies" of rail privatisation. The latest proposal (There have been previous proposals including reopening Mayfield to relieve Piccadilly station, which ia at or near capacity) is that Mayfield is demolished and replaced by a new government complex as part of a government initiative to move as much of the Civil Service out of London as they can. Some of the proposals I have seen have suggested that only civil servants needed to directly advise ministers will stay in London. Mayfield has been identified as a site because it is already owned by the government and so [perhaps at first glance] cheap. With an election, and possibly/probably a change of government coming up, whether this proposal ever sees the light of day is another matter (especially considering as far as I understand the reason it has never been sold off is the cost of demolishing it makes any re-development uneconomic - I believe there is an issue with removing the platform that the station is built on).
Separately, London Road Fire Station has been the subject of a long running dispute between Manchester City Council and Britannia Hotels, that has been brought to a head by the proposed Mayfield development. Britannia by all accounts has dragged it heels on redevelopment for some time. Other developers have been keen to get involved but Britannia Hotels blocks their plans. My understanding is that the compulsory purchase order is merely a means to enable another developer to re-develop the building. That is, the city council buys the fire station and then immediately sells it on to another developer, perhaps with some covenant about bringing the building back into use. The most likely new use appears to be a hotel. ::Pit-yacker (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I've been to Piccadilly a few times and its an excellent station, and always busy. I hope they reopen Mayfield as a station. I don't really understand why the council want to spend all that money. They could just get an office block outside the city centre, far cheaper, and nowhere near as prestigious, and they wouldn't have to spend so much ratepayers' money. Oh wait.... Parrotof Doom15:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I could say a lot about the owner of Britannia Hotels and his treatment of heritage properties but I don't fancy being sued for libel by a multi-millionaire. You may like to read this articleRicherman (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Bury image bank
Bury council have launched an online image bank which has over 15,000 old photographs of the Bury metropolitan area. According to the T&C's you can download them for personal use or buy better quality copies, but a lot of them are from the 19th Century and well out of copyright. However, with regard to the discussion above about building up relationships with museums, I suppose we should really ask them if it's ok to use them. Richerman (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As I work at Salford University I should have access at work. I'll look into during the week as I'll have to get a user name and password. It may be the same as my Athens one but I locked myself out of that some time ago and haven't sorted out a new password yet. Richerman (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Very generous of you to offer Richerman, much appreciated. I'm told though that it may be against JStor's terms and conditions for one person to forward on a downloaded pdf to another, so I'll just have to do without. ;-) It's a pity that none of GM's public libraries seem to have subscribed to JStor, but I make enough use of them anyway, so I suppose I can't really complain. --MalleusFatuorum20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a few articles from Jstor that I've used on here. Jstor is an excellent source, but extremely annoying in that I can't pay for access myself. Plus it comes at the top of most search results, making me work harder to find stuff.
While I'm ranting, why do the organisations which do allow you to pay, charge so much? As if I'm going to pay £10 for a soundbite. 10 bob is more like it. Parrotof Doom20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That they only allow institutions to join is annoying, I agree. But if you look at their public library pricing it's really that not that much; something like $3,000 a year. Seems like a good way to spend taxpayers money to me, far better than painting all the lamp posts black with a pretty gold council logo. --MalleusFatuorum20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a rather amazing hook that could be exploited for DYK? regarding Rochdale Town Hall. It revolves around Adolf Hitler and can be found at User:Jza84/Sandbox7.
I've put some groundwork in on an overhall of the page, but I'm so rusty that I'd appreciate input at the sandbox so that I can meet the DYK criteria safely (as well as having a much much stronger article for our readers). Can anybody help? --Jza84 | Talk 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a listed building—one of my areas of interest! The extent of the expansion needed will be quite testing (~6,300 bytes of prose required), but it's possible. I will have to rely on online sources such as the Images of England description; can anybody add info from any book sources they have? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, one of the requirements is that the article either has to be new or the the prose portion has to have been expanded fivefold or more within the five days leading up to the nomination. It's a great fact though so I think it's worth a shot. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If there's enough material to create a section about the interior, it would be worth mentioning that the former council chamber is decorated by paintings of some of the inventions that fuelled Manchester's growth: the spinning mule, the water frame, and the spinning Jenny (reference is the Pevsner book I've added to the article on page 46). At the moment, it doesn't really fit into the article but it may do later. Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
<-User:Jza84/Sandbox7 has come along nicely. I'm hoping the Hitler element can be expanded more, and I'm still struggling for a photograph of the original clock tower (there is one on page 72 of this book though). Can anyone think of a source where I could get a shot of the original Rochdale Town Hall spire? Should be free-to-use no matter what owing to age.
Once the text has been expanded fivefold it's technically there. If it has (does someone know how to check that?) it could be nominated as soon as you're happy with it. If it's nominated (and they usually are) there will be a few days then to carry on improving the article before it gets a mention on the front page. It's a pity that the on-line image in the book you found doesn't come out too well so I suppose someone would need to get gold of a copy from a library. It does, however, clear up the situation with the spire a little. It looks like there was a stone clock tower with a wooden spire, but presumably the stonework was damaged in the fire and, as the original architect had then died, it was replaced with one designed by Waterhouse. The tower seems to be a similar size to the original but the spire is a lot shorter than it's predecessor. Is anyone any good at estimating heights as there is some confusion over ths issue. Richerman (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the full hight of the tower (including spire) was reduced by 49 ft from 240 ft to 191 ft. The clock face still reaches 117 ft - the same as the original tower... according to this anyway.
I have a shot of the original tower in a book, but it'd be very very small. I keep meaning to check my other books, although I'm confident I don't have anything. I think a picture of the original tower is quite necessary. --Jza84 | Talk 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably cost, although doesn't sandblasting/stone cleaning put stone at greater risk to (chemical) erosion once done? So I heard anyway. --Jza84 | Talk 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
These days there's nothing to erode stone, just look at the buildings they've cleaned in Manchester. Leaving the muck on probably causes more damage, ala old soot that gets damp in sealed-up chimneys. Parrotof Doom15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it depends on whether the sandblasting is done properly. My (limited) understanding of this is that the stone masons chip lots of tiny, shallow grooves on the stone surface. If these were removed it would leave the surface open to spalling by frost. Thanks for the link for the stone tower - I had read and used part of that web page as a reference late last night, but hadn't read all the way down and seen there was a full description of the rebuilding of the tower - doh! I think we should pinch one or two of the old images from that page though. Richerman (talk)
Sorted, and added to the article. Just need to get a shot of the old clock tower - will try and sort that tomorrow. There are still a few things missing from the article AFAICT:
Photo of the old spire
Information about what the town hall is used for today (I know it has a BDM/civil registry service, and I think it is licenced for marriages), including council functions
More about the modern history of the building (i.e. post 1950). I read that the Queen and Gracie Fields visited the hall.
It's ready for DYK, as far as expansion and citations go. Shall I nominate it on behalf of all contributors? (And shall we agree on a DYK hook wording here?) I'll be back here in ~4 hours to check. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)08:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure! That sounds great. I was thinking something like:
The problem with the hook is that it appears to be based only on the opinion of one academic. It might be better changing the article (and the hook) to reflect that. Parrotof Doom11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this and wondered if we could get away with some weasel wording as long as it it's referenced such as:
A little bit of history you may wish to include in the article. In May 1938 she was granted the Freedom of the town and "when the ceremony was over, Gracie went onto the town hall balcony to receive the cheers and good wishes of the thousands of people who were packing the streets below". - Ref: Moules, Joan (1983), Our Gracie: The Life of Dame Gracie Fields, London: Robert Hale, pp. 77–78. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |isbn 0 7090 1010 9= (help)Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we're in a position to move the sandbox version to the article space. I'm not familliar with DYK, but I think it's an opportunity too big too miss. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll move it over this afternoon/evning. --Jza84 | Talk 12:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm happy to sort out the DYK nomination, so if you could put a note on my Talk page when you have moved the article from the sandbox I will proceed from there (will be home @ 6pm). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)13:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just found this website. It claims the historical images (including some oringal blueprints] as under copyright, but I'm not sure that's actually the case. :) --Jza84 | Talk 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, good find! I've had this problem before with people claiming old images are under copyright e.g. this picture and I don't know what the answer is. The legal situation given here is:
For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.
The architect's drawings were obviously done by Alfred Waterhouse who died in 1905, so I would say they must be out of copyright, but the website says "Graphics copyright Rochdale Borough Architect Dept." Richerman (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
They're probably worth adding to Wikimedia Commons asap then. It's an amateur website that could go down at any time AFAICT, taking the images with it. --Jza84 | Talk 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Here. Did I miss any contributors? – I have listed Jza, Nev, Parrot, Richerman and myself. (The DYK template only allows 4 names to be shown, but using the magic hidden credits template more names can be added in the edit window!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)18:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seen this - nice work! If someone can poke me when it's know when this will go live, I'll try to simultaneously link to this from the Wikimedia UK twitter feed. I know that mentioning it on twitter is far less important than getting it on the wikipedia home page, but every bit helps, right? Mike Peel (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been passed for the front page so should be on there in the next few days. Richerman (talk)
It even gets top billing with the picture spot. Hopefully it should pull in a few people who want to know why it's so special. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was a disappointing DYK with only 107 hits. Adolph mustn't have the pull he used to have :) Still, we've got a much improved article now - perhaps it will get to GA if we ever get a reviewer. Richerman (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The 107 hits is for the previous day (they don't match, but I was checking). Unfortunately the counter for the DYK day is showing as 0... --Jza84 | Talk 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we wouldn't expect anything less than your usual rigour. Having seen your willingness to work on the Irish articles mentioned below though, I would say "fearless" was maybe a better description :) Richerman (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Given Manchester's very substantial Irish population it's a bit of a shame that we haven't managed to steer an Irish Republican/Fenian article through GA/FA yet. I've decided to bite the bullet with Manchester Martyrs, now at GAN.
Any and all help is of course welcome, but everyone needs to be aware that the article is under a 1RR restriction, as part of "The Troubles" ArbCom ruling, so please be very careful. --MalleusFatuorum22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll admit to a certain amount satisfaction in having got it from this to GA, with a lot of help, obviously. Almost makes all of the battling worthwhile. I think the application of the ArbCom ruling helped as well. --MalleusFatuorum13:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
1996 Manchester bombing only needs a coat of paint and it could pass, if anyone feels the urge. As someone who remembers RFAR/NI, I do not intend touching it with someone else's bargepole; virtually everyone involved in that mess is (a) blocked or (b) on Arbcom, and I have no desire to be either. – iridescent14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I invite comments.
Its been asked before- and it came up at Barton Road Swing Bridge but does the project have a collective opinion on notability. What do we consider is notable enough for an article? There are 1112 extant cotton mills in GM and ideally I would wish to see an article on the history and architecture of each one of them, and maybe a further 500 that are sadly no longer with us. Each of those 1112 is detailed in a reliable reference (Williams and Farnie,1992), and we have their grid reference and generic details that will make a stub. Is this alone sufficient? One opinion is:
yes. Geotag. Reference is enough. This is working class history, where one does not have a paper trail but if it occurs on a OS map that is as much as we can expect. That mill was the the life for 13hrs a day for 200 souls for one two, three generation- so must be notable.
To the contrary:
Yes, if we can do it for a railway station- then we can do it for a place of employment
Not yet, we need a further reference
No, being listed is not enough- it needs a paragraph in the text, or a piece in (Ashmore 1982)
Not yet, existence of even a non-free photo would clinch it.
No we have to wait for Grade 2 listing first- bit difficult if it now a carpark.
Are we happy with all the mills we have in Category:Textile mills and the subcats are they notable? What would stop a mill article being notable?
I don want to confuse all this with importance, quality and maturity but a few comments on the limits of notability would be helpful before I work up a small mill to C or B only to be told that it is a AfD.
--ClemRutter (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to argue the notability of listed buildings, even Grade IIs. I'm not sure an image would change notability; people are unlikely to think it's a hoax and proving something exists does not mean it's "notable". The argument that these buildings affected 100s of lives everday in one of the most important places in the Industrial Revolution is convincing, in my opinion, that these sites are notable. A reference to the Farnie book should be enough to establish notability. In some cases, I think that treating closely related mills as a group makes sense; for example, even though the mills are individually listed building they have linked histories and there'd be a lot of repetition between articles and it would be difficult to get the overall picture (Murrays' Mills). Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm of the view that these are notable, and will provide future generations important information on the history of their locale/ancestry. However, I'd be mindful it is a huge task to roll out, and a sentence on each isn't likely to provide value for readers or editors. I'd recommend some kind of banded top-down approach, either writing about the largest mills, the oldest mills, surviving mills or most productive mills. --Jza84 | Talk 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At risk of sounding a little hollow.... I don't like the image in the lead. It's not of a very high quality. There are some better shots here (most under copyright), including clearer images of the bomb site, the postbox and of the exhibition at Urbis about the bombing. --Jza84 | Talk 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this article well alone now, and I'd recommend that everyone else did the same. I made a mistake in even considering that it could be improved. --MalleusFatuorum01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
There's been a bit of talk lately about the history of the Irish in Manchester. Editors here may be interested in this thread, and what with the police also finding a body at Manchester Victoria station, it raises the tragic lack of general knowledge about this part in Manchester's history. St Michael's Flags and Angel Meadow Park is ripe for expansion, there is a fair bit of on-line information about the disgusting conditions in which the poor lived in this part of Manchester. The Co-op are developing in the area, and will probably find a few bodies and bits and pieces of history down there. I added a line to the Victoria article about the station being built mostly on the large Walker's Croft burial ground, where most of the poor were chucked in buried.
Manchester and the NW has one of the largest populations of Irish, or part Irish descent. I'm a product of the 19th century migration from Ireland myself. I agree we ought to cover it much better than we have done so thusfar. --Jza84 | Talk 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's perhaps not necessary for us. We've been able to keep tabs on what's Featured and Good to such an extent that a map was created to help identify which areas of Greater Manchester needed better coverage. That's just geographically of course, but the columns of FAs and GAs also breaks the articles down by subject which is useful. I've not really seen the bot in action, but my impression is that it's for less active or very large projects to keep tabs on their best articles. A good tool for most projects, but I think we can manage. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Manchester Central Library: Closure
Just in case anyone else here wasn't aware (ok maybe I'm slow), as this may well affect the development of some articles. Manchester Central Library will shortly be closing for refurbishment until 2013. The closure starts on 27 Feb 2010. Although a temporary library is opening on Deansgate and some archive documents are moving to the Greater Manchester County Record Office where they will be available by appointment, as far as I can tell items currently stored in the Library's "stack" will be unavailable until the library reopens in 2013.
Not GM related, but I would like to draw the attention of the WikiProject to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Dublin. In summary: {{Infobox UK place}} has the following four fields - |dublin_distance=, |dublin_distance_mi=, |dublin_distance_km=, and |dublin_direction= - should these be kept, or removed? I'm asking this WikiProject because I am facing accusations of POV pushing and other fine assumptions of good faith, and know that you good folks know me better than any other user group. That aside, comments on the content would be most appreciated. --Jza84 | Talk 01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Dublin isn't in the United Kingdom, and is therefore irrelevant to a UK infobox. Lots of silly arguments being raised over there. Perhaps the template should be infobox:British Isles. Parrotof Doom01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm delighted to share that the Working Class Movement Library will likely be participating in wmuk:Britain Loves Wikipedia next month. We're still working out the details of how this will happen, but it's looking like this will be in the form of participants making an appointment to photograph objects chosen from a pre-prepared list of suitable items, due to the format of the archive (items will need to be brought out specially from the archive).
Are there any specific items that they have in their archive that would be good to get photographs of to illustrate specific Wikipedia articles? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We're definitely participating! Peterloo headscarf too fragile to bring out for lots of people to photograph, but if you would like a photo from here just let me know where to send it.
Other possible items - commemorative serviettes from pit disasters eg Pretoria Pit Atherton; material about Manchester/Salford Docks and Trafford Park; Manchester Martyrs; Len Johnson activist and boxer; and broader material about trade unions eg the fight for the eight hour day.
Thoughts?
I am repeating this deletion message that was delivered to my talk page. Over a year ago I uploaded 53 images of mills owned by the LCC. Systematic they have been deleted, by our little friends at the 'Fair Use Police'. I have watched their page for over a year to understand their reasoning- and simply the discussion page is unusable, they are so used to abusive comments from the 'Í want display my favourite TV star brigade' that legitimate arguments are ignored. I have great sympathy with what they are trying to do, but in the case of our 53 unique images it is detrimental to the production of an encyclopedia about Manchester. (POV)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Magnet Mill, Chadderton 0015.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The images are all scanned from a piece of promotional material, published in 1950/1 fromk Blackfriars House, by the LCC. LCC is defunct, none of the mills depicted are functioning as cotton mills so the images of functioning mills cannot be retaken. LCC was succeeded by Courtaulds which was subsequently split and sold to two owners. Attempts to who bought the copyright failed-due to non reply to emails. Failing that it is impossible to write to ???? for a waiver.
With out expanding this too far, WP:NFLISTS does not reflect policy, and imho is useless as it is solely TV programme focussed; it needs to be rewritten. All the list of mill articles are poorer for the lack of these illustrations. To keep the images available for reference, I would be necessary to write 53 articles on the individual mills which ultimately I would like to do, then request that the fair use bunnies undelete each of the uploaded images, but unless we have a policy that articles about each workplace is accepted as notable we could hit the notability test in the case of some of the lesser known mills. (I will ask that separately.)
I can see validity in both points of view, but after a long ponder on this, I'd conclude too that WP:NFLISTS does not reflect policy and that the systematic removal of these images is heavy-handed. --Jza84 | Talk 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the fair use policy, or at least the way in which it's applied, is pretty stupid. The LCC no longer exists, so whatever copyright claim they may have had doesn't exist either. In your position, I'd create a stub for each. --MalleusFatuorum17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}}. I haven't got a stub for all of them- but I have made a significant dent into the list. Afficionados will probably recognise much of their own work- again and again and... But remembering the general reader who Googles Cotton Mill Portwood, or what ever, I think that they will get a quality experience- its just us lot that may see through it- or notice that each is thin on specifics. So if you have a spare fortnight to have a look, there is a lot that can be added and tweaked- being Manchester based does help. I will leave it a couple of days before I request the undeleting of 25 images (which I assume that can be done) though a reupload is not difficult- just think it is better to keep the file histories intact. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nev1 and I have been maintaining Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Progress, a monthly breakdown of our project's progress. It gets roughly between 5 and 30 hits a month (on average about 10).
A couple of questions: Is this still worth maintaining? And, if so, does it need upgrading to accomodate the recent changes to WP 1.0 bot so that portals and templates are shown? I've personally maintained this with the view that it can show historical progress and how much our muscles have been flexed to achieve what we have. --Jza84 | Talk 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be maintained, although I don't think it's worth including templates, categories, etc as there's not much we can really do about them. As you say, it's an interesting record keeping track of the project's progress, but as we're not too concerned about the dab pages etc there's no point in including them in the stats. Nev1 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Greater Manchester
Hi there, I was an active editor on the Wigan pages some time ago. I've noticed an upsurge in recent weeks of Greater Manchester articles being re-edited to remove 'Greater Manchester' in the lead and have it replaced by 'Lancashire'. Can you be of any help with this? Thanks Man2 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The usual culprits of Wigan and Pemberton seem to be clean, do you have some links so we can see the IP doing it? Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw that soon after I posted here. I've left a message on Jimcrack's page explaining the situation; hopefully that will do the trick. Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
