Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38

Lancashire legends, traditions, pageants, sports &c ; with an appendix containing a rare tract on the Lancashire witches &c, &c

I've been reading the above book in the library and have just found that there is a complete copy of it available online on Google books here. There is some fascinating stuff in there about Lancashire traditions and all sorts of stuff that isn't included in our articles. For instance, there's some more legends about the Great Stone at Stretford and information about Kersal I haven't seen before. And have you heard of the Unsworth Dragons (P.78) or the Worsley Giant (p.63)? If you want to look at it I would suggest using the 'read online' option as some of the other versions are a bit scrambled. Richerman (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a very interesting find. The Great Stone at Stretford is rather strange, and for much of the year it's hidden in shrubbery at the entrance to Gorse Hill Park. I'd bet that not even one person in a thousand notices it as they walk by. There might just be enough in there to justify a spin-off article. Eric Corbett 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought you'd like it Eric. It does say there was a similar one one in Peel Park, Salford and one near Cheetam Hill - I can't say I've seen either of those but there is a large glacial erratic in the old quad at Manchester University. There is stuff in there about the Nico (or Nikker) Ditch too, but it's all the stuff that's been dimissed since as Victorian fantasy. Richerman (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
But Victorian fantasy is part of the story. Eric Corbett 23:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but it's already in the Nico Ditch article. Actually, I see the book has been cited in that article - looks like one of you beat me to it :) Richerman (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I do like that kind of weird. I haven't checked the Woodhead Pass article, or even if we have one, but I used to take that route every working day on my way to Sheffield, and I'd swear I saw the monk who's reported to haunt the road above the steelworks. Mind you, I was pissed at the time, and the driver was trying to freak me out. Eric Corbett 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Clicking on the name of the actor David Royle takes you to Fallowfield township page. No idea why this is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.64.244 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2013‎

On which page do you see this problem? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The page David Royle is a redirect to Fallowfield. The reason is it used to be an article on a local councillor of that name; councillors don't usually have articles so it was blanked and turned into a redirect. I'm not sure this is a useful redirect. I could delete it. Opinions? Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Clayton, Greater Manchester

User:Haldraper seems convinced that Clayton, Greater Manchester should be located at Clayton (Manchester), despite only one article in Category:Areas of Manchester (Northern Quarter (Manchester)) using parentheses to disambiguate. All others use a comma, whether it be Glenbrook, Greater Manchester, Belle Vue, Manchester or Peel Hall, Wythenshawe. Is this user correct and all the other articles wrong? Should we be using parentheses for all of them? – PeeJay 19:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The general naming conventions are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), specifically at WP:UKPLACE. The default is "Clayton, Greater Manchester". If Clayton is unambiguously located within Manchester (see UKPLACE) then we can run with "Clayton, Manchester". The mover then ought to clean up the mess they have made (check for double redirects, fix links in templates, confirm there are no other unwanted effects).
"Clayton (Manchester)" is a nono. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The standard dab for UK places is comma so (Manchester) is wrong. Also suggest it should be Greater Manchester unless there are 2 of the same name in Greater Manchester as the dab is by the ceremonial county. Keith D (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
So there is no reason for Clayton, Greater Manchester to be moved. Thanks guys. Out of interest, how about Northern Quarter (Manchester)? – PeeJay 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I would think that should also be comma dab rather than brackets. The only example I can put my finger on at the moment is Chinese Quarter, Birmingham though I am sure there are others. Keith D (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting unilateral the name change User:Haldraper made from Broughton, Greater Manchester to Broughton, Salford here. S/he is becoming a complete pain in the arse. Richerman (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact s/he is making threats and edit warring. Could some passing admin have a word? Looks like 3RR issues already. Richerman (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester

I've been updating the citations in this article from Images of England to English Heritage, but I wonder if anyone knows how to tidy up the wholly unnecessary wall of text in the Notes section? I've also found the odd minor error or omission here and there, mostly centred around completion dates and architects. I'm posting here as I don't think the article has that many active watchers. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

May be they could be combined by changing the entry in {{EH listed building header}} to include a name="". Using some obscure name so as not clash with entries in the article. Think this will cause them to display only once when multiple uses of the template in article. Keith D (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just done exactly what you suggested and it worked! -- Dr Greg  talk  21:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Parrot of Doom 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Traditional counties again

Yes, again. More at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Counties, Template:Traditional counties of the United Kingdom, Traditional counties of the United Kingdom, Template:WikiProject British Counties, Template:British Counties. Thanks to Redrose64 via WT:UKGEO for spotting this. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

These are all POV forks and usual breach of the longstanding guidelines and consensus etc. Has anything been done from an admin perspective to get these deleted? It's just garbage that is a distraction from improving articles properly. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I've since added my 2p's worth with some info at UKGeo. I think it's a thinly disguised ABC attack - and thankfully I've a long memory to have shown why. Can an admin help remove this sooner rather than later? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin, but I don't want to delete anything in a manner that suggests that WP:DELETE has not been followed. I would also prefer that any discussion (other than that which constitutes a formal WP:XFD) be held on the original thread, in order to avoid a split discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help get Greater Manchester ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

  • The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
  • The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
  • The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
  • The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
  • Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
  • The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
  • References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for review: Leigh Sports Village

Please would someone reassess the Leigh Sports Village article as it has been modified substantially since it was last assessed. Thank you.


--Michaelward82 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Eric Corbett 16:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edward Hulton (senior)

FYI I have created a new article for Edward Hulton (senior) within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester. HelenOnline 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/WatchAll. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy

May I suggest that the recent editing of Chorlton-cum-Hardy is reviewed by other editors here? As a previous contributor to the growth of this article I will not edit the article until the dispute is dealt with.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what's your general opinion of the article? Eric Corbett 01:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the article contains a lot of information, perhaps too much for an encyclopedia article, some bloated language and trivia and too many headings. I have taken pruning shears to the article in the past but it grows back. I think "notable" people should be sufficiently "notable" to be mentioned in the text and the article shouldn't be a directory of anyone who has lived there. I can't think of anyone more qualified to sort it out than Eric Corbett and I would be happy to help.J3Mrs (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I must agree with J3Mrs. It seems too lengthy and rambling. The problem is that some people seem to think that of a reference can be found for a fact, then it should be included, which I disagree with. I think any "Notable Residents"-like sections get bloated too quickly by people who give entries for people whose connection is sometimes so trivial that one thinks all it would take would be if someone passed wind in the general direction of a place for them to be added. If we removed all trivial claims and placed other types of claims that were unreferencedinto the talk page until they could be referenced, then that would be a start (and even if claims moved to the talk-page could be referenced, it should not guarantee that they should be included in the article.) It needs editorial oversight, but then so many articles do, and then we'll get phony accusations of ownership from disgruntled editors who don't really "get" what an good encyclopedia should be.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Eric Corbett has asked above for my general opinion of this article:- it probably is too long but fairly trivial content keeps being added to it as well as some worthwhile additions concerning the history. For the purposes of WPGM it would be better if it was similar in quality to the good settlement articles here. One of the problems which has now come up is that the boundaries of Chorlton have not always been in the same place and this is explained in the sections on History and Geography. In the Anglo-Saxon period Chorlton and Hardy existed as tiny farming communities in the Mersey valley; written records of them are extremely limited but an account of them is given in John Lloyd's 1972 book on C-c-H. Chorlton Brook forms the boundary between Chorlton and Hardy. All of the medieval settlement belonged to the manor of Withington but in 1642 the southeastern quarter was taken from Chorlton and added to Withington. The article at present is inclusive of all four parts. Whether it should be aligned in some other way I would not know. Ward boundaries are a problem because they will not necessarily stay in the same place (e.g. Barlow Moor / Chorlton Park). At the time of the murder of P. C. Nicholas Cock (1876) the scene of the crime was on the border of three townships; it is described much more fully in the Whalley Range article. The constable's grave is at St Clement's old churchyard. Re: the Blues and Gospel train event of 1964; newspaper journalism is not very reliable on details like whether or not it was really in Chorlton.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We need to make a concerted effort to keep the trivia out, and purge the trivia that's already there. Which other decent settlement article have you seen with a pubs section? And the sports section is a joke. Eric Corbett 23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I might have a go at the sports section once protection is lifted. Plenty of undue weight going on there. Broughton's rugby teams might of historical interest, but those events happened in Broughton and Salford, not Chorlton. Broughton Park have only played at Hough End since 2004, in which time they have achieved little of note. Hough End itself ought to be a focus, not individual teams who play there. Its Manchester's closest equivalent to Hackney Marshes, but you'd never guess that from the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be great. Eric Corbett 22:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has tried to keep "trivia" out before; there would be some justification for tagging the article with { { overdetailed } } there will never be agreement over what should be cut out. One of the aspects which is unbalanced is that association football and popular music content occupies more space than one would expect. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Why tag it rather than fix it? The trivia will go, that's a given, bugger "agreement". Eric Corbett 22:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL should be in force here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Who's been uncivil? Eric Corbett 16:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Baum

What the view on Rochdale's The Baum getting its own article? I'm personally torn. Part of me thinks this is a small pub/business in a northern town - arcitecturally bland and difficult to write about historically - but another part of me recognises that this has been voted the best pub in Greater Manchester twice (2012 & 2013), and won the National Pub of the Year award last year - so probably satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. Is this worthy of an article, and if so, what do we think would be the best approach? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that with BBC News, Manchester Evening News and Lancashire Life and the page archived by Google (because Rochdale MBC only keep news stories up for 3 months), you have the sources needed by WP:GNG. Go for it! (mine's a pint) --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy (cont'd)

Some guidelines on how to define the scope of articles are needed here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Coal mines, collieries, pits, shafts, seams and mines

I just had a look at the Lancashire coal field- knowing nothing about life underground. Each article has an nb on using mine for a seam and a coalmine for the extraction point. But two (+) problems-

the table heading in List of collieries in Astley and Tyldesley#List of coal mines in Astley and Tyldesley section uses 'mine' when refering to a 'coalmine' and then lists collieries. I thought collieries were groups of mines surrounded by a common security fence! What needs to be changed?
cross linking. When following the 'Arley Mine' from Lancashire Coalfield I was linked to a table Manchester Coalfield#Coal seams of the West Manchester Coalfield which then heads the table 'mines' while refering to the Coal seams in the section head. For clarification I read the text above- quote The early coal mines were dug to the shallow seams where they outcropped, particularly in the Irwell Valley and in Atherton. The early mines were adits or bell pits exploiting the Worsley Four Foot Mine. I assumed this would link to a historic coalmine in Arley near Wigan, after which the Arley (seam) mine was named and was this wrongly cross-linked. Maybe not?

So are there any Manchester specific guide lines on how to clean this lot up? A Manchester manual of style?

How does this apply to work on other coalfields- are we trying to maintain consistency? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

All changed for clarity, I hope. Thank you for pointing out my inconsistency nobody else has written much about collieries in Lancashire. In this part of Lancashire a coal seam is referred to as a mine and the coal mine is a colliery or pit. J3Mrs (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no specific guidelines so I ploughed on regardless, it didn't take that much cleaning up and who would write a manual of style? Certainly not me. It appears that few editors are interested in the coal industry so I do what I can. Eric Corbett and I wrote a Good Article about Bradford Colliery but that's as far as it goes. One difference between coalfields is in the terminology for coal seams which I have attempted to explain with notes and hope is now sorted out. Lots of terms are used for more than one thing, a pit can also refer to the shaft. The coal industry is not that well represented. That's life. J3Mrs (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I know what it feels like to be lonely! List of mills in Lancashire! I have made a couple of tweaks- do check them though.
I met up with User:Robertforsythe at the Newcastle meetup, and he is organising a Mining_and_Mechanical editathon in November. I bought an Alan Davies book to find out a bit more. I haven't written a MoS on Cotton Mills either- but it could be helpful but in the mean time I have a look at Bradford Colliery. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel lonely at all if I'm adding things that interest me. I put some "stuff" into List of mills in Wigan in which I have more than a passing interest. I have several of Alan Davies' books and some others. I personally couldn't think of anything worse than an editathon but there you go. I like mooching in interesting places though. J3Mrs (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Haweswater aqueduct

The Haweswater aqueduct is in the news at the moment (see [1] and yesterday's North West Tonight) and although we have an article on the Thirlmere Aqueduct we don't have on on the Haweswater. As far as I can tell the Haweswater was an extension of the Thirlmere but the name Haweswater seems to have taken over now, although our article doesn't mention it at all. It says in a webpage about the Haweswater here that there is a one and a half mile link between the two and then it goes on to say 'The Haweswater aqueduct started in 1948. Its 63 miles include...' Does anyone know if the 63 miles were all new or did they include some of the Thirlmere aqueduct? Richerman (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried in vain for quite some time to find a decent map of Thirlmere Aqueduct. I'm surprised it isn't in the public domain, but I do know the Thirlmere splits as it nears Manchester and heads off over to Agecroft and Heaton Park, and Trafford Park in the other direction. Parrot of Doom 11:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, according to North West Tonight the line of it is top secret as it could be a terrorist target, however, there is an old one we could use here and there are some on the web such as this. Richerman (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wigan articles

I'm thinking of going through all articles relating to Wigan, if anyone wants to help me with this. I'm new to this WikiProject so let me know on my talk page if there's anything I can help with. --Donagluithan (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! User:J3Mrs has done lots of work on articles relating to the borough of Wigan, so I'd suggest asking her what needs to be done. If anyone knows, it will be her. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Manchester High School for Girls

Some over-enthusiastic IP editing produced an article twice as long as London. It appears to be from a centenary book but I can't be sure. Can others keep an eye? Thanks J3Mrs (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Manchester Gazette

The Manchester Gazette (the modern news copier and regurgitator, not the venerable organ) has reared its ugly head again. I have prodded it, more in hope than expectation. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have thought that could be tagged as an A7 speedy deletion. Eric Corbett 13:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
EU regulations? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It depends who reviews it. I can remember submitting CSDs that took nearly as long as a prod anyway. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No telephone number on their contact page? Yeah, I'm betting that isn't really what anyone would call a gazette. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I tagged it for speedy deletion. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Together Trust, formerly Manchester and Salford Boys’ and Girls’ Refuges and Homes

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Together Trust. It didn't have a GM category until I added it just now, so won't be showing up in any GM listings. PamD 17:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The article's a bit of a tangle. I'm not sure which bits started off as copyright violations and which are ok. It might be simplest to go back to the earliest version we know if ok, delete the text of revision history as it's suspected of containing a copyvio, and rebuild from there. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester

Manchester is putting on weight, in a most unattractive fashion. It is already north of 130 kilobytes and an IP seems to desire to make it bigger (my revert). Opinions? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

At 8,400 words it's not unmanageably long, but could perhaps do with a trim. Looking at the references section there are lots of bare urls. I think it's time to turn a critical eye on the page.
Most of the edits over the past few days are on the transport section, seeing expand from just short of 600 words to nearly 900. In my opinion, that's probably too much. I think there's a risk of falling short of a summary style. Though it wasn't added recently (in 2010 as it happens), I'm not sure "Despite being a regional airport, the airport has the highest rating available,

"Category 10" encompassing an elite group of airports which are able to handle "Code F" aircraft including the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8."

is useful information in an article about a city, and belongs in the page on Manchester Airport itself. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Birchfields/Crowcroft Parks - notable?

Good morning WPGM people. I intercepted a person at the teahouse who was interested in why WP does not have articles about Birchfields Park and Crowcroft Park. I replied that most likely that was just because no-one had made articles about them yet.

Now the person has come to my talkpage here, explaining that they found a Manchester City Council source and a blog-ish source, and also a BBC News source about a death in one of the parks.

I don't think I've been in either park in my whole life, but after briefly looking at the photos, at least one of the parks seems to be a huge undertaking with a large total area, and I would presume notable. Please would anyone be able to provide feedback (here or there or anywhere) on whether the parks are notable, or how to prove it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Crowcroft Park is not much more than a field with a fence round it. I'd be surprised if it had enough in the way of history to be more than a paragraph in the Longsight Levenshulme article. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither look particularly notable, there must be at least 100 parks of about that size in the Greater Manchester area. Parrot of Doom 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Some friends of mine used to live on Rushford Street (192 bus, 35p from Picc Gdns, go one stop beyond Slade Lane), the southern end of which is on the northern edge of Crowcroft Park. They always maintained that it was Longsight, not Levenshulme. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Crowcroft Park was my mothers generation not mine: in my childhood it was one of those places where I was convinced there were dragons, they ate their young and didn't talk properly!! We did drive past Crowcroft Park on the 92 route into Picadilly or 89 into Albert Square. It was the point where you knew you were leaving Levenshulme and would shortly be entering Longsight, which would be called out as Dickinson Road. We never went along Dickinson Rd to Birchfield Park and were barely aware of it- but that would be Rusholme (bigger dragons). My mother a pupil at Alma Park School until 13; she talked about taking part in a Pageant (?Manchester Schools Pageant 1934?) where they rehearsed with other Manchester school children in Crowcroft Park I believe. It was big for them at the time.
Looking at the 1992 A2Z I see that Rushton Street was south of the now enlarged Rushton Park, which is under the railway and on the other side of the A6 to the Crowcroft, but you would have to get off at the Crowcroft Park bus stop. On this map Crowcroft Park was a named district- so it went Levenshulme-Crowcroft Park-Nutsford Vale (sic)-Belle Vue- it was north of Matthews Lane (think Spurlrey Hey High School). There was also possibly a connection with the old tram route (34? Manc-Stockport), something about having to wait at Crowcroft Park- may be in the Manchester Blitz or Blackout. Needless to say I have never been.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Royal School of Medicine

I've just moved Manchester Royal School of Medicine from my userspace. Can someone ascertain appropriate Manchester-related categories, please? I'm guessing Category:Education in Manchester but maybe there is some better place. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Town Hall project and Concerto Projects

Is Concerto Projects notable or is this just someone trying to promote a non-notable company? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories for Greater Manchester Metropolitan Boroughs

I have proposed renaming ~160 categories which are within the scope of this WikiProject. These are the categories for 6 of Metropolitan Boroughs in Greater Manchester, and their sub-categories. (Category:Bolton, Category:Bury, Category:Oldham, Category:Rochdale, Category:Stockport, Category:Wigan plus subcats). The proposed renaming would add a parenthesised disambiguator to the category names.

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sad to see that nobody has an opinion on this. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I have an opinion and it's this; I couldn't care less about categories. Eric Corbett 21:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mr Stephen: I see plenty of opinion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Archivesplus

This site has some very interesting images that might be of interest to some of you. I have used some as external links. J3Mrs (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The accompanying text is also fascinating-- I can see many sleep free nights ahead. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I spent a good while looking through those pictures. Well worth the time, and there's even some pictures of areas outside Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the opinion of the WikiProject regarding these two articles:

They have both been converted to redirects by VEO15 (talk · contribs) without going through WP:MERGE. In the past, when a proposed Metrolink station has been cancelled, we've added a suitable paragraph to the article and not wiped most of its content, see for example Drake Street Metrolink station or Hardy Farm Metrolink station. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You're making an issue over nothing, those stations were a pipedream from 2012 and TfGM's proposal for the Trafford Park Line have since changed. I have mentioned about the preceding planned stations on their respective EventCity and Wharfside station articles, providing an archived TfGM PDF from 2012. Comparing Lostock Parkway and Manchester United with Drake Street and Hardy Farm isn't a fair comparison as the former two have never existed and have since been succeeded.
Note the differences between those stations, was moving Parkway Circle to Parkway this controversial? This is a non-issue, blame the person who made the Wharfside and EventCity articles for not consulting the Manchester United and Lostock Parkway ones. VEOonefive 22:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Upon further inspection of both maps, it looks like the original plans for the line was to use the existing freight line 53°27′43″N 2°20′22″W / 53.462066°N 2.339495°W / 53.462066; -2.339495 beside the freight terminal, where Lostock Parkway station would have been located, rather than run along Barton Dock Road. Make of that one what you will but Wharfside is more than likely the same station as Manchester United. VEOonefive 23:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

City Airport & Heliport RM

I have proposed moving City Airport & Heliport to City Airport (Manchester Barton). Please see Talk:City Airport & Heliport. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Barton isn't in Manchester, it's in Salford. Eric Corbett 22:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Serial overlinker

Hi, anybody with nothing to do or wanting to improve their edit count with not much effort might like to watch out for an IP hopping editor who is adding serial overlinking to articles on the List of people from Oldham. It usually takes the form of links to places such as Lancashire, England, UK but is interspersed with some good edits. Not a big deal but at least we haven't got to Europe, Earth, ..... but unnecessary. J3Mrs (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Still at it, bit sad really when whoever it is is capable of some decent edits, so thanks to anybody who has responded. J3Mrs (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Old maps and views of the North-West

As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As of Sunday night, over five thousand new maps have been identified, with 26.5% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/England - North West

which currently shows pink templated links for 172 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on Manchester and the North West.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notification for John Barbirolli

I've nominated a WP:FA quality page related to this WikiProject for "Today's Featured Article" consideration, nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli. — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Please see this discussion which may be of interest. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Curry Mile

Oh, my word! I've just linked to Curry Mile in a thread at WT:INB and then I looked at the article. I'm not good on contemporary subjects, in part because I have big difficulties in separating press puffery from encyclopaedic utility, but that article is atrocious. Can we make a better job of it? Is there even anyone still watching here? If not, I will post this again on the talk page of a certain well-watched contributor who has Mancunian interests.

FWIW, last week I was given a t-shirt with the slogan The North Will Rise Again. If this project is moribund, might we try to revive it? - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No worse than a lot of articles trying to make something out of not much. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal notice: RfC on national flags for Manchester City Football

There is a debate about keeping or removing national flags from "Friendly games" of the Manchester City Football season. As this has the potential to affect many football team's seasonal articles, an RfC has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons (Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality). Please add an opinion either way if this is a subject that interests you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Darul Uloom Bolton‎

Darul Uloom Bolton‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darul Uloom Bolton. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015 that is relevant to this WikiProject. Jeni (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:M62 motorway/GA1

M62 motorway is undergoing a GA review at Talk:M62 motorway/GA1. Editors are invited to help improve the article in line with the review. Rcsprinter123 (say) 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Now closed as the article is not ready. Assistance with bringing the article GA standards would still be appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northern Railways

FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northern Railways. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion on renaming all Manchester Metrolink stops. Please see Talk:Manchester_Metrolink#Metrolink station renaming proposal. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Peak District

Hi, I've just created a portal for the Peak District which may be of interest here. Do feel free to enhance it with new or improved articles or by adding to the links. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wythenshawe Hall

The recent fire at Wythenshawe Hall means we may have a few more readers on that article. Fire covered by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-35809417 Nev1 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

FA nomination for F.C. United of Manchester

Hi everyone—this is just a quick note that an article within the scope of this WikiProject, F.C. United of Manchester, is now a featured article candidate. All comments and suggestions are very warmly welcome at the nomination page. Thanks! odder (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Suffolk24 (talk · contribs) has something of a habit of creating articles for proposed railway stations and tram stops, often long before any construction has begun or even funds allocated. At best these are nice-to-have wishful thinking, but sometimes they are little better than a WP:HOAX. I've yet to see a single one move beyond the consultation document stage.

Their latest batch are all within this WikiProject's scope: Newall Green tram stop, Davenport Green tram stop, Gorsey Bank tram stop, Heaton Mersey tram stop and Kings Reach tram stop. My suspicions were aroused when they all had coordinates way to the west of the purported location - on closer examination, all turned out to be those of Wythenshawe Hospital. Looking closer, each used the same three sources: the most reliable is a MEN article about Stockport MBC's plans to improve Stockport railway station, with sentences like "The cost of the project has not yet been revealed, with town hall bosses still seeking funding." indicating that nothing is certain. Another source was Trip Advisor. The third is an enthusiast site, the linked page containing so many instances of the words "would have" that it's obvious to me that there is, in fact, no actual scheme for any extension east of East Didsbury. What shall we do about these articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:G3 them? Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Maypole Colliery disaster

Just git this page started. Any help welcome. Tigerboy1966  16:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Lancashire loyalist on the loose

We appear to have an ip who is working the Ramsbottom / Bury area, changing county in infoboxes. I have rvv those two but keep an eye open. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP in question 89.240.239.77 is inconsistent as they have also tried to put Adlington, Lancashire into Greater Manchester. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 38 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Piccadilly Rats

If there are any remnants of WP:GM still around, someone might want to take a look at The Piccadilly Rats and see if it can be salvaged before the AFD-taggers spot it. This looks quite an interesting story, but there's no way the existing article is viable. As most of the coverage will probably be in the local press, it likely needs someone with the access (and the patience) to wade through MEN archives. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 38/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Greater Manchester, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Abu Eesa Niamatullah

Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD.

I invite you all to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Didsbury School of Education

Hi, I have significantly expanded and improved this article over the past few weeks and I was wondering if anyone watching this could possibly cast their eye over it? I'm hoping to take it to GA/FA before long. Many thanks. Aiken D 23:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:One Love Manchester

Project members may be interested in helping to expand Draft:One Love Manchester, the upcoming benefit concert by Ariana Grande, which will take place in Manchester. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Manchester-M1

Members of the project may have noticed that I have been creating lists of listed buildings in the civil parishes and unparished areas in Greater Manchester, following the similar lists I have created in Cheshire, Merseyside and Cumbria. I have eventually arrived in Manchester itself with this list. The city is too large for a single list so I had to decide how to divide it into sensibly-sized areas, and I decided to follow the example of Liverpool, and make the lists based on postal areas. The Liverpool lists are only of Grade II listed buildings, but for Manchester I decided to include all the grades; it provides a wider perspective of the area, and does not make the list significantly larger. The first list has in fact proved to be rather large, but most of the other lists will be smaller. My main surprise has been in the number of buildings in the area that originated as warehouses - over half of the near-200 buildings! I note that a list has been started, Grade II listed buildings in Manchester, but seems to have stalled with about 60 items. This is not surprising as the complete list would have to include nearly 800 items, and I doubt that this would be practicable - my apologies to the authors of this list if I have stepped on their toes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many watchers this page has these days but I have noticed them. It's been a mammoth task especially the Manchester lists. I think when you have finished the Grade II list will be totally redundant. I was in Manchester last week and I'm always pleased to see that so many warehouses have survived. My advice is ignore the shops, wander round and look up! It's great that you have managed to find so many photographs too. My own current list is progressing slowly, because it's such a depressing subject depressing but I will get there... eventually. A fantastic job. J3Mrs (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
In due course it may make sense to turn Grade II listed buildings in Manchester into a sort of hybrid redirect/disambiguation page with a bit of blurb at the top and links to each of the postcode-area lists. I did that when List of places of worship in Chichester (district) became too big and had to be split into two. I can only echo J3Mrs' comments and wish you success with this ongoing project. I can provide some perspective, having started a 10-part series of Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: I have "temporarily" stalled after five lists, but have every intention of carrying on at some point. Something else always comes up though! (We have about 1,200 down here; I then got distracted by the 250 "locally listed buildings"!) I will also have a look through my small and fairly random collection of central Manchester building photos to see if I can fill any gaps. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both for your comments. I was particularly fortunate with the photographs, most of which have been downloaded from Geograph, where one contributor in particular had made a mission (its seems) of photographing (well) all the major warehouses. Thanks, Hassocks for your idea about what to do with the current Grade II list. This seems to be a good plan for the future, unless any of its contributors think otherwise. I am now working on some of the outlying postal areas, for a bit of a "rest" before returning to the central areas. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Rodw (talk · contribs) has been working on such lists for counties like Somerset, see for example Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Examiner and Manchester Times

Hi folks, I need some opinions are Talk:Manchester Times. It is a low-traffic article and the user page for the main contributor suggests that they're not likely to be around much nowadays, although they are contributing sporadically. I am still working on the various newspaper articles and the people connected to them but the issue of scope and of reliable sources is complicating things. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to guidelines on UK counties

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion taking place here [2]. All comments are welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Clifton Hall Colliery

I think this page is overdue for a reassessment. Would a project member care to look at it please? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on it. It looks pretty comprehansive now so I've uprated it to B class for all projects - if anyone doen't agree they can do their own assessment. Unfortunately the WikiProject Greater Manchester is more or less moribund now as many of the members are no longer active. The only slight criticism I have is that the article ends in mid-air. Perhaps the disaster should be a sub-section of the History section with the later history at the end? If I'm not mistaken there is also a small memorial on Lumn's Lane with a representation of a pit wheel, just outside the recycling centre. As I only live a mile or so away I'll try to get a photo of it in the next few days. Richerman (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually there is a bit more than that - see: http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2838 Richerman (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  23:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Moors murders

Discussion on preferred version after edit war and lock of article. See Talk:Moors_murders#rfc_on_consensus_version_to_return_to Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing at Bolton Pride

Hi everyone, Wikimedia UK and Bolton Library and Museum Services are jointly organising an editing session on Saturday 21 September to coincide with Bolton Pride. Everyone is welcome, and there will be a training element for new editors. Event details are here. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If there's anyone still about…

…can anyone see any way The Piccadilly Rats is salvageable? I'm reluctant to AfD something that someone has obviously put a lot of work into, but this to me looks the epitome of "non-notable local group who got mentioned in the local paper on a couple of occasions". ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Training people to edit

One of our events with the Scottish Library and Information Council in May 2018.

Wikimedia UK are running a 'train the trainer' event in Glasgow late next month. It aims to improve training skills, cover how to develop and design training, and hone presentation skills. in-person events are excellent for getting people to think critically about Wikipedia, and people really enjoy peering behind the curtain to see how this place works. We run events with universities, museums, archives, and the like, and having people who can pass on their knowledge about editing is essential. The event is nominally to support our work in Scotland, but also has a wider scope of supporting our work across the UK.

If you're interested, you have until 1 November to register your interest by emailing sara.thomas@wikimedia.org.uk. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

More information

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs for your area!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bury Met article

Just thought I'd bring This Article to the project's attention. It's unassessed, quite short and has less than 40 edits. The talk page is also blank.

I'm making a few changes to it, but it will be too much for me to tackle on my own.KaraLG84 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added the project template to the article's talk page.KaraLG84 (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Cheadle Hulme

I have nominated Cheadle Hulme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mural of Marcus Rashford

New stub! Mural of Marcus Rashford ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oldham FAR

I have nominated Oldham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Z1720 has pointed out that the "history" section stops in 2002. Would anyone like to expand it? (Or History of Oldham: I've just reverted some vandalism from May 2020, but it hasn't had much recent constructive attention). PamD 21:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Suburbs

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#IP User: 180.150.81.68. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Mill town

There's a large unsourced ill-defined list of English mill towns in this article - members of this project might like to join a discussion at Talk:Mill town. PamD 15:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Chadderton

I have nominated Chadderton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Stretford

I have nominated Stretford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 11:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Francis Joseph Charles no anything to say he existed born 1925 ? December January 82.29.0.104 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Suburb notability

Hello there! I wonder if any of the good folks here could help me understand the notability criteria for suburbs. I know NPLACE states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but I also see many articles for suburbs are redirected. I'm interested in creating some articles for some Manchester suburbs but I'm unsure how to find out if they're notable. Thanks in advance for any advice anyone can give me! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@MarchOfTheGreyhounds: You started a near-identical thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Suburb notability, please observe WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry! Didn't know about that one. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Greater Manchester

User:Buidhe has nominated Greater Manchester for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Shaw and Crompton

I have nominated Shaw and Crompton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Atherton, Greater Manchester

Atherton, Greater Manchester has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Woodhouses

I've created a new article on the place in Oldham district. It appears to be the only settlement on the A-Z road atlas within the M60 without an article. It may need to be moved to Woodhouses, Oldham as there are 6 other settlements as well as another former parish in Staffordshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ernest Rutherford

The page Ernest Rutherford has been updated to more fully include the details of his work while in Manchester, including several momentous scientific discoveries. This may (or may not) be of interest in (re-)evaluating your project's content assessment. Doughbo (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Manchester Arena undiscussed move

Someone has moved Manchester Arena to AO Arena without any discussion. I feel this is wrong, it should be put to a proper RM if anyone wants to change it from its longstanding title. I just wanted to notify any admins here who might want to revert the move. G-13114 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That "someone" is Jatyrent2 (talk · contribs), who has only been around since March. I took a look at the move log, observed that there had been two previous moves which were both reverted, so I've reverted this move and also move-protected the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! G-13114 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tameside

Tameside has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wigan

Wigan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anglican Diocese of Manchester#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anglican Diocese of Manchester#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Briton's Protection

We have no images of the interior of The Briton's Protection - if any of you wanted an excuse to visit, please go and take some! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_38&oldid=1253560954"