Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Grade II* listed buildings in GM anyone?

Now that we've got the Grade I list accepted as FL, what about tackling the Grade II* list?

Is anyone up for it? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Health warning: there are over 200.
I'm in. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in too, so that's only 100 stubs that we each have to write. Anyone else?
I'm really struggling for edit time at the moment, but I'll help where I can! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Great. So that's only 99 stubs that Nev1 and I have to write each now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's do-able, I guess. Bolton might be the sticking point, as there doesn't seem to be an online list. We need a hardy soul to trot off to the town hall and transcribe the 'horses mouth' (I remain unconvinced that the Trinity Church is Grade I, BTW). List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters (a FL) shows that we don't need an article for every item. I suppose we have to ask the fundamental question: would it be an indiscriminate collection of information or would it be a valuable information source? Mr Stephen (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I should be able to help where possible, after all I did create the Grade I list. :) Rudget. 12:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I was afrraid someone might come up with that next, however, I should be able to contribute some stubs too, when I get time. By the way, congratulations on the grade 1 list FA, a great team effort. All that work to get a little star at the top :-) Still, virtue is its own reward. Richerman (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a page for grade II yet is there? So I'll post it here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pack_horse_bridge_stoneclough.jpg - thats my contribution for now :) There are a few more viaducts and aqueducts I know of that have their own pages, but the pack horse bridge in that link doesn't have its own page right now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start, we have two complete sections (Bury and Trafford), two images, and four blue links. Nev1 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cine City, Withington

Hi guys Just looking at the basic stub Cine City, Withington and added about its demolition. I don't think that its going to be important to keep it going when it bites the dust. The article doesn't really say anything and k it might have some notability being the oldest surving picture house (as opposed to 20s/30s picture palaces) in Manchester, but that goes as soon as the bulldozers step in. I propose a prod in a months time. any thoughts? Leibovits (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It could be said that it was notable for being the third cinema built in Britain. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. The place is going to be a hole in the ground quite soon and references to scala/cine city can easily be added to Withington or even a brief history of picture houses added to Cinema of the United Kingdom with scala included. The article just isn't relevent and has never been cared for. Leibovits (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary. Its imminent demolition has no bearing on the issue of whether it merits an article or not. A merge to Withington seems sensible to me, but then I'm a mergist. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
ok I see your point but stubs four sentences long which aren't going to be improved or added to are very hopeless. lol on the grounds of Notability Ceases Never how about a redirect to Withington? With a proviso that if some guys here find more info when you get over listed buildings, churches etc., that they will create a real article on Cine City. Leibovits (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a merge into Withington is the sensible option too, so I've tagged the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Malleus on that too. A merge seems most appropriate to me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd go along with the merge proposal. It's a shame about the demolition - I spent many happy hours in there! Fingerpuppet (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless The Hand Of God saves the poor building at the last minute, do we wait until the last brick falls? or get some consensus from the Withington editors beforehand? What will happen to the original page? just left as a redirect or CSD No context? just wondering Leibovits (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop worrying about the state of the building. Merge by: merging the text into the Withington article, with an edit summary something like merging from [[Cine City, Withington]] per discussion at [[WT:GM]]; then replace the text with #REDIRECT [[Withington]] and again use an edit summary on the lines of redirecting per discussion at [[WT:GM]] (we have to leave it as a redirect to keep the edit history); finally, add a note at talk:Withington saying what you've done. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester

I just looked at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester and for some strange reason it is coming up with loads of pages in the other languages list all saying "Українська", it also does the same thing on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London. Looks like it is something to do with the tick icon used in both, has this always been a problem or is this just my laptop being stupid? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it too, how long's it been like that? Nev1 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it looking now? (after this) Mr Stephen (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It works. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Good-oh. The interlanguage link should have been in a "noinclude" block. I think that was my first serious template edit. Cor! Mr Stephen (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Looks like it could have been due to meta:Migration to the new preprocessor which has caused quite a few bugs, at least we know it has not been like that for ages. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Manchester

I just did a big revamp of List of tallest buildings in Manchester changing it to look a little more like the featured list List of tallest buildings and structures in London. I think the list just needs a few refs in the lead then could pass WP:FLC, anybody agree? Also there are 2 completed building which I could not find the date for, if anyone knows please add, I will try to find the dates asap. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead needs referenceing, and reviewers won't like the colour of the tables, other than that it should have a good shot. Nice effort. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The tables are exactly the same colour as the ones on List of tallest buildings and structures in London and that passed with no comments about the colours used. I think it looks much nicer than white and grey which is what it used to be. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The table widths don't match up, and as Nev1 said, given our recent experience there will be an issue over the table colours. When did that London article pass FL? Why not copy the format of our Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
re: the colour, I agree it looks better but it's one of the wierd things that came up during the review of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The table widths are different because the second table does not have completion years. Colours are fun. London's passed at the end of May 2007. Grade I list looks a little dull. There is no policy that says we can't use colours in tables is there? Isn't that just someones preference with no consensus? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a policy about colours yes. It was quoted at us during the Grade I listed building article's FLC. You'll find it in there somewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it matters that the columns don't line up as they have different headings. It might be worth making some of the columns sortable. I don't think there's a policy on colour as such, if the London list made it you can point to that if it comes up in the review. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Page just moved to List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester as I have just added the 5 tallest structures of Manchester. I don't know if I should remove the structures from the buildings list or not? Some like COM Stadium and B o Bang could not have gone on the buildings list but the Palace Hotel clock could sorta fall under both, any help? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it could be argued that the stadium is a building, but B of the Bang is more problematic. I'd be temped to leave it as it is, perhaps with a note explaining why there are separate tables as the London article has done. And are they clocks or clock towers? Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Clock towers, I'll change that and should probably change the "usage" column too. As for the colour, I think it should stay as it is for now and if someone challenges it they can challenge London too. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article looks nice, and as it happens I quite like the colours, so I hope that you manage to get them through FLC. On a more detailed note though I noticed this: "Piccadilly Tower (previously known as Inacity Tower), has begun construction ...". Began construction when? I'd also prefer it if all of the images down the right-hand side of the screen were the same width. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Begun construction" is ambitious but they have started to drill down into the ground there now so it looks like we will get it after all the fuss, Albany Tower on the other hand looks doomed. Will change to "Groundwork" like the Axis building. Also I don't know how to make them the same width with adding the |300px| thing which most people seem to hate. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just occured to me that is its present state, the article will fail FL critrion 1a, ie: brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. More stubs need to be made and linked from the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tut, more work! Alot of the building on there are not notable as many are simply residential but there are plenty of notable too, for example while finding all the info for the list I discovered the Axis building will have the tallest LCD screen in the world stuck to the side of it at 51m tall! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. At a quick count there are 44 buildings in that list, of which only 17 currently have articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It fails FL critrion 1(a)1, but it passes 1(a)3, ie "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". One or the other is (or, at least, should be) enough. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well we wont know unless the article is nominated. I think it's worth a try. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I found some more articles to link to and some I have linked to the area e.g. 1 Hardman Square, Leftbank Appartments etc link to Spinningfields, a linked section for each of the biggest buildings in that area on the Spinningfields article would suffice wouldn't it? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have though that ought to do it. The problem we had with the Grade I list, in hindsight, was probably because of the number of red links, not because of the lack of articles. Mr Stephen makes a good point about the list qualifying under criterion 1(a)3 as well. I notice though a bit of inconsistency in the handling of heights. Sometimes they're converted to ft and sometimes they're not. I think for UK articles it's probably always best to provide conversions, whichever units of measurement you present first.
I'm with Nev1 on this. Nominate it and see what happens. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"inconsistency in the handling of heights"? I converted each of the heights from metres to feet so where is the problem? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In the lead there's conversion provided here: "It is 47 storeys and 169m / 561ft high", but not here: "which would have stood at 110m", or here: "118m CIS Tower". And it should of course be 110 metres, not 110m, according to the MoS. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood, I changed some of it at the same time as you so I hope it still worked. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now up for WP:FL status here. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to everone involved, the article was promoted late yesterday (19th Feb 2008). Nev1 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does List of tallest buildings in Manchester count as a "topic related to Manchester"? ie: #5 of the project's short term aims. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it does! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Manchester

If you have not yet noticed, the list List of West Midlands railway stations has just been promoted to WP:FL while the list I created List of railway stations in Manchester has barely been touched for some time. Maybe an expansion of scope is in order i.e. List of railway stations in Greater Manchester in order to bring the list up to a higher standard. I doubt I would be able/have the time to do it all myself as there are a lot of stations so maybe a group effort? So hands up who likes the current format and level of detail and who thinks things should be added/removed and who thinks it should be scrapped and started again? Obiously the lead will need changing but the table could be expanded easily, although some images down the side would look nice and it's a bit too wide at the moment. I'm not an expert on tables, I know how they work basically but I know some of you guys are better at that sort of thing. So to conclude, views on how to move forward would be great and it can be taken from there. Thanks in advance. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What references did you use? Because they really need to be added. It might be a good idea to increase the scope if there aren't too many other stations. Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two books (volumes) on Greater Manchester's railway stations from memory. Amazon.co.uk provides the details (e.g. [1]). There is also one about former, or "lost" railway stations. Almost certainly the best sources to use for such a topic I imagine. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all; I'll help where I can. I may be able to supply relevant sources as well as generally fill in gaps. I have a few images available on a PD licence as well; I would like to see images sonewhere (either a few in the body of the article, as at the List of West Midlands railway stations, or ideally a thumbnail for each station — although I realise that may not be feasible). Perhaps there could be some way of distinguishing staffed and unstaffed stations; maybe by use of bold or italics in the station name, to avoid using another column? (Such info is sourceable from Transport Ticket Society Journals, which are accepted as a permissible source; I have the last 120 or so at home :).) Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
More help is great! I have been working through the list adding bits when I get time but I have had assignments due for uni. No more assignments for a short while now so I will keep adding station usage figures and other stuff. The list really needs some references now, I will add the usage sheet links asap and carry on working through it. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I might be able to blitz through the station usage figures tonight, in fact, as I have all three sets available on my computer in a convenient format (they're very useful for my ticket-collecting purposes, so I saved them all and optimised the formats a while ago). I'll give that a go this evening. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be good! I have them in excel, sorted by name A→Z and was using AutoSum for the 02-03 figures as they are split between entrance and exits but it does get a bit tedious after a while so if you want to take over, be my guest! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kersal Massive

Has anyone noticed that there is an article about Kersal Massive? Either it needs to be put up for deletion or there should be a link to it on the Kersal page. Also, I see that user:WebHamster says he's retired. I hope we can persuade him to reconsider. Richerman (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear that WebHamster's retired. I know that he did have a bit of trouble recently over the usual crap American kiddie "incivility" rubbish, but I'd hoped that he would be able to ignore that and carry on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of the Kersall Massive, I'm not so sure. I see it's flagged for speedy deletion, but on the face of it I'd be inclined to believe that notability had been proven. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Terrible news about WebHamster, I speedied the "Kersal Massive" article as it was appauling that wikipedia is acting like a soapbox for that kind of crap. Every town has a "massive" Manchester has several "massives" just because this one made a video on YouTube of them talking at speed with a few hits doesn't give them notability. It sickens me that those kinds of people are noted as being the youth of today, nothing but scumbags. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But when the Guardian says "The video (which lasts a mere 44 seconds) has divided YouTube's vast net-based community like nothing else" that surely proves notability. You and I may not approve, but we're not here to censor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's gone, hopefully for good, it had already lost an AFD with full delete. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WebHamster was still defending the Kersal article yesterday on the talk page so hopefully he will reconsider. And as for Kersal Massive - they were the only people from Kersal to gain fame since John Byrom, even if it was only for 15 minutes :-) Richerman (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Trafford

Hi everyone, Trafford got promoted to GA earlier today. I thought it could be a template for the other borough articles and I think the best way to do that would be to get it to FA. Input from anyone with any ideas (or criticism) is very welcome, particularly what to do with the Transport section. A couple of points cropped up during the GA review, mostly about converting some figures into a table. I’m wondering if some parts (ie: the end of the Geography section) are a bit too listy and if something more could be added? Thanks. Nev1 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done again!
The article looks like it isn't far off a credible FA nomination, but I do agree with you about the Transport section. I can add a bit about the Trafford Park Eurofreight Terminal, and there's perhaps a bit more that can be said about the road network, Trafford's cycle initiative, the congestion charge and Trafford's opposition to it, bus services, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The Transport section has been significantly expanded and there may be some stuff that could be added on the coat of arms of Trafford. Once that's done I'll nominate the article at WP:FAC ... unless of course anyone here sees any major faults. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think possibly the Bridgewater canal could be included in the transport section? Also, no mention of the ship canal is made although it does form a rather significant part of the boundary of Trafford. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Bridgewater Canal is mentioned in the Geography section and is now used more for leisure than transport so perhaps it shouldn't go in the Transport section? I could see that it could though, as part of the history of transport. Also, I agree that the Ship Canal should be mentioned in Geography, but should it also go under Transport? It would seem odd for only one canal to be there. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that the canals would be appropriately covered in the Geography section, for two reasons: they are no longer used for transport, and their transport history has nothing to do with Trafford. Just my 2p worth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was thinking, except better phrased. In the meantime, I've included the Ship Canal in the Geography section. Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to see what the reviwers make of it I think, it's been nominated. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of people from Bolton

Hot on the trail of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and List of tallest buildings in Manchester, might we be able to consider List of people from Bolton as a potential WP:FLC in the near future? It's probably the best "list of people from" article I've seen, and it'd be great for us to be the first to set another standard! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That list is good, but it looks pretty dreary. One thing I do very much like about it though is that everyone is referenced. It really gets on my wick when some random person who may once have spent a night in a hotel there is listed as a notable resident, without any explanation at all. But having said that, the article does look like fertile ground for at least trying to establish some sort of a standard. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the alphabetical listing too.... there is a small problem with some of the referencing in that it uses the Internet Movie Database for several entries (which I was once told is not a reliable source because of its open nature). Other than that, if not now, it might be one to look at in the future.... I'd like to see something like Image:Britons.png but replaced with Boltonians for the lead. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I created the article from the original list which was once in the Bolton article; it'd got too long and messy looking. I had the idea to sort people into their own field - engineers, musicians, sports, writers, etc. The problem was that some could come under two or three different ones. So I kept it alphabetically. I've made sure that each person has a reference. Some I simply took from their own article, others I had to find them.
I understand Jza84's concerns about the Internet Movie Database references. Wikipedia hasn't given a clear message about IMDb refs and templates, and whether they to be continued or not. In the meantime, I've made sure that if there is an IMDb ref, then have given a second one to back it up.
Having given some thought with the List of people without biographies at the bottom. I've come around that only ones with articles should be on the list. So have no objection with those few being removed.
I agree with Malleus Fatuarum's comment that it looks pretty dreary, but not sure how to go about making it more interesting/inviting. Perhaps adding here and there with people's small photos which can be clicked on to see better. The problem is it just a list with only one or two lines for each person. There isn't really enough room to include small images. Perhaps Jza84's suggestion about a Boltonian version of the Image:Britons.png is a good idea.
I've never given any thought with the list to be a potential WP:FLC. In fact I didn't know they could featured lists. I'd have to see other WP:FLCs which have been featured to give any response. Cwb61 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I could do an image for the people from Bolton. That wouldn't be a problem at all. Could we agree on 6 or 8 names whom we could have? I'm thinking Fred Dibnah, Samuel Crompton, Peter Kay, Amir Khan for four of them, but others may beg to differ, of course! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with the four names you suggested. The problem is that the choice is limited. There are some I'd choose but they don't have any images available.
I was thinking Lord Leverhulme might be another to use. And possibly one or both of the Alan Ball and Sir Ian McKellen images could be used. The Sara Cox, Annie Haslam and Amy Nuttall pictures aren't brilliant but would like to see at least one female to be included.
Although notable, they don't have to be too well-known. The Stanley Lord image looks like from a newspaper or book, so don't think it would suit. The William Lassell one might be ok, and possibly Thomas Cole, but is a bit dark.
I was thinking of eight, but six might be ok. I don't want to tie you down to which particular ones. There might be one or two you'd prefer instead. Obviously I imagine some might need cropping down a bit. I'll leave the final decision to you. Cwb61 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What about using a similar style to that used in the Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, with a ribbon of images down the right hand side? And converting the list to a table? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I quite like this idea. It’s much more complicated. It’d need someone to convert the list into tables since its beyond I could set-up. The columns could include the person’s name, dates (i.e. years born/died), short description, and references. If its possible I’d still like to see the "Table of contents" with the A to Z at the top. Cwb61 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Project cleanup template

I've just discovered that Wikipedia:WikiProject_London/Templates lists their very own Template:Cleanup-London. It looks quite good!... I wondered if we felt we could steal adopt something simillar for this project? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

checkY Stolen Done. :) Rudget. 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
See Category:Greater Manchester articles needing cleanup for the articles with the tag on (none as of yet) └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't believe I forgot about that! Thanks Andrew. Rudget. 15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I was suprised to see the London one does not put it into a category other than the Category:All pages needing cleanup so it is basically useless! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about this template either, it looks nice and useful. BTW, two articles have already been tagged, quite a few more to come I suspect. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

History of immigration to Manchester

I know we've already got the History of Manchester page, but I came across this and was wondering whether there was any possibility of creating another GA/FA? Rudget. 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For more about Little Italy see hereand here. I'm pretty sure there is one of those thin, A4 sized, local history books about it too. It's going to be a pretty big subject though with all the waves of immigration from the Romans onwards. Richerman (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting project! I'd be more inclined to call the article Migration to Manchester (Immigration implies that it is written from the perspective of the existing inhabitants). Would be a massive task. Is there an example article where we can look for inspiration or guidance? -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right actually, it would be a massive task, and the proposed name by Jza is much better. I can't think off the top of my head for a example to work off, I could be wrong however. Rudget. 11:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Coal mines

I have put up a page List of collieries in Lancashire 1854-present and obviously, many of the collieries are in the Greater Manchester area. I do not have much information on closing dates of the pits so if anyone can add dates, would be appreciated. Geotek (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this list? It might be worth adding as an external link. Richerman (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I forgot an external link (now added).... I have copies of the paper documents but here, they have online of all the reports... thanks again Geotek (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's early days, but I think using tables rather than a raw list would be the right way forwards for this article. It could include mentions of owners, opening and closing dates, former (1894 - 1974) and modern local government district amongst other bites of info.
Photographs would help with improvements (of course), but also defining (perhaps with the help of a map) exactly what a where the Lancashire Coal Field is paramount in my point of view. Some of the demarcation like "Chadderton, Chadderton" "Bank House, Crompton, Oldham" (the latter part being ambiguous/redundant) and splitting by non-statutory areas like (Wigan area) may also cause confusion. Just my personal point of views here! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Points taken - the table with the owners etc could be done, I have all the info, but time is a major player there. The splitting into non-statutory areas is in line with how the coal field was divided by the Mines Inspector.... I will work on a map with the reporting districts, as to the things like Chadderton, Chadderton - that is the Chadderton pit in Chadderton, but see your point. I understand the problems you see with the list, however this is one of those pre everything days so the info is taken as it was originally recorded... the splitting into Lancs, GM and Merseyside only complicates the issue. The list is there.. just needs me to sit down now and "fettle it" as they say.Geotek (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You've addressed a few of my concerns. I think the demarcation (like "PIT NAME, PLACE" just needs explaining in the lead then in that case; I thought the "areas" were non-official territories used for conveinience for readers, but this was my mistake! Looks like an interesting project though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

Hello team,

I wondered what the project felt about this and other changes being made to Shaw and Crompton, one of our FAs?

Of course I've been closely involved with its development and am mindful of WP:OWN, thus I'm asking for wider opinion here. Does the team believe I should start a straw poll? Or perhaps just revert this per WP:V? Input welcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing a government agency surely means it must be true and can't really be put into question? Signs to Shaw say "Town Centre →" so why would they lie? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, it is an error which they have confirmed in writing, as I have asserted in the discussion. Ask them yourself if you like. In the mean time I'm afraid that a couple of road signs do not make Shaw and Crompton a town; I understand Milton Keynes has signs directing traffic to the city centre but it is not a city either! Chrisieboy (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather than stonewall the points made at Talk:Shaw and Crompton and repeating your points over and over on new pages, perhaps we can keep the discussion in one point? For those members of the project who haven't considered the wider implications of this debate, Chrisieboy's proposals would have mentions of town-hood for Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Stretford, Altrincham and beyond our county removed outright, not just for Shaw and Crompton. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That is simply not the case and you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me. In any case, I agree, talk should be confined to the relevant page. I just wanted to respond to Andrew, as you had used a diff of his comment here to support your argument there. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is the case, because if anything (by your logic) a town has to be granted a Royal Charter, or be a civil parish that declares itself a town (as Shaw and Crompton appears to have done so!). Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Stretford etc are not even civil parishes, and thus cannot be towns. You can't simply apply your logic on one sole article (which happens to be one I'm involved with, and whom you had one minor content dispute with months ago), you need to be consistent across the entire UK!!!! If S&C loses this (which it won't because of verifiability), then there's probably only around 15 or so towns in the UK by your school of thought, none of which are in Greater Manchester! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If, as you say, it appears to have done so, simply provide a reference (or a date) for the resolution of the parish council declaring S&C a town. Any such resolution would be a matter of public record. In any case, as per your own suggestion, please confine discussion to the relevant page. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly will do. You have 7 to 1 user opposition and around 20 sources to take on. Oh, and a question for you. ;) -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To add further confusion, the NWRA appears to consider Trafford and Tameside to be towns, as here. I doubt that many others would agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The towns of Greater Manchester it seems!... not to mention forgetting the University of Bolton! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I take it you are agreeing to provide the reference, as you are obviously not agreeing to keep discussion in one place. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a town?

I would suggest that the only way this debate over whether Shaw and Crompton is a town or not can be resolved is to define our terms. There is no legal definition of town in the UK, so the opinion of the NWRA carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion.

So, what are the features that all towns have that distinguishes them from other urban areas that are not towns? --Malleus Fatuorum

  • A minimum built-up area?
  • A recognisable commercial centre?
  • Transport routes converging on the area?
  • A minimum population?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible breach of WP:OR if we come up with our own defintion, but I see the logic. I've always taken the stance that a place is a town if reliable local publications assert it; a kind of local convention. Then of course there is the dicitonary definition of town to consider: 1. a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government. [2]. Using local convention (possibly coupled with consensus) avoids arguments of village, hamlet, town, district, borough, parish, suburb etc. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting OR, simply adopting or clarifying what appear to be well-established official conventions. For instance, this is the view of the UK census: "The traditional concept of a town or city would be a free-standing built-up area with a service core with a sufficient number and variety of shops and services, including perhaps a market, to make it recognisably urban in character. It would have administrative, commercial, educational, entertainment and other social and civic functions and, in many cases, evidence of being historically well established. A local network of roads and other means of transport would focus on the area, and it would be a place drawing people for services and employment from surrounding areas. It would often be a place known beyond its immediate vicinity." It further says that urban areas themselves should cover an urban area of at least 20 hectares, with separate areas not more than 50 metres apart. [3] I'm simply suggesting that as there is no legal definition, and unlikely ever to be one, that we need to come up with a working guideline. Otherwise we'll keep having these "It's a town", "No it isn't" discussions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes seems absolutely fine. My wording was off - I was implying we need to be careful of breaching WP:OR if we take this further. The census defintion hits the spot for me! Might be worth taking this to WP:UKGEO, then possibly codify something in UKCITIES? Might it be best we hang back for just a little longer whilst Chrisieboy still contests the mainstream/traditional definitions? I wouldn't want any of us to be accused of a possible conflict of interest or making backroom decisions! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. I'm still hoping that Chrisieboy will offer his own working definition of what constitutes a town, to lift the Shaw and Crompton discussion out of the realms of pantomime farce. "Oh yes it is!!" "Oh no it isn't". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I know! Quite right! Actually I was a bit mischeivious and said God had told me Shaw and Crompton is a town and you have to believe me... ;)... I thought it was a funny way of making a point about WP:V.... I laughed, even if others didn't! hehe... DDStretch has just left an interesting comment at the S&C talk page however, also advocating local convention. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He's a bright lad that DDStretch. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. Just as well you decided not to put yourself forward for that recent RfA, making jokes like that. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy ;) -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Malleus Fatuarum, List of towns in England, states Traditionally, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a town is any settlement which has received a charter of incorporation, more commonly known as a town charter, approved by the monarch. However, since 1974, any civil parish has the right to declare itself as a town (LGA 72 s.245(6) refers). That is my working definition of what constitutes a town. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So towns without Royal Charters or civil parishes aren't towns by your definition? What would you call Crewe, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My view is that there is no clear definition of a town but it's generally accepted as a settlement that's bigger than a village and smaller than a city. Most people would call it a town and so my vote is to call it a town and civil parish. Richerman (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this feedback guys. I've started a straw poll at Talk:Shaw_and_Crompton#Straw_poll as an indicator of where consensus lies. Input there would be very much appreciated. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Hello team,

Some good news for a change!... I've been roaming a few other sites of late (please forgive me) for photographs we can use here. I've managed to negotiate with a keen photographer from the area to release his entire online catalogue of work to a creative commons licence combatable with WikiCommons!!

Some of his work is truely fantastic (I've uploaded an example static image to Stalybridge), and very well suited to what we do here. His work is found at this page. Feel free to save them and upload to commons for use here as appropriate. My personal aim is for us to have a proffessional standard photograph in the infobox of each town in the county. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a television cameraman by trade, I'm waiting on the arrival of a Canon 20D from a mate of mine, at which point I'll do some photographs for various towns :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! That sounds great! I was wondering if I should put together a matrix of which towns (or villages, or even districts) have photographs and which don't, to give us an idea where we're upto. A massive task I know, but I know from experience we could do it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It would require a bit of effort, but I for one think it's worth it. Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it would give a lift to what might otherwise be pretty dull looking articles. Respect to the photographer for releasing his work under a cc licence, and of course to you, for setting it up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Matrix idea sounds good for keeping track of photos needed. I'll start (in an area I am familiar with!!) by putting one together for GM's railway stations. I know from looking through many of the station articles while working on the list that quite a few stations do have photos, so it will be interesting to see exactly how many are still needed. Let me work on that now: I'll create a user sub-page... Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Most, but by no means all of this gentleman's photographs are also avaliable with an appropriate licence for porting to Wikicommons. Ironically (or perhaps by fate) there are several photographs of railway stations, most on my favourite line, the Oldham Loop! I particularly like this photograph of his, but it isn't clear where exactly it is. Lots of lovely grim shots here! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just spent ages browsing some of that lot; plenty of really interesting, evocative stuff! I've started the station table here; surprisingly few GM stations have any pix. I have included the total for each station, and a more specific breakdown as to whether the photographs (if any) show the station entrance area and exterior shots of any buildings, the platforms, or anything else (if that makes sense). In my opinion, the ideal scenario would be photos from both outside the station (showing the buildings, entrance etc.) and within (from the platforms), but one or the other is obviously better than nothing at all. Some stations don't really have anything in the way of buildings, forecourts, entrance areas etc. anyway (I'm thinking of stations on main roads, where there is little more than a set of steps up or down to the platforms). Anyway, I'm sure a GM resident with a car or bike could nip round quite a few stations on a nice sunny afternoon and take a few pix :D (I wish I could, but I'm stuck down here in Sussex for the time being!) Will carry on when time permits. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an awesome collection of old images of Manchester here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/older_pics_of_manchester/pool/ - just look at this one, of Victoria station: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2128266003_1d52567ebc_o.jpg Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't be afraid of approaching some of the photographers whose work is crown copyright. If you explain that their work will be creditted to them, have a link to their profile and that Wikipedia (a not-for-profeit) is one of the most visited websites on the net, most tend to change their licencing. A few turned me down however, including (sadly) this bloke. That said however, I think we've plenty to go on for now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This guy just accepted to release his work to Creative Commons! There's alot a train stuff by this guy, but also shots of the Metrolink system, Bury and Castleton. I've just uploaded some images of Stockport and Tameside to commons too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I may be showing my ignorance ...

I may be showing my ignorance by asking this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

Is there a way, similar to the Random article button in the navigation panel to the left, to get random articles just from the GM category? Strikes me that if there was, that might help to improve some of our articles that otherwise seem to be a little bit unloved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Park Hospital

The first hospital into the NHS doesn't have a Wiki article. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Trafford_General_Hospital&action=edit Anyone know anything about the hospital? I can contribute an old image of the place. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice little source

I found an interesting PDF at this hyperlink. It's from the Greater Manchester e-Government Partnership and has some stuff about each borough of the county (though calls it a conurbation). -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_9&oldid=1136051200"