Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 38

The Graphic

Whilst searching though old newspapers on the British Library website I made a really good find of a fifteen page spread in "The Graphic" from 1876 all about Manchester. It's full of beautiful engravings of buildings in Manchester including the "new" Town hall, The Royal Exchange, the Assize Courts etc. and a birds eye view of Manchester from the top of the Town Hall. It looks as if the engravings may have been taken from photographs - is that likely? There is also a lot of text describing Manchester ("the self-styled second city of the Empire") as it was at the time, with a fair bit of history thrown in. I've created a google user group here and uploaded each page seperately so you can have a look. It makes a fascinating read - let me know what you think. I think if we wanted to use any of the pics I should really try and get permission from the library as I'm only supposed the use the account for personal research. This is the first time I've created a group like this so please let me know if the link works OK. I've made it open to anyone but it won't be found from a search of google groups. Richerman (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They'll be engraved from life I would imagine. Buildings and the like are quite easy to recreate in pencil, much easier than people and animals :) I don't think you'd have any problems putting them on Wikipedia. The library don't own the images, which were published a long time ago. You don't have to provide a url back to the library either, just publishers, dates, pages etc. Parrot of Doom 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It was common practice in those days for newspapers to commission line-art engravings for reproduction of photos; the first commercial halftone screen wasn't used until 1880 (and produced fairly poor results).

Legally you're quite entitled to upload the photos to Wikipedia (not necessarily Commons); Wikipedia itself is governed by Florida law as opposed to the country-of-origin law on Commons, and in Florida anything created pre-1923 is fair game under {{PD-art}}, even if it's reproduced from a modern work. Ethically it reeks and I don't think the practice should be encouraged—aside from anything else, a lot of specialist publishers rely on reproducing antique artwork, photographs and maps—but the next time Jimbo & co care about ethics will be the first. – iridescent 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although the newspapers are out of copyright there been a lot of work involved in scanning them and setting up a website that you can research by keyword. For example, a search for "Kersal Moor" comes up with 835 hits - which is quite amazing. I don't think I should really abuse their hospitality. Richerman (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My view is that there is no new copyright in a 2-D scan of a 2-D image, as there is no artistic input. I think PoD is quite right, the library has no claim to copyright. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's rather harsh. I've been a great defender of the MilHist project's extensive plagiarism in its naval articles, for instance. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also found a series of articles by Edwin Waugh called Roads out of Manchester, from about the same period. The articles were printed each week and describe what he saw on walks out of manchester and into the surrounding districts. They don't seem to have been published since so I was thinking maybe I could turn them into a booklet, but when I began to download them I found there were 65 in all - probably enough to make a full length book. Maybe that will be my next project - it seems a shame for them not to be seen again. Richerman (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that would be fascinating, and I'd love to read that. Parrot of Doom 01:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When I have some time I'll upload those too, but you only seem to be able to upload one at a time so it could be a long job. BTW I'm pretty sure I saw a mention of Radcliffe in The Graphic article PoD. Richerman (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Get a Flickr account, download their Flickr uploader tool, and you can upload hundreds at the same time :) Parrot of Doom 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put four on for now to give you a taster. Richerman (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I just realised - if you click on "view grid" at the top you can see them all as thumbnail images. Richerman (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded the first 15 files of Roads out of Manchester but now it tells me I've exceeded a limit while uploading. Maybe you can only use up to 20% of the space for files. Richerman (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for reassessment: Citibus Tours

I couldn't find where to ask for this (most projects have a section for it), but could someone take a look at this as it's currently rated Stub-class? Thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article called "Citibus Tours", but the company was called "Citibus"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Citibus Tours was the company's official name and is used by the source material, so it's probably correct to use it here. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've reassessed the article to start class. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

City Region approved

Hello all,

Just a note (in case you missed it) that major structural changes to the governance and administration of Greater Manchester have been approved in the last 24 hours [1], prompting quite a lot of work for us to produce, change and edit in the next few months. A rough breakdown of what's in store is found at [2]. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority is pencilled in for 1 April 2011 and there are changes to GMPTE. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just made the Greater Manchester Combined Authority - edits welcome of course. I hope the choice of "Top" priority was appropriate. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

--Greater Manchester Combined Authority is now pretty well expanded. I wonder if it would make DYK? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

See also archive 33 comments:

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 34/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The good news is that there are no unreferenced BLPs in our project. Nev1 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

April 5th's DYK

We'll that was a cheeky DYK. Take some of the text from the Shambles Square, Manchester article and expand it by a couple of sentences to create a new article called The Old Wellington Inn, then go for a DYK with a rewording of the fact that was DYK for the Shambles Square article in 2008. I was thinking of suggesting the two articles ahould be merged as there didn't seem to be enough for two and then this happened. You've got to give full marks for cheek! This pub must be the only one in the world that got on the DYK page twice :) Richerman (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it's a Grade II listed building, so it probably does warrant its own article. It's a bit thin on detail though, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why I thought I'd wait a bit to see if it got expanded before suggesting a merge. Richerman (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whit Friday

Does anyone have any good solid references that could prop up an overhaul of Whit Friday? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fielding,Steve (1987). "The Catholic Whit-Walk in Manchester and Salford, 1890–1939" (PDF). Manchester Region History Review. 1 (1). HTH Mr Stephen (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found some newspaper references from the 19th century and suggested on the article's talk page that the scope of the article is expanded and the name is changed. Richerman (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Carrington Moss

...TFA on 9 April. I'll be out for much of the day so if interested parties wouldn't mind keeping an eye on it? Parrot of Doom 13:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I wonder if that's the first cess pit that's been on the main page. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. – iridescent 14:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Malleus if we could find decent sources for midden closet we could make an even smellier one :) Parrot of Doom 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That article on Manchester's sewage disposal has got to be written one day. In the meantime, I've just borrowed The Executioner's Bible from the library. Yes, it's exactly what it says on the tin; a how-to manual of hanging, plus biographies of every 20th-century hangman. Did you know for instance that ... no, too gruesome ... forget I spoke. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a hangman who ran The Junction in Whitefield and an assistant hangman ran the Church Inn in Prestwich when I drank there every night. Lots of jokes about "no hanging around at the bar". Richerman (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The hangman would have been Harry Allen. He died in 1992. Strangely, hanging people was never a full-time job; the hangmen were just hired for a couple of days at a time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to work in the Hare and Hounds (top of Outwood Road, Radcliffe) while a student. The hangman thing was regularly mentioned in the vault. Parrot of Doom 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm seriously disappointed. I'd thought that very few of these hangmen would have articles, but it turns out that most of them do, albeit pretty poor ones in most cases. I'd hoped that I'd found my fertile soil, so that I could join the giants who create so many new articles on hurricanes, fungi, roads, naval ships, and whotnot. Seems that I'm destined just to be a drone after all. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All the towns in my favourite OS grid square are still redlinks, if you want to rack up plenty of cheap laughs in preparation for next year's April 1. (Did you see HIGNFY today, btw?) – iridescent 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, no, but I saw your posting to SandyG. I'll have a look and see if it's available online yet. That Tickle Cock Bridge eh? Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I found similar when I looked at a few pirates, so decided to settle on Blackbeard, which will shortly be going to FAC (when people can be bothered enough to review my other nomination there). I'm also aware that I really must get around to improving Bury at some point. It's one of GM's major towns and its article is awful. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame that Elizabeth is languishing. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Never mind, there's plenty more awful articles to improve :) Parrot of Doom 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Page views

I'm not entirely sure why, but Greater Manchester seems to have nearly doubled its daily visitors since around 4 weeks ago. Might be to do with the GMCA etc being in the news, but just thought I'd let people know. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United at peer review

By a very big margin, our most viewed article is Manchester United F.C., which is currently at peer review in preparation for an assault at FAC. Even if you're a City fan, your opinion would be welcome. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Book

Hi people, just a nudge that I came across this in the afternoon. It's a decent book for anyone involved in this project, and it's a good price. Lots of stuff about the history and geography of the region (think it's about 500-600 pages, from Prehistory through to the LGA72). I'm sure I'm not meant to advertise (considering WP:SPAM), but thought I'd temporarily ignore that rule and let people know. I'm not the seller! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a bid on it. Is it anyone here? I was going to bid, but I don't want to force the price up for the sake of it. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of copies at Amazon at that price, so I imagine there's enough to go round. – iridescent 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So there is ... bought one. Ta. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ringway

Ringway has been page moved with the remaining link turned into a dab page. Although I've tidied it, I'm not sure it was the right thing to do. What do you guys think? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any logical reason why it was done. It's not as if the other articles on the disambiguation page are at any name approaching Ringway. However, don't see that it actually does any harm, now that you've moved it to Ringway, Greater Manchester. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's the mess that's left behind, though. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ringway is clearly the primary use, I think there's a good case for reverting the move, especially if the person who made the move isn't going to clean up after themselves. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article itself could do with some TLC too. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ringway 3 and Ringway 4 are the official names for the northern and southern halves respectively of the M25 (formed of the completed halves of what were supposed to be two concentric motorways—easiest to explain via this map) but nobody other than an extreme pedant has ever called it anything other than "The M25", and nobody's likely to be looking for it under that name. The Manchester suburb is clearly the primary use. – iridescent 10:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kersal Moor Celebration Day

If any of you are in the Salford area tomorrow (Bank Holiday Monday, 3rd May) the Friends of Kersal Moor will be holding a celebration day from 1pm until 4pm on the moor. A new plaque will be unveiled to commemorate the great Chartist rallies of 1838 and the founding of the original Manchester Racecourse on the site and there will be various stands from groups like the Prestwich Heritage Society, Fairtrade, Friends of the Earth etc. There will be the usual bands etc. and the Manchester Choir singing the song written for the Chartist rally. I'll be in one of the gazebos with some displays of old newspaper cuttings about the moor. If you've nothing better to do come along and have a cup of tea. Richerman (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd have come along Richerman, but I was working on the Superbikes at Oulton Park. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Letting work get in the way of enjoying yourself? - needs must I suppose :) There was a pretty good turnout and the day went well. A few people were surprised to find out that the place has such a rich history but some were a bit spooked to find out that a man had been hanged where they walked their dogs. Now, if we can just find a way to get them to pick up their dog shit and put it in the bins we got put there.......Richerman (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wigan Article

Can we get this article semi protected? The vandalism by anonymous users has been ongoing and consistent and has only got worse since since Latics beat Liverpool in early March. WatcherZero (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As the article's of a decent standard, and vandalism has been persistent (although not particularly high), I would support the Wigan article being semi-protected. Things have been a little quiet round here lately (victims of our own success perhaps!) and I don't like the idea of vandalism creeping through because we're distracted. Another article within our project's scope that needs attention is Manchester. It's a high-traffic article and there's a relatively high level of vandalism and poor-quality edits damaging the article. It's been an FA for nearly 3 years, let's make sure it still deserves that bronze star. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Albany Crown Tower

Candidate for deletion? Developer is in Administration [3]. [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=56735405&postcount=922 According to Crains] owner of development company is personally bankrupt. Planning permission lapsed in Nov 2008. It appears to me to be highly unlikely to be ever built? Pit-yacker (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be deleted, obviously, but you may have a fight on your hands with the Rescue Squad kiddies. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I've just had a Star Trek moment. Conceivably it's of interest that there was once a proposed development of that name? Maybe it just needs to be put into its historical context? Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1910 London to Manchester air race

I just started this article today, and wondered if anyone knew the exact location of the field in Didsbury where the competition ended? Parrot of Doom 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Barcicroft Fields, Pytha Fold Farm, on the borders of Withington, Burnage and Didsbury," Check out the Didsbury article. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. I don't suppose anyone knows which town hall the article means? Parrot of Doom 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bolton Interchange

An editor has, a little while ago, renamed Bolton Station as Bolton Interchange. I have edited this article but I am not sure this is right. The interchange is apparently just 4 bus stops. I think an Interchange is planned and the bus station would be moved if the plans came to fruition. Any thoughts? --J3Mrs (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

GMPTE call it Bolton Interchange. I've no idea if that's conclusive, but it does lend support to the rename. Parrot of Doom 11:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Northern Rail calls it Bolton when I was trying to buy a ticket, confusing isn't it?--J3Mrs (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On railway tickets (my arcane area of interest), it used to be called "BOLTON MANCHR" [sic] to avoid confusion with Bolton-on-Dearne (somewhere beyond the Pennines). GMPTE's use of "Bolton Interchange" is, I think, definitive for our purposes. I note that the other station I can think of that is officially referred to as an "interchange" by its PTE—Meadowhall Interchange—is so named in its article. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, I must remember just to use Bolton when searching for train times. There's an Interchange in Bradford that includes bus and railway stations, Bolton's 4 bus stops seem very ambitious :) --J3Mrs (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The GMPTE does call it Interchange http://www.gmpte.com/destination/Bolton_Interchange.pdf, though bus station proper hasnt been built yet but this is what it will look like http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/Bolton_Interchange_leaflet.pdf WatcherZero (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Listed Buildings

I came across this while doing something else, [4] I thought others might find it useful too. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Greater Manchester County Record Office

Just to let you know Greater Manchester County Record Office has updated its pages and "A select gazetteer of local government areas, Greater Manchester County" has a new url http://www.gmcro.co.uk/Guides/Gazeteer/gazintro.htm. I know it's used on a lot of pages :-( I did the ones I've been working on.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

have you visited their building at ancoats? Its a superb resource Parrot of Doom 17:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't get to Manchester very often, but I'll put it on my list of things to see and do :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I could spend all day in there, I swear the Ark of the covenent is in there somewhere. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got enough code in AWB to fix a lot of them, see [5], [6], and [7]. Which format do we prefer?

• "Places names - I-L", Greater Manchester Gazetteer, Greater Manchester County Record Office
• Greater Manchester Gazetteer, Greater Manchester County Record Office, Places names - I-L

Mr Stephen (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, that last one [8] is a bit bobbins. It's using the intro page to the gazetteer when the article doesn't start with the name of the district. I can fix that. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very impressed, hardly understand a word of what you're saying but if you can change it quicker than my manual, one finger method, well...! I have no particular preference, but I'm sure some editors will have one.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jstor

I have temporary access to Jstor. No idea when it'll run out. Let me know if you want anything. Parrot of Doom 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bus services

Ignoring the obvious error ("Bury" for "Altrincham"), is this lot encouraged? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous, by all means tell the readers what destinations are served, but to print a schedule? That's the job of the bus company. Parrot of Doom 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the service routes and stands is acceptable and seems to be a trend across wiki being done by bus enthusiasts, if they started printing a timetable however I would feel they were going to far. My concerns more with will they keep them up-to-date as theirs about a dozen of so changes to bus routes and numbers every 3 months across GM. WatcherZero (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This kind of stuff has been around for a while now, see e.g. here from late 2007. User sf07 (talk · contribs) makes a speciality of it. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Parrot of Doom, it's ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous but hard to get rid of. I remember someone (Joshii?) trying to hive off the destinations from the Manchester Airport article (they change several times a week) so he could work on the main article. Couldn't get it through. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult when you're up against bone-headed editors, particularly as the wikipedia way is to be lenient towards new editors but harsh on experienced ones. I've had a strip torn out of me today by an editor determined to include a timeline of passenger transport authorities in Manchester in the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company article, despite my creating a new article for that info here. Just the way it works, very little thanks, rather a lot of unnecessary abuse. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Sahil Saeed

This article has been proposed for deletion. There is nothing about it on the article or its Talk page: I stumbled across it because a notice had been placed on Jza84's Talk page. The reason given is not notable. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New Broadcasting House

I'm somewhat surprised that there is no article for the New Broadcasting House, better known as the offices and studios of BBC North West on Oxford Road.

I say surprised, as there is article for Pebble Mill (the building, not the show), which I would consider of similar significance in scale and importance, and of course Broadcasting House and Television Centre - plus various others. There's even one for the yet complete mediacity:uk. BBC Manchester redirects to BBC Radio Manchester, and is concerned with the radio station only, while BBC North West is not specifically about the building or site.

Given it's probably not got much time left as a BBC site, and may well end up being demolished, perhaps its time there was one.

I expect this falls under one or two other wikiprojects, of course. -- Fursday 22:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

New Broadcasting House gets a brief mention on Wilmslow Road (which covers Oxford Road) but I heartily agree that it deserves its own article. Yaris678 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm edging to saying it would qualify for its own article. Although, I'm unsure regarding how well it would qualify under Wikipedia's notability rules. Certainly its a landmark building on the main route into the city centre from the south, and it is the home of a number of the BBC's programmes. However, the building (AFAICT) have something which would automatically confer notability such as listed status.

Ignoring that perhaps the biggest problem is that there is relatively little independent coverage of the building that I can find.

At that point a comparison to TVC or Broadcasting House is perhaps a little unfair, as quite apart from being the BBC's flagship buildings, both are listed, and receive acres of media coverage. Equally, MediaCity:UK is a flagship project, that IIUC was mandated in the BBC's charter renewal, to some degree was intended to replace TVC and has also received a great deal of media coverage. Due to costs, over-runs, failures, whinges etc, etc, etc a lot of the other new BBC buildings such as Pacific Quay and the Mailbox have a great deal of independent media coverage. Perhaps a more vailid comparison is to Cardiff or perhaps BBC White City, BBC Media Village or Belfast (NB: Is listed).

Please dont interpret this as being negative towards your idea, I would personally welcome an article, it's just I'm unsure of how well it would meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and/or how well an article could be referenced - which could lead to someone else putting the article to an AfD. If there is a compelling case in the article from creation, that makes it quite difficult to shift (see topic below). Pit-yacker (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only worthy thing I can think of about the building (and not its use) is that it contains a pretty big classical radio studio. Other than that, it doesn't get used much these days. Parrot of Doom 13:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive amount of picture changes

Hi all

An editor has been making massive amounts of changes to pics additions of images and I wondered if people could check to see if they are ok as it seems there was a problem with some of the Rivington changes Special:Contributions/Karl1587#

Sorry not been around much but have had a massive update on the robotics project which has taken most of my time (over 8,000 articles to check and 1,300 to AWB into shape!). Then the GOCE backlog elimination drive... and RL lol

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi WP:GM,

I've been out of action for a couple of months, but hope to start making the occational edit and help assist the project again. I have however, helped out here and there with a couple of ip addresses over the last few weeks.

A couple of issues I was hoping to get help with:

1) Buckley, Greater Manchester has expanded, but could go further. Does anybody have anything to hand about the area, and particularly about Buckley Mills? 2) The coat of arms of Manchester City Council was deleted at Wikimedia Commons, leaving Manchester and other pages without the necessary illustration. Does anybody have a version of the arms that are free to use?

Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, you've been missed. This place has gotten a bit quiet lately, but there's still much to do, like Bury for instance. I don't have anything about Buckley but I will take a look at the article. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you'd snuck back the other day, welcome home - the project has been a bit quiet without you around. Richerman (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both, and sorry to hear that things got quiet. I see everyone is still around and putting in good graft though. I've had a pressing couple of months in terms of time, but hope to be back again in full soon. Any assistance with the two points above would be great still! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If any of you people are looking for something to do, this piece of garbage could do with decontaminating by someone familiar with the area. – iridescent 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

List of streets for deletion

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Trafford Park heading for FAC

I'm planning to take Trafford Park to FAC in the near future, so any feedback before then would be appreciated. Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Church

I'm not entirely happy with the image but as the place was locked up, its the best I can do for now. Parrot of Doom 15:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better than the pictures I took last year, so thanks for that. I think the place is pretty much always locked up. I might pop down to the visitors centre one day, but that's always been closed when I've been there before as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard for this year, on the front of the church, gives a recent event as April 2010... Parrot of Doom 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1761, a section of the Bridgewater Canal was built along the southeast and southwest sides of Trafford Park. The canal, along with the River Irwell, marked the estate's northern boundary," - this isn't right. The Bridgewater marks the south and west boundaries of the Park, while the Ship Canal marks the northern boundary. Well, today it does, anyway. Parrot of Doom 10:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well spotted, I'll correct that pronto. Malleus Fatuorum 11:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us know when you plan to nominate this Malleus, and I'll see what I can do about the rest of those images, as well as looking in my local library to see what books they have (I'm sure Urmston library has at least one good book). Parrot of Doom 15:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My plan at the moment is to find a decent map of the estate and then go ahead with FAC. Nicholls' book is about the best I've come across, and I bought a copy of that when I first started working on this article. I'd really like to get Trafford Park done and dusted asap, so that I can try and finish off the Manchester Ship Canal next. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The best map you're going to get will be an old, out-of-copyright OS map. Theres a few on Ebay. Unfortunately the old-maps.co.uk site is now a load of rubbish, otherwise I'd have stitched one together for you. Parrot of Doom 15:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you fancy a trip out they should have them at Salford Local History library on the Crescent. They'll gladly provide photocopies for next to nothing. Richerman (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've paid enough for books and such for wikipedia articles; I'm not about to pay a penny more until the pay improves. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division

The TFA for this coming Friday (the 20th) is on Joy Division so any assistance keeping it unvandalised would be appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - this is now on the 24th. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical counties activist

We seem to have a new activist who'se intent on changing Greater Manchester to Lancashire here Richerman (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We also have someone going in the opposite direction, 90.196.175.240 (talk · contribs), for people who were born pre-1974. I'm sure that somewhere there is/was a guideline, but I can't find it. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember which guideline or policy is relevant, but I thought that if someone was born before 1 April 1974 then their birthplace should reflect the county system as it was then. Saying that Stockport was in Greater Manchester in 1969, for example, is anachronistic. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Civilian Settlements in Manchester.

I have been asked off-WP to comment on the reliability of this page as a reference: [9]. Has anyone an opinion- or better still a solid reference supporting some of these claims? The crucial point is where exactly did the vicus lie. 1. Adjacent to the Irwell/Medlock. 2. Hunts Bank. 3. Straddling Deansgate. All my ref books were written before the 1980s and I suspect the Barri Jones' excavation (and more recent ones I don't know about) has changed academic opinion.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus here is that www.manchester2002-uk.com contains too many errors to count as a reliable source. That doesn't make every last piece of information wrong, of course. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite Wikipedia's reputation, our article isn't too bad. It say: "The vicus associated with Mamucium surrounded the site on the west, north, and east sides, with the majority lying to the north. The vicus covered about 26 hectares (64 acres) and the fort about 2 hectares (4.9 acres) (Gregory 2007, 2)." The Gregory book is worth getting hold of. I'm not sure where the figure of 2,000 inhabitants comes from though. Typically vici followed the lines of the roads in and out of forts and expanded from there; as the main road from Mamucium was roughly in the direction of Deansgate (river to the west and south) that's where most of the settlement is. Probably, it's a while since I read the book. Nev1 (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- that was just what I needed. I had never read the Mamucium article- living in my post Bridgewater Canal world. So it can be summed up by saying: probably but they are still digging for the answers! --ClemRutter (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? Richerman (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the problem with the Manchester2002 site is that it contains too many errors so much as that it gives no indication as to its sources. Who knows, they may even be wikipedia! Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I didn't read the question properly - I'll try again! It says here under the last book (Manchester by Clare Hartwell) "Mamucium was established c. ad 79 on a bluff between the Medlock and Irwell, ... A path runs s between low walled enclosures, based on excavated plans of buildings of the vicus or civilian settlement" so it looks as if someone knows where it was. Unfortunately there's no preview so that's all that's there. Richerman (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Local history events

There are some upcoming local history events in Salford that may be of interest.

Sunday 19th September 11am - 4pm Local history and family fun day at Salford Museum and Art Gallery

• free rides on a vintage bus
• Craft activities
• Period music performances
• Library staff to assist with family history enquiries
• 24 Stalls to include a number of local museums and local history groups - a number of companies including: Chris Makepiece Maps, Bob Dobson Books, Rochdale Book Company, etc. I'll be there with the Friends of Kersal Moor - there will also be: Friends of Victoria Baths, Manchester Industrial Archaeological Society, Heritage lottery Fund etc.

It should be a good day.

There are also some talks at the Working Class Movement Library on Wednesdays and Fridays - the programme is here. The ones on Manchester Ship Canal and Docks, Mining in Salford, and Transport in Salford are all particularly germane to this project. Richerman (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks interesting. Will you be there? How would I recognise you? Will you be carrying a copy of The Times under your left arm, or perhaps wearing a red carnation? Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be the suave, handsome, boyish-looking one on the Friends of Kersal Moor Stall - Oh, OK then - the short, overweight one with a white beard who is supposed to bear more than a passing resemblance to Bill Oddie and answers to the name of "Nick". The secret phrase will be "Manchester Ship canal". Richerman (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check out my Zimmer frame; last time I tried to start it I lost my eyebrows, but it was a hell of a buzz. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I grew a beard when I was 18 so they'd let me in pubs and now my wife wouldn't let me shave it off even if I could be bothered with that weird daily ritual. In fact even my granddaughters complained when I shaved it off to raise money for for Children in Need last year. Would that be the clapped-out Jaguar Zimmer frame? Richerman (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the clapped out MGB GT Zimmer frame; I've got more cars than sense. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Cheshire

The Cheshire portal has been nominated for Featured Portal status. To join the discussion, visit Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Remind me about portals. My memory is that they were just an easy Fwhatever that nobody ever looked at. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear where the audience for portals lies, but those few of us who bother with them tend to hope that a well-designed portal might be of interest to (virtual) tourists. A featured portal might perhaps attract more Wikipedians to the associated wikiproject. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wigan Articles/JemmyH

Hi there, I was a very active contributor to the Wigan articles some time ago and you may remember the problems with a unregistered editor 'JemmyH'. It appears he has reappeared by vandalising the Orrell, Greater Manchester article by now claiming the area is not contiguous to the town of Wigan. The evidence that Pemberton (the area to which Orrell is contiguous) is an area of the town of Wigan (instead of simply a district of the wider Metropolitan Borough) itself was provided and agreed upon by consensus some time ago and to my knowledge the only one to object this consensus (without providing sources) is 'JemmyH'. I believe we need to monitor the actions of this editor to prevent vandalism/edit wars. Thank you Man2 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice Jemmy (92.239.71.235 (talk · contribs) and 92.28.245.21 (talk · contribs)) is also insisting that Leigh is not a town. The bottom line is if he doesn't provide sources to back up his claims, they won't stick. He's well aware of this but is either incapable of doing so or does not wish to. Needsless to say, he won't be allowed to downgrade the quality of a Good Article by pushing unsourced speculation into it. I particularly like the hypocrisy of saying "Many Wikipedia editors have not a clue about what academic writing is" and then dismissing the Victoria County History source, saying "Historical evidence my arse. Simply the opinion of a historian in 1907." It would be a simple matter to block him on grounds of incompetence if he didn't occasionally make useful edits [10].

As far as the case of Orrell is concerned, I don't see a huge amount wrong with this edit. Saying Orrell is three miles west of Wigan's town centre does not preclude it being contiguous with the town, which might not be all that important in any case. In the edit summary Jemmy insists Pemberton is not part of Wigan, but keeps it out of the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an affliction that many in the area have suffered since 1974 and I think it is incurable. I agree with Nev1, the most annoying thing about him is that often his edits are fine and his edit summaries "challenging". I think he just likes arguing. (another common complaint)--J3Mrs (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, often his local knowledge is in fact very valuable and often he will rightly dispel commonly held local myths, however there is always the continued background agenda of attempting to dissociate the town of Wigan with its wider Metropolitan Borough. Areas of the Metropolitan Borough such as Orrell, Greater Manchester or Winstanley, Greater Manchester do, in my opinion, need to make mention of their contiguous nature to the town itself in order to distinguish these areas from districts such as Ashton-in-Makerfield or Shevington. As the former are part of the same 'built environment' as the town, whereas the latter clearly are not, this allows for a more accurate geographical description of the areas. I am of course happy to accept any consensus on these matters that the project comes to. I just hope the good work put into these articles is not about to be damaged by editors such as 'JemmyH'. Thank you Man2 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nev and J3Mrs are both aware of my efforts to monitor his edits and provide (wherever possible) actual historical evidence. Fortunately there is an abundance of it. Unfortunately Jemmy's attitude is that their "amateur historian" status is secondary to his own opinion. Maintaining a watch over his continued efforts is essential. Koncorde (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for assessment

I would be really helpful, if someone could go through {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}} and assess each of the articles- as I am suffering from lack of feedback. I suspect that most of them will be C/B grade, mid importance. Thanks.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ramsbottom

Ramsbottom is currently being vandalised by several "new" editors and IPs. I have added a Governance section but the pov warriors continue. Any help would be great. Thanks.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Rammy has a great pub crawl. It also has the most evil cycling hill in Lancashire. Parrot of Doom 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing instances of "Ramsbottom District" cropping up, sample, sample. Is there such a thing? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought there might be confusion with the former Ramsbottom Urban District, but it appears that Ramsbottom District is a term used by Bury council to describe a group of three electoral wards. Quite how this effects the town, I'm not sure. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that page before (it's supporting a description somewhere) and I've just looked at it again, and I still can't see anything called Ramsbottom District. Whereabouts on the page should I be reading? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm reading something into it which isn't there; it's a district including Ramsbottom, but that page doesn't explicitly use the term and this just calls it "the district". The phrase "Ramsbottom district" only occurs once on the Bury website, and isn't even explained when it does crop up. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I did that search too :) I think you were right first time with the Ramsbottom UD. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At one time this article was in danger of becoming a drinker's guide to the Rammy mile, so I'm pleased to see that J3Mrs has got her teeth into it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)