# Talk:London Road Fire Station, Manchester

Fire brigade left site in 1980s.  Building in serious decline, campaign momentum for doing something with building - Dillon, Martin (23 January 2004), Alarm bell rings for fire station, Manchester Evening News
Argent propose cultural, music and arts venue.  Compulsory Purchase order not ruled out - Fire station's cultural future, Manchester Evening News, 17 January 2006
Manchester City Council set deadline of July 2009 for agreement to buy or launch a compulsory purchase order.  Britannia responded to Argent with their own proposal.-Thame, David (28 May 2009), Burning issue at fire station, Manchester Evening News, retrieved 30 December 2009
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/LondonRoadFireStation.pdf
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/LondonRoadFireStation_1_.pdf
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/report09_11_.pdf
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/report12_3_.pdf
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/report07_21_.pdf
http://www.britanniahotels.com/manchester-london-road-fire-station-hotel-development
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3119628


### Further sources
"the finest fire station in this round world" - Fire Call magazine 1902
Greater Manchester Fire Service Museum
Greater Manchester County Records Office.

Hi All! I thought it would be useful to have a plan on the page to better visualise the uses of the building.  I haven't put it on the main article page yet as there are a few issues, which I'm unsure about (I've also uploaded it to en wiki rather than commons for the time being):

Copyright: The image is derived from File:OS Street View SJ89NW.jpg.  I used the image as a base, however, I had to largely had to completely redraw it. For example, I needed to get rid of pixelation when the image was enlarged, as well as some unwanted details.  As I understand we are free to derive images from the base image as long as we attribute Ordnance Survey.  However, the copyright regarding the production of maps (where the production uses either a copyrighted map or satellite image) has always been a one I am unsure of.
Format: I know that the format should probably be SVG.  However, I'm using quite an old version of Paint Shop Pro (7) which can't save in SVG.  The nearest vector formats I could get are either PSP's native format, WMF/EMF or  PostScript.
Quality: Is it ok? My drawing abilities aren't great.  If anyone else wants to improve it, please feel free. I have the original in native PSP format if it is of any use.
Pit-yacker (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me. If you want it saved in SVG try leaving a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshops or maybe PoD could help you out. I do think there is a problem with some of the photos though - the top two are OK but the other four are not so good. That blue tinge they have is probably to do with the camera you've used - I have a compact digital that sometimes produces images like that. If you like, I could try and get down there in the next few days and take some more. Richerman (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, some better photos would be useful.  Pit-yacker (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I went down there today and took some more photos. Unfortunately there were major roadworks as they were resurfacing London Road at the junction of Fairfield Street, which made it difficult to get any photos of the whole building due to men in hi-vis jackets, large plant and queues of traffic. I've retaken some of the ones that you took and replaced the ones of the Fire and Water murals and the gas meter testing entrance in the article. I've uploaded them all at wikimedia commons and added them to the LRFS category here. Please look through them and see if you want to use any of the others. My pictures also had that blue tinge but by tweaking the colour afterwards I've managed turn it into the dirty grey it should be. I just wish someone would get a high pressure hose on all that dirt :) Richerman (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! They are much better.  The building could certainly do with a good clean.  Hopefully that will happen soon. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think we would be better off with your version of the Coroner's Court image? Pit-yacker (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
OK I've replaced it - it seemed a bit presumptuous to just replace all your images but if your happy with that it's fine with me. If the GA review doesn't get picked up soon it may be worth asking Malleus Fatuorum if he'll do it. He won't give you an easy ride but he's very helpful.  Richerman (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Purpleprose has tried to add some information about the Friends of London Road Fire Station and the sale of the building. These contributions have been reverted, once by User:J3Mrs and once by myself. Although contributions are welcomed from anyone, they must be written in encyclopaedic language, be of a suitable length (see: wp:weight) and follow wikipedia policies such as wp:verifiability and wp:Neutral point of view. Also inline citations need to be added using the proper format - we don't use inline external links. There are citation templates available on the editing toolbar - just click on the curly brackets icon. Richerman   (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I would do it in the "proper format" if I knew how. Alas I don't. But if my lack of formatting knowledge is a problem for you then why not edit my contribution instead of deleting it. Don't you want this article updated? This kind of snobbery is one reason why I so rarely add anything to Wikipedia - page "guardians" don't offer help, they just remove stuff. I am so sorry I have offended you with my lack of wiki formatting skills. And as for bias, I have an interest in LRFS purely because I have written about it professionally in the past and continue to follow its fortunes. I shan't offer my knowledge again if it's so unappreciated. Purpleprose (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel unappreciated - that wasn't my intention and I would be sorry if you decided not to contribute again. I'm sure your skills as a writer and journalist would be valuable to wikipedia, but, as with any other publication, they need to conform to the 'house style'. The inline citations are a minor point - I'm not "offended" by your lack of skill but, as I've pointed out, it is easy enough to do them properly once you know how - use the citation templates and just fill in the boxes. It does, however, take up a lot of time to fix these things afterwards, and I usually find that when I do that the original editor then adds more in the same style and leaves me to fix them again. The main problem with your additions was that they were too long, not written in the right tone and not fully verifiable. I'm sorry you are offended by their removal and I'm quite happy to give you some help if you want it. The text is not lost, it's all still there and can be copied and pasted into a sandbox and worked on until it's suitable for inclusion. Richerman   (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
To be fair the Dereliction and redevelopment section needs a good prune too. The reversions had nothing to do with snobbery and in my opinion the issue is not about formatting but the unencyclopedic soapboxing style that gives undue weight to the current situation. Unfortunately for you Wikipedia is not the place to further your, or your organisation's, agenda nor is it an estate agent. Although Richerman has trimmed a bit, much more needs to go. J3Mrs (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I took the pruning shears to it but I still think there is too much on the current situation. The article is about the fire station, not the annals of the planning committee. Nobody could enjoy reading through such stuff. J3Mrs (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Agenda? That's a pretty big accusation. Especially as I don't have one. It's not my organisation and I resent the implication that it is and that I have some kind of ulterior motive. I'm not from the campaign group and I don't work for Christie. I have knowledge of recent developments through my work and that is all - as I said. I dropped by the page to check a date, saw the current history of the building was well out of date and thought I was providing a public service by bringing the information up to date. And this is why I won't be back. J3Mrs  you are out of order. Purpleprose (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For goodness sake in March 2014 I reverted similar content that you had added in February 2014, it was unencyclopedic soapboxing then and still is. Even if your agenda is only to keep adding such stuff it isn't what an encyclopedia article should contain. J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a lie. The history of this article shows nothing added by me before 24 May 2015. Stuff you,  J3Mrs - this is exactly the sort of stuffy, snobby, sniffy ringfencing of territory that Jimmy Wales said discouraged new users and he wasn't wrong. I won't be back here. Purpleprose (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to the diff from February 2014, so not a lie. And you can find it in your own contributions. You really should get your facts straight before accusing anyone of lying. J3Mrs (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on London Road Fire Station, Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britanniahotels.com/manchester-london-road-fire-station-hotel-development
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/204/204130_allaction_station.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britanniahotels.com/media/166886/lrfs%20blurb%20ii%20jan10.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201180817/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1466341_manchester-council-loses-700000-bid-to-force-sale-of-london-road-fire-station to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1466341_manchester-council-loses-700000-bid-to-force-sale-of-london-road-fire-station
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on London Road Fire Station, Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002074905/http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0001.pdf to http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0001.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002074954/http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0003.pdf to http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0003.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002075059/http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0006.pdf to http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0006.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002075032/http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0004.pdf to http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0004.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002074950/http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0002.pdf to http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0002.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002075051/http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0005.pdf to http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?093373-ssi-0005.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607021407/http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/English-Heritage-Slams-Britannia-Hotels to http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/English-Heritage-Slams-Britannia-Hotels
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617122756/http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/Public-Meeting-London-Road-Fire-Station-27-February to http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/Public-Meeting-London-Road-Fire-Station-27-February
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)