Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 4

message: I've reduced the size on the banner because for some reason the text keeps jumping behind the image and so it is harder to read. Does anyone else find this difficulty? Simply south 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd seen this myself yes, but wasn't sure if it was due to my personal settings. Thanks for fixing this; much appreciated! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it has stopped it but it has possibly reduced the problem. I wonder if it can be fixed further. Simply south 17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to stop it totally is to have the logo above the text. The problem arises due to the window size of the user's browser (and to a degree which browser is being used). The other alternative is to have the banner in a complicated table arrangement whereby the logo is in a separate cell. ---- WebHamster 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this problem occur in other project banners? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it was brought up I wasn't aware of a problem with this one, but then I'm running a dual monitor setup with a 22" CRT (@1600x1200) and a 17" flat panel (@1280x1024) so screen area isn't a problem. I could see that smaller screen sizes might demonstrate problems. It's not totally about the logo size though. It also depends on how big the message box is, how much text it contains along with the logo. So it's not a straight forward comparison with other banners that is needed. The trick is to find the smallest size the banner can go to without the overlap occurring. So someone with an 800x600 display and using a windowed browser (rather than full screen) will get overlap regardless of what we do. These days the mean average is a 1024x768 display using a windowed browser so I'd aim for that as a design criteria. ---- WebHamster 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of GM logo 

message: Hi again team!... I've another point of communication for the project to mull over (!); online sources. Could we consider collecting and posting some Project-relevant online sources somewhere in the project mainspace? I'm not sure if we're all familliar with the same sources. For example, we're probably all aware of A select gazetteer of local government areas, Greater Manchester County, but I came across gmroads.co.uk today, though have never seen it used as a source. I'm thinking if we had a small 3 columned table (SOURCE; CONTENT; COMMENTS) of any online sources we find to pool together, we'd be helping each other along even moreso (which is what we're all about!). I can't see this being a bad thing, but what do others thing? Any preferences as to how to go about this? Anybody got interesting sources to share or other ideas? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implimented this. But it's provisional. If there are any objections or mistakes, please feel free to take the appropriate action. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online sources 

message: Not with any articles :)  Just wondered if the Manchester article might benefit from a small mention of this peculiarity: ?  Its mentioned in other articles on Wiki, just search for Manchester fault and you'll find a long article on Alderley Edge geology.  The Pendleton Fault is mentioned in a few articles, one or two of which I've contributed to, but doesn't have its own article. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a very good addition to the Geography section. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faults 

message: I've had quite a tedious time updating this frequently since May 2007 and to be honest I am becoming rather tired of the job. I recently requested a peer review for the portal, and it came up with quite a good few pointers that would definitely improve it but to me it seem that the portal doesn't seem to be used or edited by anyone, so would it be wrong of me to propose deletion? Rudget Contributions 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't nominate it for deletion. It looks fine just as it is, and it surely doesn't need to be updated all that frequently does it? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. That's why I asked here first. It doesn't seem to be used much. But I suppose it is important for articles such as North West England and the former WP:GM template. But by-gones are by-gones. Rudget Contributions 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can put the link back on the Template:WPGM if you think that will help it? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I'm not all too familliar with the portal thing, but I do think it'd be a shame to delete it. I think And-Rew's suggestion to raise awareness is a good one. Perhaps also Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire could get involved??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the portal link back onto the Template:WPGM now and I think we should definatly get the Cheshire project involved. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:North West England]] 

message: Hello project participants!
Just a note that Oldham is up for Peer review as part of its drive towards WP:GA. There are currently two statements requiring citation (re: coal mining), but I'm on to sorting those within the next few days! Any other feedback on how to improve the article would be very much welcomed! Hopefully we can get another Green "plus" medal for the project soon with this one! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed how much work you were putting into the Oldham article yesterday with constant edits, very good work and I am sure we will have another GA article for the project very very soon. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oldham]] 

message: See Talk:Manchester and please comment, thanks! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 08:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester 

message: Will be tomorrow, earlier than planned, because it's the weekend. Happy reading. Rudget Contributions 21:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudget Contributions 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter delivery 

message: I have just completed a full expansion and rewrite of the Kersal article and would be grateful if someone could re-assess it. Please leave any comments if you feel it needs inprovement Richerman 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some comments on that article's talk page that I hope will help you in getting it to the next level. Feel free to ignore them if you don't agree with any of them. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kersal 

message: Just when I thought we were safe, we've got a traditional counties advocate with User:81.153.33.97; unfortunately he's (it's always a bloke) picked Oldham of all articles (just when it's up for peer review)!
I'll try to revert any nonsense myself, but just wanted to make others aware of this IP. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flat Earther]] 

message: Take a look here... User:Bluegoblin7/WP:Derbyshire, the cheek of it!! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its necessarily a bad thing! It's a testament to our strength!!... the edit history prooves we were 1st anyway!... Let's keep our eyes open for ideas from elsewhere too! -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know that a while ago it already went live. Simply south 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it first. But I got an apology so it's alright. :) Rudget Contributions 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was only joking with the stealing part lol. I did have to laugh out loud when I saw the page just now, they have copied the newsletter and just added their own text, copied the barnstar of merit and added a rather crude image to it and probably other stuff I have not yet noticed. It is sweet that he/she is doing so much for their project of course but just seems like they are trying to take credit for our massive hard work, it's not hard to copy and paste really. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 07:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're being stolen... 

message: For a short period I have access to a great many editions of the Manchester Evening News.  Don't ask where they are because I'm not telling, but in a few weeks they'll either end up in a skip somewhere, or in somebody's barn.  There are thousands of them, they're all huge (bin lid sized and weighing easily 20lb each), and they're mostly in excellent condition.  Now I'm back there later this week, and I will be able to get some more.  Each one covers half a month or more, so you can imagine how many there are when you also consider that each volume contains every edition on every day - thats as many as 6 full newspapers, all broadsheet size, per day.  Here are just a few samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soundman/sets/72157602938473225/
If anybody has some very specific requests for Manchester related news stories, please do add it here and I'll do my best to accommodate you.  Bear in mind this place is vast, dusty, dark, smelly, and slightly damp, and almost entirely disorganised, so its hard to find things.  It took me nearly an hour to find 2 volumes from July 1936, and Aug 37 and Sept 38.  Please note that due to their size and condition, I can only get one or two volumes for the group - so decide amongst yourself if you want any! Parrot of Doom 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're having fun in that secret store. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds very interesting!... I'm personally curious if you have access to the 1 April 1974 and 31 March 1986 editions of the MEN; the former for material about the new county of Greater Manchester and its districts, and the latter regarding Greater Manchester County Council's abolition?? I think these would be of huge benefit the project. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those years are there, I can't say for certain if the exact month you need is also there but I can always look.  I'm not getting both though, so decide :) Parrot of Doom 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I really must (!), I'd have to go for the 74 one. What do others think though? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! I hope you are not doing anything illegal though and no trespassing! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have permission to be there, if I don't get these things they may well end up on a bonfire somewhere.  The local libraries have already had their fill and taken loads away, so its a case of grabbing what I can. Parrot of Doom 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M.E.N. archive 

message: Anyone else appalled by the state of this top importance article? Proposing a article drive. Anyone want to help if it does go ahead? Rudget  16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually worked behind the scenes during the games, for an Australian company, basically we were gathering footage and information so the Aussies could see what we did right, and what we did wrong, so they'd be better prepared.  Beyond that though I can't really help out.  A mate of mine might have some photographs of the stadium, during the opening ceremony. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2002 Commonwealth Games]]