Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 7

message: In case anybody else is interested: ...just a thought.... --Jotel (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Central station: suggestion for a new article 

message: Can I bring it to everyone's attention that Chill Factore was Speedy deleted on Friday by User:FisherQueen.  Whilst, the old article may have been little more than a stub, I think at least a debate on the worthiness of having an article on this subject would have been in order. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather dumb deleting that, a trigger happy admin I expect. It really should have an article being the largest indoor ski-slope in the UK and having award winning advertising "The alps are coming to the North West" └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there was little enough to it, so it shouldn't be hard to re-create the article whenever someone's ready to write something a little bit more extensive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already got a little bit on Chill Factor.... :) Rt. 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chill Factore 

message: Hello team,
Just wanted to raise awareness of User:P.hogg (contributions). He's doing some good work, but isn't a very chatty soul. It'd be great to get him (her?) on board. In the meantime, we might need to watch a few of their contributions as the formatting isn't quite spot on yet. Until they reply to their messages, it's the only thing we can do (I think) to support them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foggy 

message: Just to let people know, I created a news feed template for people to use as an announcements board for GACs, FACs, GA & FA promotions, AFDs, PRODs etc. You can get it on your talk or userpage by simply pasting in . I have not yet posted any news and I don't want it to compete with the newsletter, it is just a more prompt way to inform about things which require immediate attention. Hope people start using it! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the idea. It's now on my userpage. :) Rt. 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News feed 

message: Some time ago there was considerable edit warring on the Wigan and assorted pages.  The dispute ended some time ago, but it might be starting up again.  I'm very busy at the moment in real life, so if some local knowledgeable editors can keep an eye on it, it might be helpful.  Personally removing the lists of notable people and editing them into the paragraphs as part of the narrative, seems worthwhile.  I simply don't have the time to do this at the moment. Regan123 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right to bring this to the attention of the project. Without meaning to point the finger, User:80.193.161.89 seemed to be a leading antagonist for distrupting Wigan related material earlier this year. I had the displeasure of arranging a permanent block for this gentleman (well he arranged it himself!), though it appears he has re-gained his editting capability and is making comparable, sweeping changes with weak rationale. I would urge alertness from our members as bad faith has been established once. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for information: there was never a permablock on .  His talk page was modified by a single-edit IP .  Mr Stephen (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wigan 

message: Could someone add the grid references to the locations of the Grade I listed buildings article, listed in the header, please? Thanks. — Rudget Contributions 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a few, I can do the rest later if no one else has. On a slightly different note, I think tables often look better with a slight reduced text size. How do you feel about trying that? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...thanks for that. I'll try it out tomorrow, getting quite late now. :) — Rudget Contributions 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grade I listed buildings in Manchester]]

message: Hello again team (!),
I've been notified that :Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is at risk of being deleted. Is there anyone with a sound knowledge of the licencing arrangements willing to take a look at this? We may also need folk to look at the deletion entry. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the rationale that has been used for other local authority arms.  Hopefully that will appease people! Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That stupid robot has made a right mess, it has posted a warning on everybody with the "User from GM" userbox on their page, all the GM stubs and probably loads of other articles which contain the GM Arms. Robots really can't be trusted anymore! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just done it again, posting to hundreds of articles. Do you think that I could change the licence to CC or PD because I drew it? I know its a copy of a real COA, but this is meant to be a free-to-use version. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems that the addition of the fair use rationale being added by Fingerpuppet, has not done anything, received several for deletion notices this morning for articles on my watchlist. I'll look into the legal bits as soon as Christmas Day is over and see if I can come up with a new rationale that will satisfy. Geotek (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that the warnings are just follow-ons from the message about the original problem. I've had this problem in the past when I haven't clicked on the licence before uploading. If you re-upload the image with a new licence you still get deletion warnings until the original version gets deleted and replaced by the new one. Richerman (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK with that .... I'll still work out a new rationale that will satisfy both UK and US law (handy being over in the USA at the moment !) if it's needed later then it will be available. If not required then nothing lost, interesting to note that the images in some of my articles (not just GMC related) have been up for between 6 and 12 months and only now has the Bot picked up on the the licence notice and put the fair use rationale deletion on them. Geotek (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they have changed the criteria recently and updated the bot. The flaming thing drove me mad when I first started uploading pictures and couldn't work out how to do the licences properly. I'd re-upload the image then get another message and re-upload again. I eventually realised that the bot seems to send the original message at regular intervals whatever you do. All part of the joys of working with wikipedia! Richerman (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot's just doing its job.  If the image is being displayed as fair use, a FUR is needed for each instance of the image's use, ie 50+ of them.  We can't have FU images on user pages.  Mr Stephen (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png 

message: While we're talking about articles for deletion what about Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships? Is this a joke? 
I've also just removed some crap from the Ramsbottom page on the same subject i.e. "but it is said that the contest has its roots in an apocrphyal event in the War of the Roses, when the opposing forces from Lancashire and Yorkshire hurled black puddings and yorkshire puddings at each other after they had exhausted their ammunition" - very amusing I'm sure! There's also been some stuff about the town being called "Tups arse" on there as well. I think we need to keep an eye on the Ramsbottom page. Also, it says it's got a B rating from the project but it's full of unsourced statements and the Religion section is a long list of churches which needs moving to the List of churches in Greater Manchester article. Is this rating right or has it been changed by someone? Richerman (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships sure looks like blatent nonsense to me. Certainly, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, of which this material (including that on Ramsbottom) appears to have none. Almost certain candidate for deletion I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the Talk:Ramsbottom page user Etf says he/she put the bit on about the Wars of the Roses to "inject some humour into the article" and that it would be changed slightly, but, if it was changed at all, it wasn't changed enough for me. It makes it look more like a school magazine article than something from an encyclopaedia. Someone else then goes on to say that the references seem to be ok now. Well, I've had to disabuse them of that notion I'm afraid. I've put some  tags on to point them in the right direction but I will shortly put on an refimprove tag if no-one does anything about them Richerman (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, a google search on "Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships" comes up with a number of hits including the website for the event and information-britain.co.uk so maybe I was a bit hasty on that one! Richerman (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to stand by your original view to be honest. This contest clearly exists but only around a sentence or two could be said about it. It looks like a minor annual cultural event in Ramsbottom, a bit like Haxey Hood in Haxey (though not as well referenced). All the exceptional claims should go until another user can supply a stronger source (a local history book or newspaper article would suffice). I'm not keen on using amature webspaces being used for verification. I think the main Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships should go (or redirect to Ramsbottom), the material being found on Ramsbottom anyway. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're probably right. There are 3 newspaper articles mentioned but someone would need to come up with dates etc. as I don't think they're on the web. Richerman (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramsbottom and black pudding championships 

message: I don't see the relevance of List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester (under "See also") to this article. Richerman (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great minds... -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch. I meant to remove this the other day, thanks for reminding me about it. Rt. 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grade I listed buildings in Manchester]] again!

message: I know most of you will not be on today, too busy playing with your new presents lol. Just wanted to say happy christmas to everybody on the project and many happy returns. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 12:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Christmas! 

message: Although I've being doing the newsletter for the past three months, I now feel it is the right time to hand the reigns over to someone else in the project. I'll leave it to the project to decide who does it, but I'll support anyone who is successful. I've had a great time writing it, and wish the best of luck whoever succeeds me. Best regards, Rt. 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done a good job in getting the newsletter started, but it's too much to expect you or anyone else to write the whole thing each month. What we probably need is an overall editor, with project members contributing most of the material for each issue? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a rota from those who express interest? I know there's about four or five editors who won't really need the newsletter as such, I see it as more for the benefit of those who are on the project's participants list, but not regular contributors. Perhaps they should get some input too? I also agree however Rudget has done an excellent job on the letter. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rota is probably not a bad idea, but why don't we think more seriously about Andrew's idea now, the GM news tag, to keep everyone up to date with what's happening in the project? Do we need both? I'm not sure that we do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh! Of course! Yes this might be a suitable sucessor, and one that's open to all. I'm wondering if the dis-engaged would have it on their userpage/talkpage though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, splendid, very good idea. I won't be too disappointed either way. :) Best regards, Rt. 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter