Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 2

message: A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Category:People from Ealing by district about upmerging local area categories for People from... into current local government boundaries only.  This could have implications across the whole of England if carried through.  Your are invited to join the discussion.  The proposer is planning a massive merge by 22nd June if no objections are received. --Regan123 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People from Categories 

message: Can I bring to the attention of the project user 88.104___. Following his failed nomination of the recatagorisation of the Oldham Borough, he appears to be excerting a new geographic frame of reference on the Royton article.
He uses dynamic IP addresses, and has issued some minor threats.
From the evidence I've gathered, it is my personal concern and interpretation that he is a long-standing chronic troll and sockpupeteer who has been banned in the past. Community support and commentry is welcomed. Jhamez84 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it about Royton/Oldham that feeds such obsessive behaviour? Is it racially motivated? Whatever the reasons, the Royton article is starting to look like a mess IMO. ---- Eric 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal, humble opinion is it is racially motivated - and that is assuming good faith! Frankly, the borough of Oldham has a very poor council (verifiably so!), as well as a lot of underlying socio-cultural problems - which means some highly disgruntled Oldhamers who want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I've worked hard to combat this, but I agree, without support, some articles like Royton are messy. Jhamez84 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 88.104... 

message: Is there a standard format for articles in this project? Information that ought to be included, sections, ordering of sections and so on? ---- Eric 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone else has the same question, the answer is WP:UKCITIES. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a standard format?

message: Hello all. The Manchester article is now up for peer review here in order to obtain comments on how to bring it up to Featured Article status. Anybody who could contribute anything to the review please do not hesitate to add your comments as they would be most welcome. Thank you all! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchester certainly looks better than it once did!!! I'll certainly take a look at this article, and give a couple of interested parties a nudge about pushing towards FA. The references to me seem to be the biggest problem. Jza84 23:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Manchester]] [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester|Peer Review!!]] 

message: Didsbury is currently a GA nominee but has been placed on hold whilst suggested improvments can be made. I'd appreciate any editors who would help me in instating Didsbury as a good article per the criteria on the talk page. Thanks. Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Didsbury]] 

message: I was looking at some other editors usertalks and seen some monthly newsletters. I was wondering whether the same idea could be applied to this project? To view the outline of the monthly see here. Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you can sign me up! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool - Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do sign me up too :) M A Mason 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. Will start as soon as. Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! A great idea! Jza84 12:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsletter?

message: I have submitted a request for a wikipedia ad for this WikiProject as people have said they would like to see more members. Please see here and feel free to add anything on to my request going into any specifics you want on there. Cheers └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is truely excellent stuff! I think this project is becoming ever more pro-active and we're really starting to function as a team - even if I say so myself! Jza84 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia ads 

message: Are there any users of the project that have any idea where we might obtain climate figures at a more localised town or borough level? Manchester as a major city obviously has a weather station and well publicisised average figures, and thus has a beautifully rendered climate table for its article.
However, there appears to be nothing I can find from a cursory search of the web that gives figures for Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton etc etc, which to me is a great shame in furthering the articles our next tier of major settlements in the county. Any body out there with any suitable ideas/books/sources/solutions? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this list (warning, large page) of all the Met Office weather stations, there are stations at Manchester, Manchester Airport, Urmston, Bolton (several), Rochdale, Prestwich, Oldham, Royton, Altrincham, pretty much everywhere, though whether that data is available is another matter. You can get all sorts of data from the Met Office, but I think they charge for anything beyond the basics. As for non-Met Office weather stations, I've found this one for Salford, but little else other than school ones, which are used for education rather than long term data collection. Oldelpaso 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who wrote the majority of the climate section on the Manchester article and created the climate table and when researching the data it all came from the Manchester Airport weather station. I am unaware of any other weather stations in Greater Manchester which data is published for. I think the best place to start would be to email Dianne Oxberry from BBC's North West Tonight as if anybody knows the weather of the North West it will be her. I don't see why she would not help us as she is a lovely woman and great at her job. If we found out where she gets her data from we could probably use it here although she may only use the major weather stations but who knows! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate facts and figures 

message: I have come across an article that comes under Greater Manchester that appears to be based on a misconception. The article on Don Estelle says that he was born in Rochdale. He is then included in the Rochdale article (which also doesn't give a reference, and has a cleanup tag) under "Notable residents". However, I know two people who grew up with him in the Cheetham Hill area who tell me he lived on Founain St. which is either Cheetham Hill or Crumpsall (I need to check that out) both before and after the war. They didn't know exactly where he was born but were pretty sure it was in that area. He certainly died and was buried in Rochdale, and there is a BBC webpage herethat says he was buried in his "home town" of Rochdale but then goes on to say he was born in Manchester. I wonder if this is where the miconception, if indeed there is one, came about? A google search throws up a lot of sites that say he was born in Manchester, or more specifically Crumpsall, and only one or two that say he was born in Rochdale. I have put questions on the discussion pages for both articles but so far there have been no replies. I am tempted to just change the article and it's category but I'm concerned that the original contributor may know something I don't. I am trying to find out more information via a friend who's into genealogy but I am worried that an unreferenced article like this just makes us look amateurish - especially if it's wrong. I have even seen a web discussion where someone suggested a Rochdale Street should be named after him! I have put an unreferenced tag on the article for now and will change it if and when I get more information. Is there anything else I can do? Richerman 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be afraid to be bold! If you have a reliable source you are entitled to challenge and change the material. If there really is a conflict of sources, then there is no harm in saying this in the article. If you read the first section on the Gordon Brown article, one can find a simillar example of how to go about this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper obits seem agreed that he was born in Manchester.  Independent - Don Estelle was born in the Crumpsall district of Manchester; Telegraph - Don Estelle was born in Manchester; Guardian - Born in Manchester; Times - Born in Manchester.  Mr Stephen 19:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've found the dispute tag now and put that on both articles. maybe that will bring someone out of the woodwork. Richerman 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect unreferenced article 

message: Did anyone see the article on the future of wikipedia in New Scientist recently? You can read it  Here They're talking about making wikipedia more reliable by having edits invisible for 30 days unless they are from a trusted editor - i.e. one who has a good history. It sounds ike an excellent idea to me. Richerman 13:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link's broken. Nev1 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out Wikipedia:Stable versions and the links from there.  Mr Stephen 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 2.0 

message: Could I bring to the attention of the project that www.manchester2002-uk.com is a self-published tertiary source and thus a breach of the reliable sources criteria. It's a lovely site, but contains alot of inaccuracies, point of view content, and doesn't itself cite its own sources.
I've seen it being used in a number of articles, albeit innocently, but it really is one to avoid. Local history books (secondary sources) are always a higher quality source for historical infomation, and would recommend all users to try to go for this kind of source. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good call, I'm sure I've used that site as a reference myself more than once, have to go back and check some time. On a somewhat related topic, I'm becoming a fan of separating the References section into two subsections: Notes and Bibliography. That way, for printed sources, it's much easier to point to the page number(s) in the relevant book/magazine. I've started doing it on the Stretford article, but before I go much further with it I'd appreciate any views comments on that structure. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been here before, see talk:Manchester#Featured Article.  I'm for the name/page structure where there are multiple references to a single book, and we did once have it for most of the refs in the Manchester article.  Mr Stephen 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so we have, I'd forgotten about that. Pity we didn't choose to go with the Johannes Kepler style of references. It works particularly well, as you say, when there's more than one reference to the same book. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There's 128 links to manchester2002-uk.com as of now, see here.  Not all are in article-space but it still points to a fairly big cleanup. Mr Stephen 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 127 now. Good call on this by Jza84. I saw two or three in that list that I thought might be down to me, so I checked the first of them, and blow me down it seems not to have been right. It wasn't a big thing, only the date of a park being donated to Manchester City Council. www.manchester2002-uk.com said 1914, Manchester City Council said 1919; maybe they're both wrong, but I changed the reference to agree with what the council says. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad source