Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 6

message: The December issue of the newsletter, which has been a success thankfully, won't be delivered (or indeed wrote) tomorrow. I'm sort of snowed under with pressure at the moment. I'm trying to get Vatican City to GA, do the above list which I've still not edited, help write a section on the signpost and do my Macbeth coursework. Ah geez. It'll probably be delivered on the 5th. All the best, — Rudget contributions 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I did at least get time to write this today. :) — Rudget contributions 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Chinatown article, we definatly needed one. Good luck with your Macbeth essay, that's the most important of your to-do list! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad news

message: Just a quick recap on a proposal someone made in the talk page archives... do we plan to update our project's aims any time in the near future?? If so (and I'm welcoming input here), can I make the following suggestions for us?:
*Bring Greater Manchester upto GA.
*Bring Salford and City of Salford upto GA. (rationale being it is our other city).
*Bring at least one metropolitan borough (without city status) upto GA. (maybe we can elect say Metropolitan Borough of Stockport as it the most populous?)
*Bring Stretford and Altrincham upto FA (rationale being they are so close to it!)
*Bring at least one "topic" related to Manchester upto GA.
*Develop all of our "Top priority" articles towards GA/FA.
What do folks think? Do we need to drop/ammend/add to this list? Any ideas for timescale? What about getting one of our FA's on the mainpage for the day? Anything about new users or articles? Just somethings to think about, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds ambitious yet very achievable, if everyone pitches in! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if we all pulled together we could push Greater Manchester up to FA standard, skipping GA, as it is so important. Thanks to Jza84 and others there is now the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines so there is plenty to go off plus there is a small handful of FA counties already to learn from. Maybe a our first collaboration of the month? If we decide that would be useful someone can post a message to all members of the project requesting some help and I think we could get it done in no time at all! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somerset is up for FA, so might be useful to look at that for ideas. — Rudget contributions 11:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aims? 

message: I'm going to start the newsletter in a day or so, once my part in the signpost goes live. Best, — Rudget contributions 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: — Rudget contributions 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good news! (for once, apart from Manchester gaining FA, probably)

message: I have been looking at the Pendlebury article and I can’t understand how it got a “B” rating as it’s a jumble of unrelated and unsubstantiated facts. These are the problems I’ve found with it. 
*There are only five references in the article, four of which are in the lead paragraph. 
*There is no demography section.
*There’s nothing about the origin of the name or the change from Pendleburgh to Pendlbury.
*The early history section has a line and a half of early history about King John in 1199 (with a “citation needed” tag) and then goes straight on to the charter of incorporation in 1934, which hardly counts as early history in my book.
* There is a heading “The industrial Revolution and Coal” but all the text is about coal mining after WW2. 
*Under “Civic History” there is suddenly a sentence about the location of Pendlebury which doesn’t seem to relate to anything. 
*The Geography section consists of one sentence. 
*Under “Landmarks” there’s a bit about the church which then goes on about the Clifton hall Colliery disaster without giving a date, but then gives the date for the pit closure.
*The “landmarks” section then goes on at length about Agecroft Hall, which was demolished moved to Richmond, Virginia in 1925 and so is hardly a landmark in Pendlebury any more. In fact there is a stub  Agecroft  Hall which I think would be a much better place for most of the information, with a link from the Pendlebury article.
*There’s no mention of the rather large war memorial sited in the town 
*There’s a sentence all on it’s own in the middle of the “Railways” section that reads “Perhaps ironically, the surviving Swinton railway station is also located in Pendlebury, meaning that the town once featured 3 railway stations within its boundaries” What does that have to do with anything?
*There are a number of external links scattered through the article and then an “external links” section at the end.
When I have time I’ll have a go at rewriting the article but in the meantime shouldn’t a collection of unreferenced bits and pieces like this be rated as start-class at best? Richerman (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this was my mistake. I apologise unreservedly. But it would be nice to get some additional interest and feedback here on the article in the meantime ;). -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No apologies needed, I was just a bit mystified really.Richerman (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been no more discussion I've changed the rating to start class and added a cleanup tag Richerman (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pendlebury article 

message: I just came across this website which may be of interest to any of you geographers out there if you didn't know about it already http://www.bench-marks.org.uk/. It gives the location of all the benchmarks and trig points in the country with distances between them etc. Although it's a bit complicated for a bear of little brain like me to use it looks as if it might be useful. It even lists benchmarks on buildings that are long gone such as the colliery buildings in Pendleton - which is how I came across it in the first place. Richerman (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent source. It looks like a really good one for the mother UK geography WikiProject. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like it, I thought it looked useful for something!!! Richerman (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bench mark database 

message: I just created the  template, to be used on all the Metrolink stations articles. Unfortunatly I had big hardware failure problems and now need to spend my time recovering my laptop so I can keep doing all my uni assignments. So basically could somebody put the template on all of the Metrolink station articles please, I have not put it on any yet. Thanks in advance! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the stations which are in bold are the ones with rail connections as part of the station, I don't know how/if I should point this out on the template so feel free to add if it needs it! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent template! Looks like it might be best placed on articles by someone with access to an AWB. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Making a start now.  Mr Stephen (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to all the articles in :Category:Manchester Metrolink Bury-Altrincham line stations and :Category:Manchester Metrolink Eccles line stations - see  links.  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small favour 

message: When I first started looking for info on Kersal on the British History "Townships" website I found the word "thegnage" that I thought was a misprint. Then I joined the project and kept finding the word as I looked for info on other places so I decided to  google it to find out what it meant. And where was the only place I found information on it? the wikipedia article on thegn of course, which explained all. Well ok, I admit it. I thought it was pronounced "theg - nage"! I knew Macbeth was the "thane of Cawdor" but I didn't know it was originally spelt thegn. In the few months since I joined this project I've learned more about history, local and otherwise, than I have in the previous 58 years. I've found out about the amazing achievements of unsung local heroes like William Crabtree and Jeremiah Horrocks and the man who invented the micrometer William Gascoigne and then felt compelled to sneak off and write an article on the man who carried on their work Richard Towneley. I've also edited articles about newts and all sorts of things (sorry guys but I needed a break!) and after a chance remark by another editor about Aspergers looked it up (in wikipedia of course) and found out that Isaac Newton was thought to have it. So without Aspergers we wouldn't have the work of Newton or Einstein and we'd be more ingnorant about the universe without it. How cool is that Hammie? And I've also discovered little covens of wikignomes that beaver away at all hours of the day and night just for fun. It's a bit like finding the Borrowers under you floorboards! Keep it up lads and lassies and one day we could conquer the world. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the best thing I've ever read on Wikipedia! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't wikipedia amazing? 

message: Just to inform you that this WikiProject will become featured in this week's signpost. (Which was meant to be posted yesterday) :) — Rudget speak.work 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! We're going to be famous! Great stuff. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, lost me for a minute there..... you mean Signpost - nice interview! Richerman (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:POST

message: Just an idea. Anyone up for some deletion sorting. I came across an example before, you can see it here. — Rudget Contributions 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a good idea, but one that as a confirmed eventualist I'd probably be quite unsuited to. I'd be running myself ragged trying to do enough work on nominated articles just so that they wouldn't be deleted. :) I haven't yet seen an GM article that I'd felt like nominating for AfD anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant it as a display board for all members of the project to comment on a single page containing all GM related articles. It may encourage bias, but hopefully it wouldn't occur. — Rudget Contributions 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see, sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were proposing a separate GM:AfD. In that case I'm heartily in favour of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's quite alright. Just have to try and persuade the others now. Hopefully, it'll go down like my last suggestion. :) — Rudget Contributions 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be keener to see a system for stub sorting!... however, looks good, though like Malleus I'm not sure I've seen many GM articles suitable for deletion, if any! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion sorting

message: Anybody think we could make one of our FA's hit the mainpage sometime soon? I'm thinking Manchester. Does anybody have any experience with the nomination process? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking into that already and basically I think we need to choose a date to nominate it on and the current noms seem to choose dates relevent to the subject to give a rationale for the nomination. Manchester was the article I was trying to nominate but I couldn't think of any big dates in the Mancunian calendar. Also only five nominations at a time are allowed and it seems to be constantly full. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be nice to book 1 April 2008 for Greater Manchester then, if we can get it to FA by that time!... I can't really think of a rationale for a specific date that would allow us to display any of our FAs. It certainly seems like something we should consider for the project though; WP:KENT has had a couple of their FA towns displayed in the past, and todays FA Lethbridge looks not too dis-simillar from a few of our FAs. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the date of the Peterloo Massacre? — Rudget Contributions 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good one! Though its 8/9 months off!... there's the "Christmas Blitz" on the nights of 22/23 and 23/24 December 1940 which is round the corner. 15 June 1996 was the IRA bomb. The article doesn't give the exact date as to when Manchester was granted City status - just the year. That needs fixing regardless! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I suppose it's a bit of a lengthy while until August 16th, but the Christmas Blitz idea is good! I'd pick that out of all the others. But it all depends on the users who (!)vote on whether or not to display it. — Rudget Contributions 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is that the Christmas Blitz article is still a stub. Still there's always next year. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 2008 is a big year of sport in Manchester, see here.  One of the showpieces is the UEFA cup final "televised live in over 200 countries and territories worldwide" on 14 May at COMS, but I guess any on this list would be OK.  Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The stadium is already an FA, so that looks like a good candidate for 14 May. The 21st June is also a good candidate I think; the 60th anniversary of the running of the world's first stored programme at Manchester University in 1948, on the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Heck, I bet there are lots more significant dates than we've got featured articles to nominate - so far, anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchester City F.C. and City of Manchester Stadium have already appeared on the Main Page. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Most Main Page selections do not appear there as the result of a request - submitting it at featured article candidates implicitly acts as a form of request. The scheduling is determined by the featured article director, User:Raul654. The request page is only used for cases where a specific date is desired. Raul gives some explanation of the selection process at User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#The_main_page_featured_article. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article]] 

message: I've just assessed the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine article as top priority. Does everyone else agree with that assessment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that, though can't say I know much about it beyond the obvious! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that it's a subject close to my heart, so I thought I'd better check that I wasn't letting my heart rule my head. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would everyone else agree?