Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 1

message: If we accept WP's definition ("A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning and weaving machinery") then Royton's claim to the last cotton mill built in the UK is probably incorrect.  Carrington Viyella built a factory for spinning cotton in Atherton in 1978, see .  Mr Stephen 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Though there are a number of sources that state the contrary. Perhaps a rephrase (in the article), that "sources suggest that....". I've added triva that I know of to get things going in that section - so it may appear a little NorthEast GM heavy which I apologise for whilst we get going. Jhamez84 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like the cotton mill article itself needs a little work. We could do with a proper academic definition of a cotton mill first and foremost! Any good textile historians around? Jhamez84 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know: Royton

message: Doesn't Manchester City F.C. count?  Mr Stephen 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAs

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: WP:RM to Styal Line. Simply south 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Airport Line 

message: Are there any guidelines on the general format of an article on towns/areas within the Greater Manchester area? I expect the answer will be 'No', it depends on the specific town/area, but I've seen so many unremarkable lists of pubs, schools, shops, local factories, leisure facilities .. that I just thought I'd ask. :-) ---- Eric 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: I was wondering whether we should be moving a lot of Greater Manchester related images to commons?  The vast majority of images are only on English Wikipedia at the moment.  Although, I cant speak any foreign language well enough to write articles, making images easily available to those who (are most likely) not to live in the UK may help them in the writing articles for other languages? I am currently in the process of moving my images, however, I'm wary of moving other people's images just in case they are not happy with it Pit-yacker 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to move mine - I've added quite a few self-made images, as well as some from geograph.co.uk. Jhamez84 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and Commons 

message: Is it still the only UEFA 5* rated stadium in England? If so surely The Emirates Stadium and Wembley will also be rated 5* very soon. Just something to keep a check on I thought.
:UEFA don't release information about ratings very often. The most recent UEFA list was published before the Emirates and Wembley were completed. So at the moment OT is the only English stadium which is [[[WP:V|verifiably]] 5 star. UEFA used to email a list on request, but it appears they no longer do so. Oldelpaso 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Trafford

message: As a result of what Peteb16 said about losing track, this is an attempt to summarise the original dispute that sparked all of this. Speak up if you think I've missed something of importance or misrepresented anyone's views. Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main point against the category 'Oldham' is that the title is used as the name of the article about the town.  You have the same name applying to two different areas.  The 'Manchester' article is about the City of Manchester which covers the same area as the category.  I think it's madness to identify two different geographic locations by the same name, regardless of the proliferation of the usage. 88.104.38.124 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyperbole like "it's madness" probably doesn't really help your case. Which I have to say seems to me to be both parochial and obsessive. Exactly the same objection that you raise about Oldham could be raised about several other categories; Marple, for instance, is in the Stockport category, but it is not part of the town of Stockport. The point is that categories have a context. The context of the Oldham category, just like the context of the Stockport category, is the metropolitan borough, not the town. It may be that the context ought to be made more explicit, but that's no justification for a proliferation of Oldham categories. ---- Eric 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to move this on

message: Due to the edit wars over the introduction, I protected :Category:Schools in Oldham and :Category:Sport in Oldham yesterday. The introduction was going back and forth between
*This category lists schools in the town of Oldham and the wider Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England.
and
*This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in England.
Likewise for the Sport one and several others. Any preferences for either, or any additional suggestions (other than listing it on WP:LAME)? Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is for the second one. It's simpler, and since fundamentally they mean the same thing, as of course the metropolitan borough encompasses Oldham town, we might as well go with the easier one. M A Mason 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category introduction

message: Some Wikipedians are planning a meetup in Manchester on 8 June. Oldelpaso 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 2]]

message: Unfortunately, I'm perhaps a bit young to know about the case described in the above article.  Can anyone confirm the authenticity of the article?  Having searched the Internet, including The Times archive going back that far, there is no mention of it anywhere on the Internet other than on Wikipedia.  Nor is there any mention of the death of one of the accussed in 1999. If someone has access to an archive such as LexisNexis (any students/uni staff?) is it possible to get a few more references? Pit-yacker 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a hoax to me.  There is no Amhearset Road in the Manchester A-Z, but there is an Amherst Road in Fallowfield, which appears to be student lodgings see.  I suggest you prod it.  Mr Stephen 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cromwell house]] 

message: The 'Oldham' cats have been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham.  Mr Stephen 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which categories do you mean to be removed? Fingerpuppet 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that were up for discussion - Oldham and the sub categories. 88.104.121.24 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, in my limited experience a "No Consenus" result means the status quo (i.e. Oldham over Oldham MBC) holds for now, as it is also true that there is no mandate to move any articles. To achieve consensus, I guess it is necessary to go back to CfD at some point.  However, in my experience an immediate return to CfD will yield no change.  In other words, IMHO it is best left to settle for a while. Pit-yacker 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The discussion was about a proposition to rename categories, as no consensus exists to do so, we simply don't rename them. No one has ever discussed having both categories so, again, no consensus exists to do so. Do it if you want, but if you do, you're just adding to the confusion you were supposed to be avoiding in the first place and you're just asking for someone to justifiably slap a deletion notice on it. ~~ Peteb16 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "no consensus" doesn't mean the same as "rename". Fingerpuppet 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No consensus means there is no agreement for any other category system or renaming.  Any "alternative system" comes under WP:POINT and following comments like this I doubt you will get much sympathy for any of your arguments. Regan123 00:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct - the nomination was to rename them, and it was exactly this failed to achieve consensus. The policy therefore is to keep the existing categorisation. To maintain the otherwise goes against WP:POINT and WP:CON, and should be treated as such, for better or worse. Jhamez84 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, 6 supported the rename and 9 were against it. Not counting your second vote and a vote from an anonymous user whose vote was disputed due to their singular contribution to the site. I would personally concider any attempt to add to the categorisation conflicts as bad faith as it's clearly in retribution to people opposing you rather than for the good of the encyclopaedia. Furthermore I'd say that adding to the confusion for the reader by creating a conflicting category borders on vandalism. ~~ Peteb16 00:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm finding it really difficult to understand how someone can get so excited about a perfectly straightforward and simple geographical category. It beggars belief. ---- Eric 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'd expect this behaviour over actual important issues such as war or religion, but over this? Aren't there less trivial things to do here... Something to do with writing articles? I forget now, it's been so long. ~~ Peteb16 09:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldham categories at Cfd