Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 5

message: I am currently thinking about improving the Transport in Manchester article as it already has a very good base to start with and I need a little advice. I have created a table with all the stations within the City of Manchester on my sandbox page (not totally finished yet) and I don't know whether to put it on the Transport page or put it on a new page called "List of stations in Manchester" or something to that effect with a link at the top of the rail section. Also if anybody knows the opening years of the stations which have question marks please feel free to add them on my page. Thanks people. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 07:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to put disused stations in the article as well, such as Manchester Mayfield railway station? Fingerpuppet 10:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was put in a list article then yes definatly but if it goes to the Transport article I don't think it would be totally relevant. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say make it a list of. It seems odd to have the passenger numbers in thousands with three decimal places, they might as well be given as absolute numbers. Oldelpaso 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I was going to do it in millions at first which is what mainline stations are all in but the quickly realised that some of the stations are barely used. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Should the metrolink lines at Victoria and Picadilly get a mention or is it railways only? Richerman 15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure on that one as the list of lines at Piccadilly is going to be huge when I finish typing it so maybe I will just stick to railway lines. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of the material in that article pertains to Greater Manchester rather than Manchester (GMPTE, Metrolink, M60, etc). Would this article not be better titled Transport in Greater Manchester? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think another article could be created for Greater Manchester but I think this one should stay as Transport in Manchester as all the other large cities have a "Transport in [...]" article. I will make sure that one of the first things I do when working on the article is switch the focus solely onto Manchester. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of help please... 

message: Can I make members of this project aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination).  Comments and opinions in whichever direction would be appreciated to form a wide consensus. Regan123 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was delete all. Regan123 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Airport 

message: -- Jza84 · (talk) has already made a plea to look for better sources than www.manchester2002-uk.com, which is admittedly a very nice looking site. But every fact from that web site that I've had reason to double check with more reliable sources has proven to be incorrect, most recently this evening with the listed building status of Wythenshawe Hall.
We have a list of reliable sources on the project's main page, but the warnings about unreliable sources get archived and forgotten. Which they ought not to be. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps replacing all the citations of that site should be one of the  'Things you can do' on the project page?  I see from this page that the number of links is  now 131.  Mr Stephen 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, listed buildings in Manchester are here.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad source 

message: Hello team! Just a quick note that Oldham is going for WP:FA status! I hope you can spare a few moments to read and learn all about this poor old town! It's nomination page is found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham. Thanks guys, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck! Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ... anyway, I'm expecting the whole team to pitch in behind this FA nomination, and to help where they can. I will be for one. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was promoted.  Well done.  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup well done, the Oldham article is now officially  FA standard :) ---- WebHamster 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owdham! 

message: The time is right, I have nominated it for WP:FA status. All comments and support/opposition to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester please and hopefully this article, central to our project, will get the recognition it deserves! Also remember that if you have contributed significantly to this article please do not vote but you can still comment! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope it succeeds! Rudget.talk 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester 

message: In addition to my work here, I've been working with my other WikiProject (don't fret - it is related!), UK geography.
I co-wrote the WP:UKCITIES standard with some excellent users this summer, and am now involved with developing a WP:UKCOUNTIES standard. This could have implications for Greater Manchester, and our sister counties of Lancashire and Cheshire... and Merseyside!
I just wondered if users from this very strong team could spare a moment at take a look at WP:UKCOUNTIES and see what they think. If you spot a mistake, you are free to edit the guidelines at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I'll have a more detailed overview in the next few days. Rudget.talk 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UKCOUNTIES]] 

message: There seems to be a slow edit war here whether Lostock in Bolton is 
#Lostock
#Lostock, Bolton
#Lostock, Bolton, Greater Manchester
#Lostock, Greater Manchester
# or at the current name Lostock (Greater Manchester). 
An apparently there is another Lostock in Lancasire anyway (also called Lostock Hall). Simply south 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), in conjunction with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), standard disambiguation is always "PLACENAME, CEREMONIAL COUNTY", where disambiguation is needed. In this capacity, the article should be titled Lostock, Greater Manchester (without brackets). -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I would suggest that only where there are two places within the same ceremonial county should the form "placename, local authority" is preferred - unless one of the settlements is distinctly more important than the other, in which case the more important does not need the local authority suffix. See Springfield, Birmingham and Springfield, Wolverhampton for the former and Willenhall and Willenhall, Coventry for the latter. In this case, I don't see a problem with simply Lostock, as it's clearly the most important settlement of that name. Fingerpuppet 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware about the edit war or this discussion. I had noticed on my watchlist that Lostock was changed to Lostock, Greater Manchester, the present title. So I removed redirect for Lostock and created a disambigation page, but moved it to Lostock (disambiguation). I then directed any links for the one in Greater Manchester to Lostock, Greater Manchester. It was then I found about this discussion. I have to agree that there is only one called Lostock on Wikipedia's website, see List of United Kingdom locations: Lol-Lov‎. The others, for example Lostock Hall and Lostock Gralam are double-named places. I feel its a case that all or none of them should have the ceremonial county additional. Cwb61 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested a synop move from Lostock (Greater Manchester) to Lostock, Greater Manchester simply to ensure consistency. But, if no disambiguation is needed, a move to Lostock seems perfectly reasonable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realised about the title change and the naming conventions, the ceremonial county comes after a comma not in brackets. I've decided to leave its title as it is. If someone requests to move its title back to simply as Lostock, then I don't have any problem with that either. Cwb61 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lostock is an area east of J9 of the M60, between Urmston and Stretford.  On old maps of the area you can see the fields marked clearly.  Lostock Road heads in that direction, to J9 of the M60. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with this going ahead, but I would ask if we believe a Lostock, Trafford to be notable enough to get an article? Certainly the very smallest of areas are usually unlinked and mentioned in larger, "mother" articles. I'm not from that side of GM so I'm not sure myself, hense the question. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Lostock, Trafford is quite small and if it did have its own article the information would be minimal. But to stop any future disambiguation I thought it was best to move the present Lostock, Greater Manchester to Lostock, Bolton. I only found about the Lostock in Trafford was because I was looking information and references for the Lostock in Bolton. Cwb61 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a small note of Trafford's Lostock on the Lostock (disambiguation) page so people will know it exists but doesn't have an article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lostock edit war 

message: I've found there is a second Lostock in Greater Manchester, which is in Trafford. By using a search engine and typing Lostock+Trafford+Stretford, comes up with a number of results. For a few examples: Lostock Neighbourhood Forum 1, Lostock Community High School 2, and Index to places served by school buses in Trafford 3.
There are some Wikipedia articles mention about this second Lostock. In the Trafford article mentions the Lostock settlement in North Trafford, and in the Stretford article has a Lostock library. In the articles First Manchester and Stagecoach Manchester refer to the Lostock in Trafford Borough.
I suggest the present article Lostock, Greater Manchester moved to Lostock, Bolton. The second Lostock could then be Lostock, Trafford. Cwb61 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lostock is an area east of J9 of the M60, between Urmston and Stretford.  On old maps of the area you can see the fields marked clearly.  Lostock Road heads in that direction, to J9 of the M60. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with this going ahead, but I would ask if we believe a Lostock, Trafford to be notable enough to get an article? Certainly the very smallest of areas are usually unlinked and mentioned in larger, "mother" articles. I'm not from that side of GM so I'm not sure myself, hense the question. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Lostock, Trafford is quite small and if it did have its own article the information would be minimal. But to stop any future disambiguation I thought it was best to move the present Lostock, Greater Manchester to Lostock, Bolton. I only found about the Lostock in Trafford was because I was looking information and references for the Lostock in Bolton. Cwb61 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a small note of Trafford's Lostock on the Lostock (disambiguation) page so people will know it exists but doesn't have an article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Lostock in Greater Manchester 

message: New look! - Still working on it. Hoping to get it to WP:FPO! Rudget.talk 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good! If there's anyway I can help, perhaps with making graphics, do please give me a shout! -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It's up as a candidate now. Hoepfully I've done everything right. Rudget.talk 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: As you probably all know, Manchester is up for WP:FAC but since then a user has been to the article and tried to improve the demography section. I do believe it is the weakest section of the article and I have done a bit of a re-write of it and expansion on my sandbox but it needs a bit more text so it at least fills past the population history graph. So if anybody can help add some more information to it and correct anything I have done wrong. It needs to be done pretty quickly really before the FAC closes. Thanks in advance! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could people please take a look at the newly updated Manchester demography section and correct anything I have made a mistake on please! I am bound to have done something wrong! Thanks. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me! A vast improvement on the previous version. It feels much more FA standard now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need the full addresses. I also think it could (albeit innocently) be a breach of WP:NOT#DIR. I don't have strong feelings on this though; I will certainly sleep at night if it stays or goes! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Mr. I removed them for now as your right about the directory policy but if somebody feels strongly otherwise with a fair rationale they can be put back on. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you made the right call in removing the consulate addresses. And your new improved Demography section looks great. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! There doesn't seem to be many comments being made on the FAC so maybe that is a good thing? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope so. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick bit of help please 

message: I am going to try to make List of companies based in Greater Manchester, a featured list. It might take a while though. Just thought I'd tell you! :) Best, — Rudget contributions 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! Would you put putting it into tabular form with details of the town it is located in, revenue, profits, established date etc? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even better than what I was thinking. And seen as there are no other lists like it, it might be that bit harder. But, always one for a challenge regarding an article, or list. — Rudget contributions 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Well if you have trouble finding any figures or data I am sure others and I will be able to help you. Good luck. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of companies based in Greater Manchester]]