Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 3

message: Hello project, 
It's a long time off (although seems to come around so quickly), but I've created a version of the Cheshire county map with the expected boundaries for 2009. It's found at :Image:Cheshire_outline_map_with_UK_(2009).png. Just wanted the project to be aware of these for when (if) the time comes. -- Jza84 • (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 

message: If any Cheshire-based photographers could take snaps of (current or former) courts in their neck of the woods (Crown Courts, County Courts and magistrates courts) and add them to commons:Category:Courthouses in the United Kingdom, the photographs would be very much appreciated for List of courts in England and Wales and List of county courts in England and Wales. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of courts 

message: Articles have now been written for all the Grade I and II* listed Cheshire churches - at least all I can find on Images of England. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheshire churches 

message: For those that don't watch the Cheshire portal subpages, I've just done a belated update. Suggestions for what to use in subsequent months would be useful! For those new to the project since the last update, there's a suggestions page for articles, biographies & images, as well as a timetable for suggested items without objections. We're still particularly short of good suggestions for biographies. 
PS If you're new to the project, I'd encourage you to list all your new articles & stubs in the relevant sections of the main Wikiproject page, as that's where I draw the material for the "Newest articles" section. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal update 

message: Please see my comment on Talk:Old Dee Bridge about the use of ChesterTourist.com as a reference.  Is this a reliable source?  It says itself that it is an unofficial site and some of the comments made seem to be without foundation.  Here it has a legend about Edward I and this has just been copied into the article.  Does anyone have more reliable information and references about the bridge to improve the Old Dee Bridge article? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with you. There is or was strong links between that site and the person who added enormous amounts of unreferenced material to Deva Victrix and other articles about Chester, and never responded to any messages inviting them to help wikipedia and those articles by beginning to add references to the articles. On another matter, I'm also not sure just why Hanford has the Welsh name added to its reference (and note its another one which has the Welsh name given in the lead in the article itself) when it is not clear just why it should be specially marked out in this way. I have a reference to the Old Dee Bridge as dating back to Saxon times (as it was mentioned in the Domesday Book), and I'll try to dig out some more. (The reference is on page 7 of the book: Wilding, R. (1997). Miller of Dee.:The story of Chester mills and millers, their trades and wares, the weir, the water engine and the salmon. Chester: Gordon Emery. isbn 1-872265952.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in Cheshire. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod talk 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a load (yesterday) and tried to put in either websites or contact details for them, too, to reassure people that they are real (like the "Cuckoo Clock Museum", for instance). May be there are more, or there are some which could be added but which I thought were outside the remit of the project? What kinds of places which one might not immediately think of as museums would be included?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, thats great. The remit & scope of the project is still being refined but it includes art galleries, heritage centres, historic houses that include interesting exhibits & are open to the public, museum ships etc but not zoos and aquariums (? aquaria) & the like as they are covered by other projects. Take a look at WikiProject Museums & its talk page for more.— Rod talk 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need a bit of care before adding articles on smaller local museums, such as Nantwich Museum, as I recall they have been deleted at AfD in the past. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is another instance where an overall article, titled perhaps, Museums in Cheshire could usefully be about all of them, with notable ones (some of which already exist) being split off from it?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Museums of/in Cheshire would be a useful article. Additionally, the ones of purely local interest could be included in the appropriate local article (town, CP). "Merge with locality" tends to be the AfD outcome for such entities. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museums in Cheshire 

message: There has been a long-running content dispute about the appropriateness of certain material added to Talk:The King's School, Chester#Despite discussion, how can the continuing dispute about adding the CCF past and present leaders in a series of lists be resolved?. I think it could do with some additional views from people who have been uninvolved up to now. Since this project has a banner on the talk page, it seemed sensible to invite people from this project to comment. Could I politely invite anyone with the time or inclination to read through the dispute and comment on the article's talk page? The article is under full protection at the moment, to stop the edit-warring that was going on with respect to the disputed material, and it could do with being resolved, one way or another, to allow development of the article to proceed. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside views requested to help resolve a dispute

message: I am appalled at the state of the Chester article, a key article and one that ought to be setting a standard for this project. Is there some reason why it's so poor? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been in a far far worse state, believe me. The reasons may well be various: too few active members of the project, too busy fighting fires elsewhere and writing other articles more close to one's home and interests. There's also been a high incidence of vandalism at times and poor-quality editing that adds tons of pictures and/or slews of text that seem to be from a tourist site, or wrangles with editors who think things should be done a different way, or who think certain sites should be included even though it goes against wikipedia's policy. Speaking for myself, it got so dispiriting that, given that Chester is a place I know comparatively little about, I just went and edited something else I knew better. I agree it is in a very bad state. But there again, there is much to do in many articles and many of them are in a poor state within the project.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know what you mean. There are lots of articles that I've completely given up on as hopeless cases. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always easier to start a new article properly than to fix a poor quality existing one, especially one that isn't referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been a problem since I arrived at Wikipedia (and presumably before), but the challenge has always seemed too great.  It will have to be rewritten, I think, virtually from scratch (this had to be done for Runcorn and Widnes).  The project has 32 avowed participants.  Could someone with the necessary reference material take this on?  Or perhaps individuals could take on sections (History, Governance, Transport, etc.) and build up a much better article, which we must all agree, is a key article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking back at the article's history. There have been sporadic attempts to work at improving the article, and back in November 2007, I edited the names and sequence of sections to make it conform more to WP:UKCITIES. Others have done work from time to time too. I've also tried to do something to the Governance section, and added material about the toponymy. The problem is that none of the active members of the project know much about the city, and, although I have some source material for what could go into parts of the article, my information is not complete. So, I'd support Peter's idea of us having effectively a task-force of the project to work on the article, with people taking on different sections. I could take on Governance and try to sort out the existing references so that they conform with guidelines (small work, compared with what needs to be done, I agree), but if we are to do this, it might be an idea to work on it section-by-section basis, and possibly in a sandbox somewhere prior to inserting in the article, which means a group effort for each section. I am easy with either approach. We need to harness some enthusiastic editors who may not yet be fully aware of all the issues about structuring articles, the need  for reliable sources, and so on. However, if a group of us agree to make a start on it, I'm in. It is an article we should ideally be prioritizing.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could start a Collaboration of the Month with Chester, and advertise it on the portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd be willing to help by taking on a section or two as well. I share DDStretch's concern about some of the current references as well. The standards for reliable sources seem to have got quite a bit tougher recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I'd like to help if I can. My editing time is limited at the moment, but this is something that has been long overdue for sorting out. I'm no expert by any means, although I have some knowledge of the city and the surrounding area, having spent time there studying some years back. I could assist with sorting out the formatting & finding citations/refs. I'm glad others feel the same as I do about the sorry state of the article. I too have been put off editing on this article because I thought it was a lost cause (for various reasons). It should be the flagship article of WP:Cheshire. Snowy 1973 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! I share all the above concerns, but I'd still love to help where I can! --Jza84 |  Talk   14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's listed on the portal as "Collaboration of the Month". As it's mid-month, I suggest we see how far we can get until the end of May. Someone capable of banner design might like to make one. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm willing to have a go at a section on Landmarks (including tourist attractions) plus Religious sites (which may well be incorporated in one section).  It will be a bit complicated to sort out thoughts initially so at least the first phase will be in my sandbox.  Then when it goes live, I would appreciate help with copyediting, etc.  Regarding self-publishing, I guess it's a bit like personal web pages.  If they are well and reliably referenced, they should be OK; if not, in my opinion, they should go. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll do the same as Peter, but for the Governance section  DDStretch  (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am appalled 

message: As members of the project may already have noticed, the Deva article was promoted to GA today (17 April). It's been suggested on the talk page that it could be improved further to FA and I think it's definitely worth doing. It's a very important subject and deserves a good, comprehensive article. As such, I'm asking for any help people can give, especially copy editing. It would also be great if someone could find or take some better images, the current ones are ok, but there must be a better one of at least the amphitheatre. There's currently a peer review of the article going on so feel free to drop by and add your opinions. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues raised at peer review have been addressed, the only thing outstanding is getting hold of a map, which I should be able to do in the next few days. I think it should be thrown to the FAC lions now rather than wait, does anyone else agree? Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! It would be good to have a truly Cheshire article as a FA.  I have made a few suggestions for tweaks on the talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and nominated it at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The nomination was unsuccessful, but there was some positive feedback, particularly from the lead co-ordinator of the Military history wikiproject. Once the article has undergone a copy edit, I'll resubmit it at WP:FAC, hopefully with more success. Nev1 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with this! It'll make a cracking featured article :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Deva Victrix]]... an update