Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 8

message: I've only just spotted that Trafford has been nominated as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are no GA-class metropolitan borough aticles (at all, not just in Greater Manchester) it's a bit experimental so I thought I'd wait to see what happens before I mention it here. It's not FA quality but I think it should pass GA without a hitch. My biggest concern is what to put under the history section. Since the borough was formed in 1974, should it be 74 onwards or the history of the area before then as well? Nev1 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a simillar problem with Greater Manchester, though I tried to find bite of info about how it came about - same with Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. I'm not sure it's a standard but it might be a way to tackle it. There's no harm either (I don't think) in having a breif mention of any heritage it has. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Trafford]] 

message: Just wondered if anybody else felt they could contribute to this potential featured list? It would be great to turn some of the redlinks blue, and try to get the formatting of the tables equal to each other. I'm hoping we can get at least one suitable image for each subsection too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester]] 

message: I noticed that Wythenshawe Aerodrome was on the did you know section on main page today. I added it to our project did you know section and then had a look to see if there had been any more in the archive. I found another three and added those. The project aims say we wanted to get 3 articles related to Greater Manchester on the did you know section and it has already been done! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ) Rt. 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know? 

message: At Altrincham's FAC, a point was raised on where Altrincham gets its water from.
To put it bluntly, I haven't a clue and never really thought about it. Doesn't most of Greater Manchester get water from the Lake District? Is it "interesting and unusual" as has been suggested or just water under the bridge? Any ideas (and bad or weak puns) are welcome. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know, all of Manchester's (public) water comes from the Lake District, via the Thirlmere Aqueduct. Local places, like Trafford Park for instance have dug acquifers though, of course. So far as "interesting and unusual" is concerned, I hadn't really thought that it was either, except insofar as the engineering feat of getting 55 million gallons of water a day from the Lake District into Manchester without any pumping stations along the way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Oldham borough gets its water from.... Rochdale, of course! I think there's a list of reservoirs in Greater Manchester at List of places in Greater Manchester - some of those articles may provide some clues. Nice section title by the way, I just got it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there's more here than meets the eye. Oldham appears to get its water from 5 reservoirs in the Ogden Valley, at least according to this reference. Perhaps each of the old boroughs came to different arrangements about their water supplies? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh!  There are lots of water resources around. We have the Longendale chain of reservoirs on the Etherow.  We have the Fernilee reservoir (& the other one just above it) on the Goyt, some reservoirs in Lyme Park, and a borehole at Woodford feeding Wybersley WTW.  Tameside gets its water from Buckton Castle WTW. There are stacks more, but the biggie is the Lake District of course.  The Manchester UA's water supply is easily a big enough subject for an FA or two. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I know we get a large amount of our water from the lake district as I saw on BBC North West Tonight, during one of London's ever so frequent water shortages, MPs down there calling for us to send our lovely water down to the capital to solve their problems. The report did point out that it was something of an engineering feat to get so much water from the lakes down to our city and I can only begin to imagine the cost of sending down south. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That looks like a really good find! If the FA reviewer isn't satisfied with that then I don't know what they would be satisfied with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HTH. Can I leave it to you (or another of the Altrincham regulars, or indeed anyone) to weave it into the article?  Mr Stephen (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Nev1 doesn't do it shortly, then I'll have a go and he can change it as he likes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fantastic work! Congratulations! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thirst for knowledge...

message: Hello team,
I'm afraid my puns are not as good as User:Nev1's! I wondered how everybody thought about the latest discussion raised at Shaw and Crompton. The issue (as if my heading hadn't established it) surrounds the defintion of a "town", and could have implications for our fifty or sixty or so articles about "towns". In this capacity, I would welcome input there if anybody gets chance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goin' up town, Uptown girl, Townies 

message: A new user (User:Benmcg05) has created Manchester's Underground:Rumours & Truth.  I think that this should probably be merged to Guardian Exchange.  Anyone else got any opinions? Pit-yacker (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchester's very own conspiracy theory. My opinion is that it should be deleted rather than merged: it's almost completely unreferenced, based on hear say and the sources given are not very reliable to put it politely and I don't think there's much to salvage. The truth may be out there, but I don't think it's in the Guardian Exchange. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It couldn't be merged as it is written like a story plus it is twisted. There is the Guardian Exchange and another set of tunnels built as nuclear bunkers which have been un-officially proven to be real thanks to some urban exploration, the insides are very weird and mostly preserved. Obviously as nobody official has said they are real it is still classed as speculation and don't warrant an article. The Guardian Exchange was proven to be true after it caught fire and knocked out half the phonelines even though they said it was fireproof. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I think the article would be better off if it referenced the book mentioned at the end. It does have a very tabloidly feel with phrases such as "rumoured to have been funded by NATO" and "it is believed that some". Nev1 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And "What we do know is that the tunnels"... Who is we?! Looks like a copy and paste jobby. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with And-Rew and Nev1 on this; I think it should be deleted, and aggressively so. I think it breaks pretty much every Wiki-principle going! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) FWIW, most of the facts and figures were in the Winter 2003 issue of Manchester Forum (I don't think it's online anymore).  The "golly gosh" stuff is not there, however.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that article should be nominated for deletion. There's very little, if anything, of any value in it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you're right.  I'll prod it.  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester's Underground:Rumours & Truth 

message: Withington cotton house has appeared.  Never heard of this and I cant find any references to it on the web.  However, it does sound plausible as the site described does appear (from sat pics) to have a large "stone" area where a building appears to have been (see here.  Anyone know anything of this? Pit-yacker (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I know about it, but since it does sound plausible why don't we ask the author what sources they used? Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I use to live near there, and I remember hearing something of this. But no web/literary sources I'm afraid. Rudget. 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new article 

message: Hello team, 
Just a note that Stretford is up as a FAC. The link for the nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stretford. As has been suggested before for us, try not to jump in to support this for means of getting us a trophy - it wouldn't serve us well. Instead try to find ways in which the article could be improved!... Sorry for any patronisation on my part for that note, but I have to say it just incase people misunderstand!... However, that said, let's hope we can get another success under our belt!! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good reminder. Our aim isn't to get trophies, our aim is to produce the best articles we can about Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stretford]] FAC 

message: Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is coming along nicely and the basics are nearly sorted out. (I think) There's still one Grade I building in Bolton unaccounted for, so could anyone who knows about LBs or has an interest in Bolton's local history please take a look. Thanks. Nev1 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion has been undertaken on the talk page. Rudget. 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester]]

message: Would anyone oppose an unprotection? It's seems fine as is. But seeing as it's an FA, I thought I'd ask before I do. Best, Rudget. 10:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly won't object.  I suggested a period in the wild a couple of months ago, and it was unprotected, but it was reprotected fairly shortly afterwards (less than a week IIRC).  Let's go for it.  Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try it now. If the vandalism gets heavy, I'll protect it again. Rudget. 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Manchester]] 

message: Someone at IP address 82.17.212.218 has been vandalising the articles Newton Heath, Blackley and Droylsden. Could someone deal with it as I don't have the time at the moment. Richerman (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been done.  Mr Stephen (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me if he comes back. Rudget. 12:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Just thought the team might be interested in Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 3 -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEETUP]] 

message: I have just re-written the article on Little Lever, Bolton and it is currently in my sandbox. Took a little time to dig into the history and govenance but I managed to find something to expand the article. If anyone would like to take a look and add or suggest any further bits, please feel free. I will give it until next week (Jan 19th) and then replace the current article with the re-write. It would also be nice if someone could come up with a photo of the village as it is today.  Phil aka Geotek (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly an improvement on the existing article on Little Lever. I'd be inclined to follow the WP:UKCITIES guideline more closely however. The "General information" section is likely to be a point of contention should the article go to WP:GA or above. There are some images of the local churches at www.geograph.org.uk that might help a little. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have changed it around to WP:UKCITIES guidelines, thanks for the lead Geotek (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs! Looks great! Anybody else have any pointers for Geotek's sandbox proposal? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion and education are a bit listy. I assume the information in the demography section is taken from the neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk website? If this is the case the ref should link to the site, and there may be a bit more that could be added to the section. Other than that it looks nice. Nev1 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have been burning the midnight oil and got a pile of new stuff on the economics and demographics so will add that in. The demography stuff came from the actual census but I'll cross reference it to save confusion. I'll also edit those lists, was just trying to get something going.... still learning about editing Wiki and a lot to learn.... Also found a mass of stuff on Ladyshore Colliery so that will be my next stub expansion..... and a large phone bill back home !!  Thanks to all so far Geotek (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Lever 

message: Hello again team, 
Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is up for featured lists status. However, there are still lots of red dead links in the article. To pass this nomination we need to create stubs or articles about these structures. Can anybody answer the call???? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give you six-sentence stubs on the Edgar Wood Centre, t least one of the two Stockport churches and Dunham Massey Hall (to which the other two DM articles can be redirected).  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there used to be an article on that.  There is an image here if it is of any use.  Pit-yacker (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a short section on Dunham Massey Hall in Dunham_Massey#Dunham Massey Hall, do you want a link to that or a whole new article on it? —PolishName 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that for now it will be sufficient to link both Dunham Massey Hall and Dunhan Massey stables to th Dunham Massey article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Will do —PolishName 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be too difficult to create at least reasonable stubs for the red linked churches; I've just done one for Church of All Saints, Bury. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hopefully not. I've just done one for St George's Church, Heavily. —PolishName 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created one for Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Prestwich - now I'm off to bed! Richerman (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Woohoo! We did it! —PolishName 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it looked touch and go for a while, but in the end Nev1's diplomacy and perseverance finally managed to push it over the line.  --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester... again 

message: I know this is outside the remit of the project but I would like some advice. I came across an article on Winter Hill (Lancashire) and none of the text was referenced. I put in one reference myself and then added a refimprove tag. The following day User:PopUpPirate (an appropriate name as it seems) removed the tag leaving a note saying something to the effect of "instead of tagging why not contact the original contributors?". Am I right in thinking that this constitutes vandalism as the user has made no attempt to improve the article and removed a perfectly valid tag? I've reverted the edit but suspect I may now get into an edit war. If so, what's the next step Richerman (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism no, because the intention isn't to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The best way to resolve this is by discussion on the article's talk page; if that doesn't work then you'll find some suggested next steps here. FWIW, I'm not a great fan of those defacing tags either, but you're perfectly within your rights  to put one on the article if you think it's justified. Keep cool, and good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, after a look at the vandalism page I'd come to the same conclusion. However, I think the tags are important in alerting a casual reader who doesn't know what wikipedia is all about to the fact that the information may not be reliable. However I suppose putting something on the discussion page is a sensible thing to do. Thanks for the advice. Richerman (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter Hill 

message: An interesting page and part of a current ongoing campaign, I'm bringing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhead_Tunnel to the attention of peeps here.  Would it deserve to be part of the manchester wikiproject? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain that we've ever really established firm boundaries for this project - I'm reminded of the bot that added every football player that had ever played for Man Utd. I'm more sure about what I think the situation ought to be with geographical or engineering features like the Woodhead tunnels though, and it may even have been me who removed the GM tag. Are the tunnels within the borders of Greater Manchester? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the tunnel runs from Derbyshire to South Yorkshire I would have thought that it rightfully belongs to either or both of, the Yorkshire and Derbyshire wikiprojects. The only link with us that I can see is that the tunnels were once on the Manchester to Sheffield Line. Richerman (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ..and the M67, which initially was proposed to use one of the tunnels.  I think you're correct though, it probably belongs in one of the aforementioned wikiprojects.  I was interested to see how it would figure as a transport link between the areas. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodhead tunnels 

message: User:TimTay appears to have brought this one up again by creating a number of "Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" categories, moving articles to these, and tagging the Wigan ones for deletion (see: :Category:Education in Wigan, and :Category:Education in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan for example). Edit: As a side point, I still believe the earlier argument that categories are meta-data (and not meant for "human consumption") and thus keeping naming as simple as possible holds weight.Pit-yacker (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The last, er, formal discussion was here.  There was no consensus for change.  Swap back? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hopefully it's just a good faith misunderstanding on TimTay's part, and not the beginning of another long and tedious debate on this topic. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your view categories are metadata, so simple names are best. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's a good faith misunderstanding on my part. Category names should reflect the topic. Wigan is a town. Metropolitan Borough of Wigan is a district. These schools and colleges are part of the district, not just the town so the longer name is more appropriate. I don't see anything in WP:MOS or elsewhere saying that category names should be short. What they should be is meaningful and "Schools in Wigan" is not meaningful for a school 8 miles away in Leigh, for example. --TimTay (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaningful to who? Do you not accept the metadata argument that Pit-yacker has reminded us of? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain why metadata shouldn't also have a contextually correct name? There is no extra impact on Wikipedia by having a few extra characters in the category name. However, there is a benefit to people who aren't wikipedia savvy in seeing correct names used i.e. WMBC instead of Wigan. If you take a look at WP:MOS category naming conventions you will see that is says "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories". To be able to stand alone the category must use the borough's full name. That it is a sub category of Schools in Greater Manchester shouldn't affect it. The same page also says avoid abbreviations. In this case Wigan is being used as an abbreviation of the full borough name - I'm sure everyone accepts that the purpose the category is to group school in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, not just the town of Wigan, so IMHO the full name should be used. --TimTay (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because metadata isn't for human consumption, simple as that. The same point that you're making has been made many times before, and the consensus has always been to stick with the simple names. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by one person with a bee in their bonnet going off half-cocked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style is the distillation of consensus reached over the life of Wikpedia. Why would you choose to override that by using more abstract names. Where does it say in the MOS that categories are metadata? As for bee in bonnet and half-cocked, I would rather that you didn't resort to such insulting language. This is meant to be discussion not mud slinging. --TimTay (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, consensus.  The subject has come up before, and there is no consensus for change (see the discussion I linked to above, for example, and there are others).  There is consensus through usage, though.  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you think that was an insult then you really do need to get out more. ;-) I was making a general point about how wikipedia works, it was not targetted specifically at you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a possible link with 80.193.161.89 here, and thus I'd urge users not to go over previous debates where a strong consensus exists. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have reverted related changes to text and cat pages by TimTay (talk · contribs) (see my diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5).  Wait four days and we can speedy :Category:Parks and commons in Wigan Metropolitan Borough.  Mr Stephen (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of categories relating to the boroughs (again) 

message: If any GM-based photographers could take snaps of courts in their neck of the woods (Crown Courts, County Courts or 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. I'm also working on a list of closed courts, so photographs of former court buildings would be useful too. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you'd asked sooner. I was in Manchester Crown Court before Xmas - as a juror I hasten to add. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Have you checked Geograph? e.g. Wigan crown court. There are a lot of really good images, and a really easy way to add them to Wikmedia Commons using the  template. --TimTay (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I've bled Geograph dry of Crown and County Courts (and Wigan Crown Court is one I've added at List of courts in England and Wales#Crown Courts) - a great resource that more people should know about! There are still some mags' courts there I need to copy to Commons, one day... BencherliteTalk 09:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about courts no longer in use?  Theres one in Eccles, I worked in there a few years back on a BBC drama-doc. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The more the merrier. BencherliteTalk 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of courts