Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hello again,

Just to let you know I've been busy creating a High Sheriff of Greater Manchester article, to bring us inline with the rest of the British Isles. On my search for material, I came across www.gmlo.org, which is a rather useful source for the project. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Wilmot would be getting on in years... Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know! Well spotted! Me thinks we need a disambiguation there! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Came across City Centre (Manchester ward) and wondered if it should be deleted. Its contents appears in Manchester City Centre. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it into a redirect. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good call. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester was abolished in the 80s ([1]). It's always Oldhamers (we have some rather vocal groups here)... I'll try to convince the user otherwise, but ask that you can watch Kezzer37 (talk · contribs). Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One of our project's short term aims is to elevate this article to FL status. There's not been an awful lot of activity on the article recently (25 edits so far in 2008). This does seem like a bit of a waste since it seems close to FL, in fact the only barrier I can see at the moment is the short lead (criterion 2). So I'm asking for ideas, what do people think? How could we improved? Should we be bold and throw the article straight into the WP:FLC process now and see what happens? Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the IMDB is/was given as an example of an unreliable open source, but this needs clarifying. I think we've discussed images in the past too. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned about Mcyssjm2 (talk · contribs). I believe some of the pages he's contributed to need deleting, namely:

• Jim McMahon (politician)
• Failsworth East
• Peter Dean (politician)
• Failsworth West

--Jza84 |  Talk  12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Jim McMahon (politician) article is certainly missing a lot of citations and looks a like personal research. It also needs a bit of a clean up (I'm not sure why most of the text in within a thumbnail). The other articles aren't too bad, just a little stubby that's all (in my opinion at least...) —PolishName 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the main question here is are any of these notable enough? There's been a previous debate on the notability of councillors resulting in the deletion of several articles (I can't remember where the rest are as it's a long time since I came across it). Even the Roy Oldham article, about the leader of Tameside council and the longest serving councillor in Britain I think, was deleted and he is more notable than either of the politicians mentioned here. Also, councillors' articles (oddly enough, mostly from Oldham) have previously attracted a lot of vandalism and POV pushing. I'll also draw Aileen Bell (politician) to attention as I don't think she satisfies WP:NOTABLE.

Regarding the wards, I think they should be merged into the Failsworth article, rather than clutter up the project with stubs on small wards that are not likely to be greatly expanded. I can't see them being expanded without duplicating information already in the Failsworth article. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI another councillor, Pav Akhtar, just about survived two runs at AfD. First and second. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the case of Pav Akhtar is slightly different; Akhtar is notable for reasons other than being a local councillor. The people highlighted here are 'just' local politicians and notability is not asserted. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would delete all of them (I AfD'd PA and stand by my nom). WP:NOT a soapbox, free webspace, etc. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the politicians (and the articles too) and try to integrate the info from the wards into the Failsworth article and have them as redirects. Does anyone disagree? Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not me. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor me. Not sure about the articles though ... ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you guys are right; delete them ;) —PolishName 07:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we've got 5 people agreeing here, and no one disagreeing, I've gone ahead and turned the ward pages into redirects after adding a couple of sentences to the Failsworth article. Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to try and get the politicians speedily deleted as I can't see a debate elsewhere being very productive. Nev1 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just reread WP:PROD (I'd confused it with WP:AFD) and have prodded the articles. Should be sorted soon. Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that you only have to take it to AfD if another editor decides to remove the prod tag, and I can't see that happening in this case. But stranger things have happened I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous last words, User:81.152.188.90 has removed the tag and reinstated unsourced information. Next stop AfD. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bundle them all up into one discussion, I think. Also for your bundle: Barbara Dawson. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)Done. I'll have a look myself, but I'll ask others to have a quick scour for GM councillors who could be added to this debate. Nev1 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was "delete all". Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly only the articles though. The politicians are still there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time ;-) Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let everyone know that the Greater Manchester Army Cardet Force has a very simillar badge to us! There's even one for sale on eBay (nothing to do with me guys, just showing it as an example!) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've long thought that Wikipedia could do with an entry on the Irwell Valley considering it's importance to the area industrially and now as a nature trail - so I've created a basic page, copied lots of text from other articles, and just thought I'd bring it to the attention of others. I'm going to have my tea now, I shall continue work on it later on :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a great start. Well done! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

... or indeed any administrator. Are there any of the GM tagged articles that are unwatched? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm struggling for Wiki-time this week, so my editting abilities have been impaired. However, I've still got time for a a quick answer... in short, I'm not sure! I haven't quite worked out how to find and seek unwatched articles amongst some very (expectedly) mediocre buttons! I'll have to get back to you on that! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's actually possible to do this, at least with the current set of tools. Basically, Special:UnwatchedPages (which is restricted to admins) only has a static list on it, which are regenerated every so often. It only seems to have the first ~ 1000 entries on it, which currently doesn't get out of the numbers (lots of entries on asteroids have been added recently, which has probably clogged it up). Mike Peel (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there's someone already working on this. [2] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a supplementary question. Can administrators see who's watching a page? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If they can, then it's not easy to work out! To me, it looks like additional "block", "protect" and "delete" buttons, ONLY. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  18:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there also some extra special pages that you can see? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they can't. The reason why is partly explained on Wikipedia:PEREN#Create_a_counter_of_people_watching_a_page. I guess the reason why it doesn't exist solely for admins is that no-one's thought up a use for it that's compelling enough to write such a tool.

The main buttons I find myself using are the delete and protect buttons (in that order). Block is also useful every so often, as is the ability to view deleted pages. While there's a couple of other bits, those are the functions you gain when you become an admin. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks Mike. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What do people think about the latest work by Yorkshirian (talk · contribs)? He's a self-styled traditional counties advocate. I'm not happy with edits like this to our highest priority article. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, take a look at his last 4 or 5 edits, and summaries. See also Talk:Greater Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's views have no place here. His history shows a disregard for the truth and he seems to believe Yorkshire still exists as something more than it really is. It's a shame he's chosen to attack our county, why not attack the West Midlands or Merseyside as they are in the same position as ours. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I really don't see the problem either. Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county, and is a ceremonial county - I can't see disagreement on this point. The question is all about is it "a former administrative area" or not. Well, he's provided a reference for it, and quite clearly there is no County Council doing any administration across the area any more; whilst there are joint bodies populated by representatives from the Metropolitan Borough councils, these aren't covered by Acts of Parliament or the like as far as I'm aware. The best example for this is for the joint body that deals with waste - IIRC Wigan MBC have nothing to do with it. It's one of those marvellous grey areas that we get every so often. I wouldn't have a problem with him saying the same sort of thing (as long as it's referenced) about any of the other Metropolitan Counties. It's also the case that Greater Manchester is right next to Yorkshire, so he's probably simply more interested in a more local topic for him.

As far as I can see, it's got nothing to do with traditional counties, as he's not trying to say "Lancashire" or "Cheshire" at any point. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit to Cheesden Valley, I wondered if anyone could have a quick shufty and see if it's allright, and possibly add anything to it? I plan to add co-ordinates to the mills at some point but not right now as I'm lying on the sofa with my lappy, and the cat sleeping on my chest. Not exactly ideal! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A nice start, but I don't think the payrent.co.uk reference will stand up to scrutiny as a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have to amble down to the library for better sources then :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like the picture next to the lead, but could it be bigger? The peer review of Kersal Moor suggested using {{wide image}} for panorama images, perhaps at the end of the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a panorama, I'm not sure it looks right though - my monitor is 1680 wide so it looks a little odd. Is there an option to automatically size it? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like that panorama at the end of the article, but perhaps it's just me. I also think that the image in the lead should be a bit bigger, perhaps 300px? I think the MoS advice is only to avoid setting image sizes to less than 300px, as that's the highest resolution that a user can set via preferences. I could be completely wrong though. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so I changed it back but enlarged the image slightly. The annoying thing, the really annoying thing is that I planned to go up there again and take that picture again but with better equipment and from a better angle, now they've built sodding great windmills all over it, totally ruined the view :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's where they are. You can see them from miles away. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are signs that human activity was taking place in around 8000BC." The source (I'm assuming megalithic portal is the source) doesn't give the date of the activity, it gives the range of the Mesolithic so I think that sentence could be dropped as it's slightly misleading. Also, do you know if Wind Hill is in or around the valley? This link mentions Bronze Age activity. Nev1 (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are signs of human activity in Heywood dating from about 8000 BC." The connection needs to be made between Heywood and the Cheesden Valley. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I hope this isn't considered spam but it seemed like a suitable place to ask around and see if there might be people here who would be interested in supporting and contributing to a Wikiproject focusing on Merseyside. I'm trying to gauge if there is suitable interest before making a formal proposal. Cheers Zenichiro (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw a book on the Manchester Terrier the other day and thought I'd look to see if there was an article about it. Of course there is one called Manchester Terrier, which is embarrassingly badly written, with a large chunk of text plagiarised from an American website. That's assuming they didn't copy it from wikipedia of course. However, I thought it may be of interest to the project members all the same, especially as it's considered an endangered breed in the UK. I'll have a go at improving it when I get some time. Richerman (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I cam across an article Cheadle Bleachworks, that is being considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheadle Bleachworks, it looked like it should be part of your project so I added that, and I came here to see if you have a listing for project articles that were in an AfD and found this link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester#For_Deletion but it does not seem to go anywhere other than your main project page. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This one may run for a while. I've not had a deep look round the site as yet, but it looks like good up-to-date stuff. See it at http://www.manchester-review.org.uk --Mr Stephen (talk)

Probably a good site for expanding the new Manchester City Region article. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

... is likely to see high volumes of traffic owing to the latest news. Definately warrents some collaborative attention by us to ensure the article is of a befitting quality. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A very poor article! Only one line of the article even mentions the public transport "The reason for introducing the charge (apart from reducing demand for road space in central Greater Manchester and congestion) is to help pay for improvements to public transport.[4][5] especially the Manchester Metrolink expansion." and doesn't say anything about the extra trains, train stations, station revamps, buses, park and rides, cycle lanes and much more. The media has done very well at reporting the whole scheme in a very biased light, it's always seen as a congestion charge, they usually play down the fact that we will get £3bn of public transport improvements, this is why a referendum is unsuitable! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the charge, but I am a social authoritarian afterall. It's worth it for Metrolink alone in my eyes, but, anyway... onto the article! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think will happen if we get the charge and all the improvements, how will we pay for Metrolink phase 4? Our transport network is very eastern, Wigan must feel left out. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...along with Bolton whose only 'benefit' will be a bus lane on a road that can't handle the traffic on it already. I am personally strongly against the charge as it assumes that drivers have a choice which does not exist. I work just inside the outer zone so will have to shell out £700 a year but will receive no benefit: I experience ZERO congestion inside the zone. All the congestion I experience outside the zone is not caused by traffic entering Manchester. Some is even caused by traffic heading away from Manchester coupled with poorly designed road junctions. The charge will therefore not reduce any of the congestion I experience,and I will be paying out for no return. As for public transport, I could get the train to work with one problem. The station next to work has a virtually non-existent service and I have a written reply from GMPTE that they do not intend to rectify this. The WCML into Manchester cannot cope with the current Public transport traffic levels. Far more than £3bn would be needed to rectify this. Since £1.4bn (almost half) is being used to extend Metrolink for a small minority of those affected by the charge, there is a lot of bitterness in areas that will not benefit from the congestion charge. </rant over> Paypwip (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much against the charge, but then I've never trusted any government with any tax collection scheme. It will result in higher prices as businesses pass on the charge to their customers, who will in addition themselves be paying this new tax long after the improvements are paid for. I do agree though that the article is poor, although not as poor as this congestion charging idea is itself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a tax collection scheme though? Obviously it's taking money from people for the government but after the loan has been paid where will the money go? I've heard it will end up in the public purse but Ruth Kelly today said it was a local revenue collection system for public transport, which is great. Do you have a non-bias source which does say it will revert to central government? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just using bitter experience and common sense in my judgement. IIRC income tax was introduced temporarily in the early 19th century to pay for the Napoleonic Wars. So far as I'm aware those wars ended in 1815. Once you allow government's hand in your pocket, you can never get it out again. Ruth Kelly is a straw in the wind; whatever she says will not bind any future government. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's more Middle Eastern! Take that as you please! ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand why they don't just put a local tax on parking spaces in the city. It would have largely the same effect and produce a large portion of the money they'd get from the congestion charge without the cost of all the infrastructure needed for collection. And I have to say I agree with Malleus, do you remember when the prescription charges were brought in at a "nominal" 50p per item? Now it's about £6.50 Richerman (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is about geographic locale too. I mean, to me, at the fringe, this is great, and an opportunity to invest and improve the third world rail system in the area. However, I can understand the concerns of those in say, Failsworth or Eccles where if they want to travel by car, they are likely to incurr a regular cost. Also, in Trafford, they already have Metrolink of course, so the same incentive for the charge isn't there. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been caught out with these daft congestion charging schemes in the past. On one occasion I drove down to London early on a Sunday morning, arriving at my hotel before the charging period started. I paid £25 a day to park my car at the hotel, never used it even once during the week I was there, and got landed with a £40 bill for driving out of the charging zone before 7:00 pm on the Friday evening I left London. The same thing will happen here. Although I live in Stretford, within the proposed outer charging zone, I often have to travel to Bolton, and occasionally to Oldham. So I'll be charged for driving out of the supposedly congested zone. This is just another tax. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. Anyone who wonders why I didn't take the train down to London ought to look at the price of a ticket, and actually try to get a seat on a train from London to Manchester on a Friday evening. And perhaps also take a look at the times of the trains from Manchester to London on a Sunday evening. If public transport were better than private transport, then we'd all no doubt use it in preference. Until then I remain a devout sceptic of these new ways the government has dreamt up to take even more of the money we earn away from us.</rant over> --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no way public transport can ever be "better" than, or even as good as private transport. With your own car you don't have to wait for it to arrive, you can get in at your own door, drive to where you want to go and not have to share it with scallies and oiks. All that can be done is to make using your own car less attractive and public transport more attractive. They managed it in Stockholm (I think it was) where they gave trams priority at every junction so they sailed straight through without stopping, and as more people used them they reduced the price. Eventually, it was so inconvenient to use the car and so cheap to use the tram that most people preferred to use public transport. The problem in Manchester is the trams are too expensive and they don't have priority at junctions. And with the congestion charge, as you said, once they've got their hand in your pocket the price will keep going up. Richerman (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely against the charge here. Totally unjustified, most of the congestion is due to poor design on the M60, M602, M61 and M56/A556 junctions. If they proposed re-instating some of the many closed railway lines around G.Manchester I might be more sympathetic - they won't though. I see theres no mention of the M62 relief road either, that would solve many problems (although I wouldn't be keen on the destruction of more of the Irwell Valley through Prestwich). Leigh not having a station is a disgrace, it used to have seven, and the route from the line next to the M602, through Worsley and up to Leigh, is more or less completely unbuilt over. I pay enough to drive my car as it is, I have no option, with my job public transport or cycling is not possible. Total scam. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The St Michael and All Angels' Church, Ashton-under-Lyne, has been put on the Grade II* listed buildings page saying that it's been downgraded from Grade I to Grade II*. Images of and England and Tameside MBC both list it as still being Grade I (here and here). This church is not to be confused with the St Michael and All Angels' Church in Mottram, which is Grade II* (here and here). In the article on the Ashton-u-Lyne church, it cites here, which is church in Mottram, saying that the church in A-u-L is now Grade II*.

Is it just me who's confused or is there a real problem here?—PolishName 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So sorry, that's my fault, I'd completely forgotten there were two St Michaels et al. I've reverted it. Move along, nothing to see here ;-) Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just realised that no one had written this month's newsletter so I threw this up.

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue VIII - June 2008 May issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News No FA news this month... but lots of GA! Old Trafford, Murrays' Mills and 1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large! Also, Milnrow and City of Salford have been nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions here and here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status. In other news, the Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester list has been coming along nicely and may even soon reach FLC! Please help out where you can. Well done to Mike Peel for getting Platt Fields Park onto the DYK! WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC! And don't forget that the Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)... Member News There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is: James50567 - a warm welcome from us all! Let's not forget that Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. Thanks A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.. Written by Polishname • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Aims The short-terms aims for the WikiProject are: Obtain FA status for Greater Manchester. Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Obtain FL status for List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Obtain GA and/or FA status for Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Obtain FL status for List of people from Bolton. Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs. Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for City of Salford being nominated at WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process. Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article. Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to FA status a while back. Please check them out and see what you can do. Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable. Reminders... Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images. Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do. Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention.

Posted it here first for typo checks etc. I'll try and get it sent out tonight or tomorrow morning.—PolishName 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold, as they say, and done a small edit for typos. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's out now.—PolishName 11:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to enquire about the opinions of the article name Manchester congestion charge. Why is it called that? The congestion charge is only a part of the much larger Transport Innovation Fund bid. I think the name is a little biased. Would anybody support a rename to Manchester TIF scheme or something a little less biased towards the c-charge part of the bid? Ruth Kelly didn't call it the Manchester congestion charge and she's pretty much the number one expert. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to reflect real-world practice - i.e. follow the conventions used in the media. I'm sure I've read "Manchester congestion charge" (not sure about the capitalisation) a number of times.

That said, could this article perhaps be an FAC target for us (and thus moved to top priority)? I think we are all affected by the material in that page, and all have some familliarity with what it entails. Could be one of our super-collaborations? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's not a bad idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it definitely needs to be more balanced, there is too much weight on the charge and little on the benefits this scheme will bring for the city region economy. Quite a lot of WP:OR there too, there was some rubbish about a satellite tracking system coming in the future which is just Peel Holdings scare tactics. If Peel hate the c-charge so much, why won't they offer to pay for our tram themselves?! Anyway, yeah, WP:NPOV. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody in full possession of their faculties would choose to take the tram back home on a late Friday evening if there was a cleaner and safer alternative. Vomit on the seats, fighting ... who needs it. Manchester is a fairly small city, there could easily be a much more personalised transport system put in place, if only people opened their minds up to some alternatives. I think I may have to excuse myself from this article in case my politics start to show. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Most people know it as the Manchester Congestion Charge. The only people who use the term 'TIF bid' are those wishing to put a positive spin on it, so it's not surprising that Ruth Kelly would want to play down the cost to the average motorist.

It is going to be difficult to keep a WP:NPOV in this article as any 'official' figures quoted by either side can be construed as biased. I've got to admit that I chuckled when I saw 'Ruth Kelly' and 'expert' in the same sentence. Paypwip (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think we could make a good job of this as a collaboration. It's likely that this will be a high-traffic (sorry for the pun) article on a regular basis from here-on. I think we have a sensible enough team here to simply report the facts as we find them and put our perspectives on one side. Any thoughts? Where would we begin? What would be the intended layout and content? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my latest offering to the corpus of Greater Manchester articles, perhaps the best referenced stub that wikipedia has ever seen. Does anyone have any more information to add?

I'm starting to worry myself; first the Pendle witch trials and now this. Still, at least it adds a bit of colour, even if that colour is black. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Corpus"—very apt! :) This would be a classic WP:DYK article, and is only 307 characters short at the moment. This has some further details, and discusses alleged hauntings (it seems her spirit wandered back to Hollinwood and popped up at the old Ferranti factory!). Unfortunately it incorrectly assumes her death date as 1768 and misspells Hollinwood! There's not much else out there on the internet. I've added a couple of categories and a wikilink to the interesting premature burial article. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are almost as many different accounts of the year of her death as there are references to it, so I picked what I thought was the most plausible one. I'll bump it up to the minimum size for a DYK and have a go at that. I don't think I've done one of those before. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's almost nothing reliable available online, as you say Hassocks, and since yesterday much of it seems to be copies of this article anyway, so I won't be able to get this beyond a stub in the timeframe for a DYK nomination. The good news though is that there's quite a bit of printed information about her, including a 1953 article on her embalming and a mention in Edith Sitwell's The English Eccentrics' amongst others, so there's no doubt that the article can be worked up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's some old buildings behind Whitworth Park halls and Ducie Court at 53°27′40″N 2°13′54.3″W / 53.46111°N 2.231750°W / 53.46111; -2.231750. Does anyone know what they are/were? I live nearby, and have just received a planning application notification that they plan to demolish the buildings and put up a new 8-storey high student unit there. The buildings currently there look quite good from the ground, and it would be nice to know if there's any history behind them. Mike Peel (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah: it seems that it is Ducie Court itself which they are planning on demolishing. Planning application reference is 086612/FO/2008/S2 if anyone's interested. Mike Peel (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody do better in finding a suitable static image for the Stalybridge infobox? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does my childhood home really have a landmark? The most significant place there is the Tesco which turned the high street into a clubbers paradise, hence StalyVegas! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Phon123 added alot of unsourced content, which may be hard to sort as legitimate content should we seek GA further down the line. It's not a bad article on the whole, but the static image is an eyesore to my sensibilities, whilst I think "StalyVegas" deserves some recognition in the lead too. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ages ago I proposed that East Didsbury and West Didsbury should be merged into the Didsbury article. The merger proposal has stalled, so would anyone with an opinion on the matter please make it known at [3], then we can either drop the idea or go ahead with it. Thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a piece on The Manchester Baby on Radio 4's "Today" programme on Wednesday 17th June. They were saying that in 1951 (I think) it was programmed to play the first computer music and they had a recording of it playing "Baa baa black sheep" and "In the mood". If it's available on the "listen again" website it would be worth quoting. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to look for it on listen again, it's here, complete with the music. Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank God for that, the listen again file was three hours long - well done that man! However, it looks like the Aussies beat them to it anyway. Still, it's the first known recording of computer music and the article has some other useful stuff in it. Now why didn't I google it first instead of looking on the listen again page? Richerman (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I got lucky, I was browsing the BBC site and the Manchester Baby was on the front page. I thought I'd book mark it in case it was useful ;-) Nev1 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just a note that Milnrow has been placed on GA-hold. It's an article I broadly helped to expand to it's current state, but I'm still likely to struggle for editting time for another week. Any help and assistance given at the page would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the review and I'm slightly shocked that the reviewer has said that the article may be too detailed. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody else steps up to the plate and deals with that daft review then I will. But it may not be a pretty sight. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already left (carefully chosen) my thoughts. Nev1 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. You're obviously better at dealing with children than I am. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so he's being immature ;-) Nev1 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit phased by the "too detailed" comment. Of course this article is going through GA with FA in mind. :) Hopefully I should resolve the single "citation required" issue shortly. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Too detailed my arse! Have you thought about adding something about the Milnrow brass band? There are some interesting facts at http://www.milnrowband.org.uk/history.html such as them giving one of the first brass band concerts on the beeb in WW2. Richerman (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I had considered it, but wasn't sure where to slot it in. Any suggestions? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just put it towards the end under its own heading Richerman (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a "Culture and community" section, but it would only comprise of the brass band AFAICT! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I've just tightened up a few issues, including a solitary ^{[citation needed]} problem. Anybody willing to proof-read the article? There are "flow problems" with the prose, which is certainly a result of my writing style. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a quick, first-time look in my lunch hour. Am doing some copyediting as I go along, but I have a few other points to raise (in a stream-of-consciousness fashion):

• A few instances of ", with" connecting two clauses; thinking ahead to a possible WP:FA push, they don't like that, but I am reluctant to change at this stage (I must admit, I have no objection to using it as a conjunction!). Not sure whether it raises eyebrows so much at WP:GA, though.
• There is a one-off use of a different imperial/metric conversion template in the second para of Geography ("Milnrow's highest point..."): is that intentional?
• In Geography, "open moorland" rather than "open moor", perhaps? Not sure. Also "named-places" is an unfamiliar construction to me.
• In relation to where or what is Kingsway "one of the largest developments of its kind"—within the borough, GM itself or beyond?
• Transport: I expected to see New Hey railway station mentioned as well, but don't want to add a sentence without checking it does indeed lie within the boundaries of Milnrow/Newhey (from memory, I think it does, but station names are notorious for not always correlating with the places they supposedly serve!). I'll check my GM street atlas later.

Just some early thoughts there, then. Having read many articles to which Jza84 is a major contributor, I feel that his writing style is quite similar to mine in many respects, so I recommend more eyes doing a systematic check as I've just done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Got the same problem with the same reviewer here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys for this, it's looking much better. Not sure where this leaves us for obtaining GA now - it's been six weeks since I posted its GAC! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have a source for the demolition date (or any other bite of info) about "Butterworth Hall Mill" of Milnrow? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Demolished late in 1996. Source: "Milnrow history and old photographs: Milnrow and Newhey a Lancashire Legacy" by Tim Hignett of the Milnrow Literary and Scientific Society. Published by George Kelsall, 27 Church Street, Littleborough. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it in the book I have (ISBN: 0-946571-19-8), which I believe is one and the same as the above. Any suggestions/alternative sources? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on.... no wonder I can't find it - that book was published in 1991! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! Must have been an unreliable site I found it on. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Just a quick thanks to all those who helped with this, it is very much appreciated. I'm not sure I want to push this article for FA just quite yet, but I'll be back on the hunt for a new simillar project for us soon! --Jza84 |  Talk  10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently removed Duncan Edwards and David Beckham from your project, but my edits were reverted so I apologise if this was the wrong thing to do. My reasoning is that neither were born or grew up in Greater Manchester, and simply happen to have played for a Manchester club, as have hundreds of others. Furthermore I understand they were tagged by a bot whose edits in this context were mostly reverted, since it wasn't felt that footballers should be included simply for having played in the area (for what it's worth, I believe that footballers born in the area should be included). Anyway, if you could perhaps give some guidance on which footballers, if any, fall under the scope of WPGM, I will try to bear this in mind when tagging football articles. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it's ever been formally decided, or even discussed; I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong. My view has been to make a (admittedly subjective) judgement about "significant links" to Manchester, which I have taken to include high profile first team players like Beckham, Edwards, and another one I came across recently, Bert Trautmann. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, btw, it wasn't me who reverted the tags Jameboy's referring to, but I might well have done if I'd noticed. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know little about football but it was me who reverted the removal of the project. It was just because I thought they were pretty significant to Manchester being two of Manchester United's most famous players. I guess we should base it on which articles would be best served by the project. For example, a player who played for a minor club like Stalybridge Celtic in 1930 would not be very well served by the GMR project but a major player could benefit. I admit we are mainly a geography project but I think some other articles could benefit. I can't see us making any guidelines for footballer's articles so it will probably remain subjective like Malleus said. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In that spirit of subjective judgement I'm going to tag Bert Trautmann, Manchester City's famous goalkeeper for many years, and an article I recently listed as a GA. As he was also a German POW held in Ashton-in-Makerfield, I think he qualifies on several different levels. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just put Ronnie Wallwork up for peer review - any suggestions to improve the article would be welcomed. He was born in Newton Heath and began his career at Man Utd (hence I tagged him for WPGM) Based on the above discussion I'm not sure if he would be of interest here, but any help that might push the article towards GA would be gratefully received. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Wallwork should be tagged; born in the area and played first team football for Man United. I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked by another editor for some help with a free use image for a featured article that's up for a review - Holkham Hall. Can anyone help out with the fair use rationale? I suspect it may be that photography is not allowed in the house but I've not got any experience of fair use. The image is Image:Green State Bedroom.jpg Richerman (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have sorted it out now Richerman (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)