Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Just a note that Royton is at GAC. I think it may have expanded enough in the last few days to meet the DKY? criteria, if anyone fancies a blast at that! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article looks in great shape at first glance and should sail through GAC, but I'll take a closer look later. I'm afraid it doesn't qualify for DYK. It needs a five fold expansion of readable text and since the article had a chunky 10kb of text to start with that would be a huge effort; at the moment there's about 30kb of readable text. The five fold expansion criteria seems a bit unfair in these circumstances, the article is almost unrecognisable from when it started, but since it doesn't meet one arbitrary criteria it's not allowed. There really should be a sliding scale IMO. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm not too hot on DYK?, but thought it would've been a good opportunity. I'm sure that criteria is there for good reason. Fingers crossed we'll have a new GA under our belts soon - I just need to pad out the Demography section a bit more from the ONS website. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow - should have no problems at GA! Off-wiki work reduces my time until Saturday, but if I spot anything that needs changing I'll make it a priority. One bit that ?may need to be changed is the Catholicism para in Religion. I think "Roman Catholicism" should be used on the first occasion it appears; I'm sure I've seen that mentioned somewhere in the depths of the manuals and guides on here (or maybe it was in an offline style guide?). I could be wrong though, so haven't changed it yet; being RC myself, maybe it's just my self-naming instinct taking over! :) The main thing though is the odd first sentence; I'd be interested to see exactly what the Frances Stott source says, because Catholicism in Royton after the English Reformation was started in 1874 when a disused factory was used as a chapel doesn't quite "feel" right. Again, I'm not sure how to reword, but "started" implies a sudden change from a dormant state. I suspect Roman Catholics would have worshipped in secret, or informally at houses or in other unconsecrated buildings, for some time before that. Perhaps: "After the English Reformation, active Roman Catholic worship in Royton began in 1874, when a disused factory was converted into a chapel." (Although "active" isn't quite right...) Also, the current church's joint dedication to SS Aidan and Oswald is extremely unusual: if we're lucky there may be a source out there which identifies it as unique in Britain. That would make a nice addition.

Only other thing that occurred to me - this time with my railway head on - is that there used to be a station called Royton Junction, on the loop line itself (I believe this is where the spur to Royton itself left the loop). Given that Derker, its replacement on a very similar site, falls within the boundaries of Oldham, I assume that Royton Junction did as well (my GM steeet atlas doesn't help here!); but perhaps it is worth a short mention in the Transport paragraph? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PS Indeed a shame about DYK ineligibility. There was lots of interesting "hook potential", as I call it. I checked the "readable prose" expansion with my page size tool and came up with about 2.7x. DYK is geared towards brand-new articles and expansions of very short stubs (as the project team demonstrated successfully with Denshaw), which makes it very difficult to be successful with an article that started longer. Even if the existing content was unencyclopaedic and cr*ddy, total change in length from start to finish is the key factor. Having said that, short stubs - if they are expanded systematically and with regard to the five-day limit - are ideal candidates, and as a project we should always bear this in mind when finding stubs to expand. Denshaw's daily number of page viewings increased from around 10-30 on a typical day to 8,900 (!) on the day it was featured on the main page for a few hours, which encouraged positive edits from the wider community and improved the profile of the article. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was a bit cautious about this myself. Stott doesn't quite put it like that, she says "A Catholic Mission in Royton had been started in 1874 by Rev. Caetings who in that year hired a disused factory in Lees Hollow". Of course, Catholicism Roman Catholicism didn't quite "start" in 1874, it was more of a restart or return, so I worked a bit of historical context into there.

Feel free to make any changes you think are necessary, though. I'm conscious of one-editor-itis! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again folks,

Just a note that Saddleworth Moor is in the news once again for rather horrific reasons, and so, as we're likely to get a visitor spike, I wondered if anyone has any material that could improve this stub? I've also asked WP:YORKS to take a look too. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have met Winnie Johnson in the past (very nice lady and deeply moving story she told). I'm afraid I really don't know a lot about the area though, other than to walk around it is a reet bastard and is likely to break one's ankles. I reckon anyone who has contributed to Delph, Diggle, Saddleworth may be able to help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Happily, a BBC News update confirms a non-criminal outcome. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean it this way, but I'd have been happier if it was human remains, and those of a boy :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and a cheeky threadjack, how might I link text in an article to geographic coordinates? Philips Park, Bury is the article in question (see north lodge). Sorry :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright! Do you mean like a pipelink? Do you have an example of the effect your trying to achieve? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain - just something the viewer can click on, like a link, that will show them where abouts a thing is on the map. A bit like what Nev1 has suggested (which will do) but if theres a fancy Wikipedia button that would be lovely. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you were thinking of? 53°32′16″N 2°18′16″W / 53.537759°N 2.304474°W / 53.537759; -2.304474 Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By coincidence, this news item means that this article may get higher traffic, unsourced additions etc. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people might be starting to get the idea that there's a lot of crime up here in GM ... they'd be right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the passports snatched from our Chadderton too! [1] Infact, all these crimes seem to be encircling where I live!... go on, you can take some free shots at me!... --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Until two weeks ago I could (not that I would!), but this bizarre event, not 2 miles up the road from me, has got everybody in Mid Sussex talking! As usual for The Argus website, the comments section is suitably robust and constructive... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What do we think about Saddleworth Morris Men (the article!)? I'm thinking about a possible speedy-deletion. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with the Saddleworth article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. —PolishName 21:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict: should be read after Jza's) Hmmm ... to me, not an obvious candidate for that. I see a speedy tag was put on but removed the same day back in 2006, apparently in favour of a run through AfD which doesn't seem to have happened. Actually, you wikified and improved it (in your old guise) on 16 May 2006! :) I Googled and found little, but there could be book sources on an organisation like this. Perhaps a run at AfD? (Incidentally, although the photo on their website was taken in Uppermill, it features a Vauxhall car with a Brighton-area registration plate. Odd coincidence...) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Trafford Park is ready now, so I've nominated it at WP:GAC. It's come a long way from the stubby list I first saw,[2] but it can no doubt still be improved, so any contributions/suggestions would be welcome. Let's wish Trafford Park luck and a sympathetic reviewer :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's got my support! Yet another great article from the machine that is WP:GM! At this rate, it's no wonder we invented the factory system!! We're proving to be a very industrious bunch! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes Sir you're right Sir, absolutely Sir! - can I snatch ten minutes sleep now before the next shift Sir? and maybe just a little of that lovely gruel if it's not asking too much Sir? Richerman (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's bolshy talk! Next you'll be wanting pay. Nev1 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not me Sir - no,no. Just happy to serve Sir. Richerman (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to the indefatigable Malleus - another GA to his credit. Onwards and upwards! Richerman (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's really down to this project. I really had little idea about how best to write about what is actually a rather unusual industrial estate until Jza84 set me on the right track. And having collaborators like Nev1, Richerman, Parrot of Doom et al, who all know something of the area, helps to keep the article honest. Heck, they're still picking me up on details, even though the GAs done and dusted! It's always bloody hard work though, so I'll probably be taking it a bit easier for a while now. :lol:

Ah yes, you'll take it easy and my wife's giving up smoking next week. Of course we're still picking at the details - you'll be wanting FA for it next :-)

That's a way off yet I think, so I'll definitely be taking a break from Trafford Park. Besides, I've got my heart set on getting the Manchester Mummy up to GA next. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, a Mummy's boy eh? Richerman (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the Congestion charging in Greater Manchester article is very poor. But I'm doubley concerned that we have great work happening at United City and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF), but that these are suffering for "one-editoritis". Any body willing to help improve these over the next week or so in an improvement drive? Perhaps we could get a DYK? out of these or ensure a bit more neutrality? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did wonder if we might get permission to use some images from the booklet they sent round about the congestion charge. After all they are trying to drum up support for the referendum and it would be some extra publicity for them - especially as our articles are supposed to be neutral. Richerman (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't hurt to ask. All you need is an email confirming their permission to use the pictures. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be great! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

←Yes, definitely count me in. Transport articles are my thing! From a quick look, I can see reference formatting issues, pronoun misuse ("we") and wikification requirements, but there's lots of good content there and some useful-looking sources. Sadly I can't do anything until Saturday, but will start having a go then. I don't mind doing the reference-formatting gruntwork, for example. Sadly the cutoff for DYK has been missed marginally (they are already selecting from 26 July articles at the suggestions page) - I don't know how I missed this article when doing my regular trawls of new pages... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope User:Joshii will be able to assist us too (on his return) as he has an interest in this field. But, I think this could be a great opportunity for you too, given the scope of the article. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do an svg of the map inside the booklet (if that'd be any use...). Might be a while though, I go away for a week and half on Friday. —PolishName 08:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF) article and rewritten a lot of it as it was written rather like an advertisement with terms like "we will" and "you will" all the way through. I have just rewritten things as they were but in better English, however, I do think there is far too much detail in it as it stands. Also, I can't really see why these need to be two seperate articles as they are both so closely linked and the TiF is dependent on congestion charging and there's a lot of duplication of information between the two articles. Also, I've got to say the maths in the last section of the TiF article has lost me completely. What's all that about 1000%??? Richerman (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not clear, but I think it means for any vote to be valid at least 35% of those eligible to vote must vote. That could be completely wrong though as I've not read the source. All the same, it very poorly phrased. Nev1 (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I found some time to start today on refs etc. Sadly the Bus subsection was a direct copyvio, so I have reworded and restructured. I haven't investigated Train, Tram etc. yet. I have kept most of the detail in for now, but agree with Richerman that it may not really be necessary. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The way it was worded in the second person I tnink most of it was probably a straight copy before I rewrote it. Richerman (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On the 'TIF Referendum' piece is it asking for a source for the maths? That's not possible because I used my own head to work that out and its correct. You can't really say Maths is wrong as there is only one correct answer from the figures given within the article. Anyway thanks to everyone whos been putting time into the article I don't have much time to touch it up. Andysimo123 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may find this interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like a case of deliberate misrepresentation. Have you two crossed paths before? I got that impression from the FAC debate.

PS. I would have quite happily jumped on with a support vote as I saw PWT go to FAC pretty early on and certainly thought it fitted the criteria but didn't want to be accused of bias. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this rather "holier than thou" attitude from a number of people who are active in articles concerned with Fine Art and Architecture articles on wikipedia. The use of the uncommon term "claque" is also not unfamiliar in its relative rarity amongst the words used by such people. I think it seems like sour grapes. because the article passed and got FA status despite his objections being rebutted.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember him from a rather ill-tempered FAC for the Roman Catholic Church, which I supported, as did he. That's it. So I think he probably just took exception to the description of the establishment's view of Catholic practices as spells and conjuring. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk)

Wasn't the "not just a conjuring trick with bones" comment about the resurrection of Christ that caused so much outrage about 20 years ago spoken by then bishop of Durham David Edward Jenkins, a person who, despite me not being able to swallow the beliefs necessary to be a Christian, I have always had a great deal of respect for. (Actually, I know it was him, as I just went and checked.) I seem to recall that many people at the time thought he had said that the resurrection was "just a conjuring trick with bones", and neither it nor the claimed correct version seems to trouble me unduly; and either seemed in character for him to have spoken, given my knowledge of him.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I count five supports, of which two are from people involved with the Manchester wikiproject and one oppose. I don't see how he gets "mostly supported by the Mancunian Claque" out of that. Personally I'd be more worried about the "US Claque" on the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests page. Lots of support for Emily Dickenson - an American poet (although it eventually failed), lots of support for Yao Ming because of the Olympics - a Chinese athlete who happens to also play for an American basketball team, lots of support for an article about NASA (as well as some questionable counting of support votes) to "honour" their 50th Anniversary (very neutral that) and very little comment at all on Peterloo massacre other than carping about how it got on the page in the first place. Richerman (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the truth might be beginning to emerge.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my interpretation of events: Johnbod regards himself as an authority on Roman Catholicism. The article touches tangentially on Catholicism in its explanation of the background leading up to the investigations and trials. He made some suggestions that I refused to implement, and I explained why. DDStretch is quite right IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I completeley agree with your analysis of the Byzantine system used at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I had to look up the meaning of that word. I shall endeavour to use it in daily life, much like another favourite word, Bowdlerise. Perhaps Johnbod is attempting to Bowdlerise the less appealing aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought he'd misspelt clique to begin with, but I checked just in case using a well known online encyclopaedia. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, all right, I had to look it up too, as I also thought he meant clique. I have heard the term used before in a drama series about Johann Strauss that was on the TV many years ago. However, they were disrupting one of his concerts and I presumed they were paid by his rivals to do that, but from what I've read (in that certain well-known online encyclopaedia) it looks like it must have been a case of him refusing to pay them to support him. You learn something every day. Richerman (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, go on then, I'll admit that I had to look it up as well. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! I already knew what it meant, though it is hardly a word I would choose to use, either in an article on wikiepdia or in any debate or discussion here. By the way, I agree with the comments about the "Todays featured article" requests. Biased and Byzantine.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You may find this portal useful when it's up and running:

OneGeology is an international initiative of the geological surveys of the world and a flagship project of the 'International Year of Planet Earth'. Its aim is to create dynamic geological map data of the world available via the web. This will create a focus for accessing geological information for everyone. OneGeology will hold its official launch at the International Geological Congress (IGC) in Oslo, Norway, 6th -14th August 2008. The OneGeology Portal will be launched by Simon Winchester, and is supported by the major global geoscience bodies

See:http://www.onegeology.org/home.html Richerman (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest. In fact it will definitely be of interest, or your money back. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and a bit more - "Time: 17:30 to 18:00 (30 minutes long).

When: Sunday 10th August on ITV1 Granada (3)

The Secret History of Manchester. Mark Olly presents an archaeology series in which he searches out some of the North West's most intriguing lost treasures, legendary heroes and hidden history. In this edition, he investigates Manchester's secret history and lost treasures, uncovering a bizarre collection of gruesome objects, urban myths and an amazing lost world beneath the city." Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all! We have intended to take this list to WP:FL for a while now (see previous newsletters). All that is lacking is a number of opening dates. I recently found that Brighton library has a reference-only copy of the "Butt book"—or to give it its full title, The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present by Ray Butt—which has near-mythical status among us station and ticket enthusiasts for its comprehensiveness and accuracy. I believe it includes opening dates among its many details; if so, this could be the resource we need. I have to go to the library this week anyway, so I'll have a chance to investigate. If anybody else is going near a library and wants to search for it, these are the full details of the book:

Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M.

(It even has its own WP template!) I'll keep you updated with progress. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before. Manchester library has a copy of Brackenbury, Allan (2005). Railway passenger stations in Greater Manchester: a chronology. Cheadle: Railway and Canal Historical Society, North West Group. IIRC that has them all in. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put all the remaining opening dates in bar one, Manchester United (MUF). Mr Stephen (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding the Oldham, Ashton and Guide Bridge Railway. I work for Oldham Council Highways and we are decommissioning a former railway underbridge by underfilling. We are looking to retain and restore one of the steel parapets. My question is would anyone know of the original railway company's colour scheme for painting of bridges and structures? Many thanks. Waltonhighschoolphoto82 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello team, I thought I'd bring the recent changes to the Sale article to your attention; it's changed a lot in the past week. I'm thinking of putting it forward at FAC and was hoping for some feedback here if people think the article is/could be (with a few changes) ready. Nev1 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Richerman and Parrot of Doom for your valuable help in improving the article. I've decided to take a chance and have nominated the article at FAC; I think it stands a good chance but there's only one way to find out. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck with that, just don't expect to see it on the main page any time soon :-) Richerman (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the sweet smell of nostalgia, good luck! I don't think you'll need it though, as it looks a lot better than our earlier ham-fisted attempts at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I felt it needed redoing and I'd been putting it off because of bad memories, but whether or not it passes FAC it's a far superior article to where we left it. Nev1 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through the above list and pruning it down, as many of the people in it were from Greater Manchester, Cheshire and there was even someone from Swadlincote in Derbyshire. I've changed the lead to say it is for people from the City of Manchester and put "See also: List of people from Greater Manchester" there to hopefully stop the world and his wife from being added. I know see also should be lower down but I'm trying to make it obvious what this list is for. After a couple of hours I'd got as far as the Politics section and then I gave up for now. I'm a bit unsure as to whether it should include people who studied in Manchester and where I should stop with those from the suburbs. I think places like Rusholme and Longsight should be included but not say Prestwich or Stretford. Any thoughts on whether I'm doing this right? There is a category "People from Greater Manchester" which is split into areas but people seem to be intent on putting them all into the Manchester list. I haven't bothered to move the wrong ones out to their correct places, it's taking long enough as it is so I've just deleted them. If anyone else would like to have a go doinng some more pruning they're very welcome. Richerman (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we still get a mention on the 16th's main page via Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As it is we're still hanging in there for the main page anyway on the 16th - there's not a lot of support but no opposes either so far, and no-one has come up with anything with more points yet. Good idea as a plan B though. Richerman (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but Peterloo has been chosen for the 16th! Nev1 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just added the above article to the project. It's an interesting story, and one that's important to the story of the industrial revolution, but it's a terrible article. Yesterday I took out a line which read "now enter the villain of the piece in the shape of the demon barber, Richard Arkwright". Very good for a newspaper article maybe, but not an encyclopedia. There's also a large chunk of text which appears to have been copied from Cotton Times here (unless that was copied from elsewhere) that needs to be sorted out. Still I'm sure we could get it knocked into shape without too much bother. He looks like the sort of unsung hero that Malleus would warm to :) Richerman (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Thomas Highs looks right up my street. I'm sure we can do something with that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew it - hammer of the fools and defender of the downtrodden! Perhaps your motto should be "nil carborundum illigitimae". Well alright, I know it's only pretend latin but it'll do for now. Richerman (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheeky threadjack, but I reckon that Francis_Egerton,_3rd_Duke_of_Bridgewater is within the scope of this project, and in a rather sorry state. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to add an image to this article. I've found one [4], I've seen on other biographical articles that they often use images with copyright that has expired - would I be able to use the image in that link (cropped obviously) to illustrate this article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one wikipedia's highly qualified and highly paid image/copyright experts, but I'd say yes, no problem. Stick it in and we can argue the toss later. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're threadjacking ... it's in better state than Jerome Caminada. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)