Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

I am writing afor advice on what the masses see as the best format to follow for highlighting "notable people/resident" and /or lists. I recently edited the Royton page so as to put these people into a list format. My reasons for this was that I see list as a useful tool in a situation such as this as it can be used to enable the reader to quickly scan through the people without having to trawl through unnessacary text. Text which can be found on the persons individual article page. I understand that "list pages" are ugly and should be avoided however I do see them as something which can be useful in certain circumstances. All input, negative and posative, is welcome (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

I explained the revert here, it's not merely a matter of aethetics. The edit Anthony made did not explain the connect the people mentioned had with the town.

I'd like to propose something radical: get rid of notable people sections altogether. In my experience they're the most problematic portions of an article, with IPs adding unsourced people at whim. There are FAs and GAs without these section, and arguably "notable" is a POV term. The forum for this though should probably be WT:UKCITIES. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the removal of this section is rather dramatic action. The connection with the area should be highlighted within the person article page although I agree that the rule of thumb for peoples inclusions onto these sections can be quite vague. My own POV is that it should only be people that were born/raised in the area and should only include people who have their own specific article page which overcomes the issues of notable worth (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

Lists are frowned upon by reviewers, and many contributors. We should use prose wherever possible.

I think the Notable people sections have their place. If we removed them, they'd inevitably find their way back into the system, or else the material would need to be merged into other sections which can break the flow of wording. Other countries seem to have these sections too, and it is surely useful for our readers? As for who's included, well they must be notable, and must have a reference. If the list sprawls, create a list page IMHO. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps sections for notable people should contain only information on those people who have actually contributed to the material or social wealth of a town - ie, not contestants on X Factor, or soap stars, etc. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

← I'm with Nev1 on this; these Notable people sections are just vandal magnets. I'd suggest that any really notable people would warrant a mention in the History section, for instance, or perhaps Landmarks, as in the case of John Rylands' asociation with Stretford for instance. I despair when I see another footballer listed as a notable resident, almost always uncited. Really, who gives a monkeys where any of them live? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The footballer issue is a good example of bad practice, I agree, and doesn't do these sections any justice. But what about something like Milnrow or Royton? These surely tell you something about the people who have contributed to their culture and fame. And we have WP:BUILD to consider too; just think of poor old John Lees (inventor), or even the Manchester Mummy, who each need a mention. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Beswick and John Lees have their own articles and so are clearly notable. But is their notability tied to one particular place? The Didsbury article, for instance, used to contain a piece on J. K. Rowling, because she apparently thought up the idea of Harry Potter while bored in a hotel in Didsbury. Notable? Maybe in Rowling's article, but not in Didsbury's surely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand all the issues above but I also agree that these list have been a bone of contention from many contributors and being a rather new member I will bow to the will of the masses but as has been already stated, these sections are seen by many as almost part of some template for location articles and would return in no time at all.

The point of notability and "yet another footballer" is an issue I agree with but in the era of celebrity it is hard to be objective and maintain a NPOV. This is another reason for my leaning towards the list format as enables the reader to sort the wheat from the chaff (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

Surely a list would not enable readers to sort "wheat from the chaff" though? It would become impossible for readers to grasp what the person is notable for, and how they are connected without having to navigate away from the article. That's why reviewers find them problematic. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A question for Anthony: I have several times removed Ian Curtis as a notable person from the Stretford article, but he keeps coming back. His only connection with Stretford was that he was born in a long since closed down maternity hospital before being removed to his parents home in Macclesfield. Is he someone who should, in your opinion, be included among Stretford's "Notable people"? He's there now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) PS. I'm not suggesting that Ian Curtis isn't notable, he clearly is, just that his connection with Stretford is not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at some of the list articles, you can see that some of them have a small note of discription after their name. This, therefore, enables the reader to judge its merit and weather it is worthy of futher reading on their article page. I suggest that we leave things as they are for now and get some futher input for other people on this page before progressing into a specific direction and once a common thread of agreement has been made we can then adjust the article pages into a uniform pattern.

With regards to the Ian Curits issue, I suppose it come down to your own POV. Does a hospital/birth location become a point of notability on the back of somebody coming into the earth at that location? Proberly not. If that was the case the locations of the Crupsall, MRI and Royal Oldham Hospital would be inundated. The use of the talk page comes into its own to settle these types of issues. Do you agree? (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

Actually I don't agree. I believe that it would be much more helpful if the Notable people section was either excised, or if notability was defined more clearly in the context of an article about a settlement. Not about a few footballers or pop stars who may or may not live in the claimed settlement, or indeed have any connection with it at all other than an accident of birth engineered by the NHS. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that "Notable people" ought to have had an impact on the settlement they live/lived in, not just briefly passed through it. Notable in the context of the settlement in other words, not notable in any absolute sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, I sense that you have no time for footballers and pop stars and that is understandable although you must be mindful of forcing your POV onto others. I'm sure the people of Ashton are more then happy to have two World Cup winning footballers in there section (Sir Geoff Hurst and Simone Perrotta) and I'm sure that Stretford are more than willing to have pop stars like Morrissey and Jay Kay in their section. We can all look down our nose at other people additions but we must discuss them before deleting text that somebody may have spent an age adding.

I have noted that the tone of this 'talk' could become quite heated which is proberly due to past discussions but this is the reason why I feel wider input is required. It is not my intention to put the cat amongst the pigeons but I do fell that a generic feel is applied to the GM district pages and is surely the reason why a project group is formed (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).

(e/c) There were problems with a lot of rather people's names being added to a variety of articles for places in Cheshire a while back whose notability or for which verification of a link with the place was not provided. I asked for advice on various noticeboard to do with reliable sources and notability. The advice I got back from (I think) User:Blueboar, who seems to know his stuff, was really useful: Two kinds of people get added to a Notable People section: people already dead, and people still alive. For people who are dead, any unverified names can be either removed immediately or tagged. For people still alive, WP:BLP applies, even though it isn't an biographical article. There is even more reason to remove unverified people who are still alive from the article (i.e. just delete them). However, as a courtesy, one can do what I have done for, say, Warrington and Frodsham (as well as some others): don't delete them entirely, instead routinely move them to the talk page under a heading of "Notable People" and add an explanation which states that people's names added below can only be moved back into the main article once adequate verification and justification of their notability is obtained. I used to do this for just the living people, but I think one can do this for all unverified names that are added. I suggest this is the standard response to an unverified name being added to any article: immediately one sees it, move it to a "Notable People" section of the talk page so it can await verification. If one does this, there can be no real drama about one deleting information (though I did have a problem with an editor then supplying quite deficient references as a reaction on Warrington for a while after I argued that the response of "it is common knowledge they lived there" didn't apply), and one can steer people to adding names of people they are uncertain about there rather than in the main article. However, it should be noted that if the person is alive, WP:BLP applies, and so it would always be completely legitimate to just delete the information without moving it to the talk page, as I suggested.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a word to the wise, by whom I mean Anthony. Don't even try to guess what my view of pop stars or footballers is, or even suggest that I am looking down my nose at anything or anyone. I am really not in the mood for that kind of crap. Trust me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DDStretch, thank you for your constructive input into this issue. I agree with a number of the points you have highlighted especially in the way you promote a measured response to "unworthy" additions and edits as well as using the talk page to maximum (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).

Thanks, but you do realise that it really is a quite stringent triple criteria that needs to be satisfied: there needs to be (a) verification by citation to a reliable source that the claim of a connection with the place exists, (b) the person is notable enough in their own right, and (c) that the connection (verified in part a) that the person has with the place is notable and strong enough to be included in the article. Sometimes citations for all three criteria need to be given. For instance, for parts a and c, someone tried for quite a while to add H.G. Wells to Burslem on the grounds that he briefly lived in rented accommodation there (less than 6 months, and perhaps considerably less, and it provided some inspiration for one of his books.) The justification was something along the lines of a brief comemnt in the preface of the book in question. It was decided that it didn't justify him being added to the Notable People section, but that it could be added to another suitable section as a one-sentence comment if required.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I was hoping there would be consensus to remove notable people sections, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way. Done correctly, there is no harm in a notable people section. Anthony, this comes from WP:UKCITIES (the guidelines for writing about any UK settlement, not just those in Greater Manchester, and worth a read) in the section about notable people: "do not use a list format in this section. Please write this as prose, reference each person". I think this is based on "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs" from the wikipedia manual of style.

I think an addition needs to be made to the guidelines dictating that a person's link with the settlement should be mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I was born there so I suppose I may as well improve its article. Actually though the town is quite fascinating with a complex industrial history, if today a bit run-down (like a lot of mill towns). Anyone who can help (particularly adding referencing to the bits other people have added) would have my thanks. The place was even the site of a Roman road. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This will be very useful (right now I'm using it to flesh out the Radcliffe Tower article a bit). Good find of the picture of Radcliffe Tower by the way, I don't suppose there was one of the rest of the manor house? It can be seen on the right hand side of the photo, but more wold be nice. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There may well be but possibly not online. I bet the local libraries will have plenty of material. I have loads of images of the railway infrastructure but still copyrighted :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig some stuff out too. I don't know much about the place, but Heywood, Greater Manchester taught me it's possible to get info together if you look hard enough :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added some material to the Governance section taken from the Youngs bible book on Local Government. I can add a bit more about boundary changes and parliamentary history as well. Let me know if this isn't the kind of stuff the article needs.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there are a few things I intend to focus on. I've filled out the Railways and canal history pretty well. Turnpikes is something that needs referencing, as well as the tram system that Radcliffe had in the early 20th century. The town has a big paper history, bleaching, etc and that certainly will be the largest part of the article. Religion could do with expansion as there are quite a few churches in a reasonably small town. I'm unsure how to write about the number of pubs that used to be in the town - the main road through the centre had around 20 from memory.

Actually I think there is scope for a new section here - there are plenty of Turnpike trusts around GM, perhaps a list could be created? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think turnpikes could make for quite an interesting list. Probably need someone to do a few maps though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to do whatever maps are required, I've done a few in various articles. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If you find out anything of relevance to Turnpike Trusts in Cheshire and other old highway material (milestones and mileposts, fingerposts, etc) , I'd be grateful if you could alert me to them, as I'm going to be writing something IRL about Turnpike Trusts in Cheshire. I do know that there was an early (pre Turnpike Trust era) system of Turnpikes in Cheshire that had been established by Act of Parliament in the seventeenth century and put under the jurisdiction of County Justices. See this website which describes some material that you may well find useful about old roads in Lancashire, and it also contains material by J M Whiteley, former Deputy County Surveyor of Lancashire, who has written a definitive book on Turnpikes.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There must be quite a few out of copyright photos of turnpikes available as well. Sounds like a worthwhile project. Remind people of why Trafford Bar is called Trafford Bar, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh now you can't just leave it like that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a tease; I'll try and find the photos I have in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There may also be some information of relevance (not sure) on this site devoted to turnpikes.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha! This page gives you a list of turnpikes on a county by county basis, and probably is what you could do to start off with.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a photo I took of the Kersal bar toll house on the Kersal page, and I can assure you it's not copyrighted :) Richerman (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's Grains Bar just up the road from me, which was on the Lancashire/Yorkshire boundary, at the conjunction of Shaw and Crompton, Sholver and Denshaw. There's no evidence of it now, but it being on the county boundary would probably give it some kind of distinction? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How does one grab information from the 2001 census? I can find results for population for Bury, but not for Radcliffe. Is this information available separately? The town became part of Bury Borough in 1974, I can only find records up to 1971. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This has the population of most parts of Greater Manchester, including Radcliffe. I would contact User:Fingerpuppet, who has always been very knowledgable about census and statistical data. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will ask him. Oh and talking of Radcliffe, Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_15 the MBB canal has been nominated for the front page - and not by me :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The references in Heywood, Greater Manchester#Demography all link to sreadsheets with 2001 census data. I've used them for Sale, Hale, Heywood, and probably a few other settlements. If you want I can sort it out myself given 20 minutes or so, or you can have a go yourself. My stuff would be fairly generic though. Nev1 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could that would be great - I need 1981 - 2001 population, and I also need to demonstrate the trends in employment. I have more to add from the sources already in the article. I plan to show coal, textiles, manufacturing, and services, and the relative trends - demonstrating the drop in the first 3 and the rise in the last 1. At present I don't have figures that go up to 2001, just 1951. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid I won't be able to help with figures from 1981 and 1991, I've never been able to find them. I can find employment figures for 2001, but in my experience for historic figures it's best to look at a local history book. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but the population data mentioned by User:Jza84 is actually the 1991 census data, despite the "census 2001" in the menu! Radcliffe's resident population data is 32,567 (1991) and 34,239 (2001). Rather irritatingly, the 1981 data is not available online (or at least I've never been able to find them). I really ought to get around to asking the ONS for a copy.

The employment data that you seek is only available online in the 2001 census data. You need tables KS11a and KS12a, but I'm not sure if that will give you the data that you need. If it helps, you need the Key Statistics for Urban Areas which is the dataset that uses settlements rather than local authorities.

I'll take a look around and see what else I can dig up. Fingerpuppet (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm relieved you know how it works, when I was cobbling together a few stats I couldn't figure out why there were two different figures for the population from the same site. I hoped that since the difference was so small it wouldn't matter too much. Nev1 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is horribly confusing, isn't it? Anyway, I think I've found the 1981 data at census.ac.uk; though it needs someone who is currently either staff or a student at a university to access it. Other than that, Manchester University library appear to have a copy, and I rather suspect that the central library may also have a copy as well. I would doubt it's available in any of the other GM town libraries. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Richerman has access to academic sites (like EmeraldInsight), and so may be able to access the data, if we ask nicely. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, It looks like I can log in to census.ac.uk with my Athens username - so I'll have a look when I get time. Richerman (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, it would be really useful to get the resident populations of all the towns in the GM Urban Area and the Wigan Urban Area (and West Midlands conurbation!) as well as the conurbations themselves from the Key Statistics for Urban Areas data. Thanks! Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done a large amount of editing on the Wilmslow Road page and would appreciate it if someone would assess it. I have upped the rating from stub to C, but I am inexperienced and I may be biased. Other comments and contributions to the article would also be good. Yaris678 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made a good start. I have done some copyediting on the grammar and layout, including images. I think the article needs more references to be re-assessed to B-class, including a map of the road (much easier for readers to understand with a map, than text). Try reading through some of the articles of the towns and areas which the road passes through, to see if you can find any relevant information - and then copy-paste that material into this one, accordingly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this book from 1830 on google books the other day which you may find useful. There's a bit about each town, village and hamlet in Lancashire, with some interesting stuff on the Pendle witch trials - and how about this for Salford? " The principal attraction of Salford is the Crescent, which commands a rich view of rural scenery, through which the Irwell meanders: from the lofty and peculiar site of the Crescent the prospect can never be interrupted by buildings" They obviously didn't have a crystal ball. Richerman (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Template:Transport in Greater Manchester is now live. Please make additions as appropriate. This is based on Template:Transport in Carmarthenshire and Template:Transport in Trondheim amongst others. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like some input with regards the use of the Lat/Long grid siting in articles. According to WP:UKCITIES, there is no mention of highlighting this in the Geography sections. I dont see the point of having it in there twice if it is located in its usual position at the top right of article pages. I may be wrong but I've been told it is the standard to be listed twice having undone the edit on the Ashton-under-Lyne page (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)).

If you look at the project's FA settlement articles, like Altrincham, Shaw & Crompton and Stretford, for instance, you'll see that they all include geographical coordinates in the Geography section. Those articles are considered to be amongst wikipedia's best work. Why not follow the example of the best? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the talkpage, as usual, for a wider input. My concern was the duplication of data, something which seems to scornd upon on other articles and also there is also the issue of the ascetics of the article. (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)).

There's nothing wrong with duplication of certain key information per se. Is it your intention, for instance to also remove the population data from the Demography section, as it's already been given twice before, once in the lead and again in the infobox? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that info boxes were there for quick ref as opposed to the article itself which contained the meat of the infomation. I'm new to Wiki and trying to make positive contributions to the articles and as there was no mention of the grids use on the WP:UKCITIES which as directed to as the guide to go off for formating a piece. As with the notable resident issue, I feel that there needs to be a generic format for these pages otherwise there is always going to conflicts of taste (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)).

I would suggest that the generic format has already been established for both coordinates and notable people, and is the format adopted by all of the project's settlement FAs. They are examples to be followed. I do agree though that the guidelines for notable people need to be clarified. Not so far as format is concerned, but what constitutes local notability. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Malleus puts this eloquently: "There's nothing wrong with duplication of certain key information". The infoboxes also have mentions of the distance to London, what the metropolitan borough is, constituency, name, etc, etc. The lead and infobox are meant to be a summary of the rest of the article; I think that's what's being overlooked Anthony. I think you're being bold (which is fantastic!), but you're making some changes to articles that have been indepenantly reviewed for content, and have passed tiers of acheievement, with personal tastes and sensibilities. Some of these are articles that WP:GM have worked on for some time, collectively. You're doing great work to northeast Manchester content. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to highlight this article, which frankly is a mess. I've periodically removed plenty of chuff from the text, but would appreciate a bit of help in tidying it up. It seems sometimes to the recipient of rather biassed edits, probably from locals who are affected by the proposed bypass. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A year or so ago it was targeted by a local councillor and led to legal threats. Although I've previous avoided the article for the sake of a quiet life, I'll halp in any way I can. I think the worst of the POV warring is over now anyway. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If anything I'd say that it should be merged into the Rochdale article as a notable business entity, but the Rochdale article doesn't really contain a section that could accommodate it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be deleted? It's a pretty well-known ISP and there are already plenty of ISP articles e.g. Be Unlimited, Supanet, Internet Central etc. Even some defunct ISPs e.g. Freeserve. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. It may be small, but with 70,000 customers seems notable to me. Nev1 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was worried about the referencing (lack of 3rd party sources), and that its near orphaned. I found it as a landmark in Rochdale using Google Maps! :| --Jza84 |  Talk  00:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does appear to packaged in advertisement styled article. With good references and a major re-style, I'm sure this article could go onto be included (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)).

Here's a reason to keep: it's won several awards from the Internet Service Providers' Association. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"AN INTERNET service provider based in Rochdale has confirmed its position as an industry leader after again being named one of the country's best at a national awards ceremony. Zen Internet was awarded best internet service provider at this year's PC Pro Reliability and Service Awards - for the fifth year in a row." MEN 23 September 2008—it should be online. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to look on the MEN website for sources a few minutes ago but it said it was down for maintenance :-( Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here Paypwip (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I stand corrected then! Any body willing and able to make the notability of this company a little clearer? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is likely to be of interest to us. Thought I'd let everyone know! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started an article in my sandbox on Scout Moor wind farm, as suggested by Jza some time ago, which I hope gives a flavour of the controversy surrounding the project. If anyone would like to contribute to it feel free. I've not put in any images or formatted the references properly and there's an external link that may be useful for a reference, so there's some way to go yet. Once it's in a reasonable shape it can be put up as an article and be proposed for the DYK page. Richerman (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I read that the land used for the wind farm was owned by a "Lord Byron", perhaps Robert Byron, 13th Baron Byron? That might be worth checking. I've added a couple of images, but we have hundreds to choose from from here (including some great construction ones for the History section). I've wikilinked Scout Moor Wind Farm at the Rochdale article, but it might want weeding in on a few other pages to make sure it's not orphaned. Other than that, it's not bad. Once it's live I'll nudge Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at some other articles on wind farms for guidance but they're all a bit sparce and geeky and weren't much help. The external links section is just a "reference farm" at the moment (pun intended!) and will mostly go before the article goes live. I don't know why the contents box is staying at the top but hopefully that will sort itself out when the article is moved. Richerman (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's because you've got the temporary heading "Scout Moor Wind Farm" as Section 1, so it will indeed look right when that's removed. Agreed about the DYK potential; either the first sentence on its own, or that combined with something else if any other interesting facts emerge (perhaps Jza's Lord Byron "angle"?). I'll do some reference formatting and copyediting later, although I'm going to start a spoken version of MB&B Canal now while the house is quiet...! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found some sources from the Heywood Advertiser which might help us. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Think I caused some edit conflicts when editing the sandbox just now; sorry Jza! :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok! I realised you were doing the same task as me when I got a (edit conflict)! I don't think anything was lost. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres an image of mine that shows the horizon, before they were erected. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's definately a potential GA. It's well written, the presentation is good, and it's not too technical. Stats such as 65MW mean nothing to the average reader, but equating it with 40,000 is a great way of making the article accessible. Maybe a bit of background could be added such as why the council thought renewable energy was important (probably obvious, I know, but it wouldn't hurt).

• ...identified as "an excellent site for a wind farm" - identified by whom?
• Could we get a reference for the complaints of the campaign group? Especially for phrases like "seriously detrimental visual impact"; it's their POV and needs to be soureced.
• Who is David Bellamy? I see he's a Professor, but what makes his opinion relevant? He could be a professor of English.
• 4,000MWH of electricity had been exported: I think this needs an equivalent; using figures from the rest of the article, it's enough electricy to supply the average needs of 40,000 homes for 61.5 hours (or 10,000 homes for 246 hours).
• Has the Haslingdon proposal run into opposition (maybe not relevant, but I'm interested)

As I said it looks very promising already, probably ready to go live. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you have all been busy while I've been away - great work! I've made a few additions and changes and it's gone live now, so edit away and I'll put it up for DYK in a day or so. It still needs coordinates and the project banner on the talk page but I'm off to bed now, so if anyone feels up to it..... Any suggestions for the hook apart from it being the largest in England (now we've got that sorted out)? And Nev - who is David Bellamy? You're making me feel old :( Richerman (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: what was the land used for prior to the windfarm? Who owned it? Was it farmland (unlikely) or commonland or what? I've tried to dig it up (find other stuff in the meantime), but I've had no luck. I think this is integral to the article's history. If we can up the comprehensiveness up a little more, and make the suggested changes above, I think we're onto a credible WP:GAC. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've an idea that in one of references for the Friends of Scout Moor someone said it was common land - I'll have a look around and see if I can find it. Richerman (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made the nomination to DYK, for articles created on 2nd November. I've only put myself down on the nomination - not to claim all the credit but to avoid any bias towards the "Manchester claque." Also, I've just realised that by starting it in my sandbox, some of you won't appear in the edit history. Still, we all know it was a collaborative effort don't we?

That's a very nice looking article, well done to everyone who worked on it. About ready for GA? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost, but I think the lead needs sorting out as some of the facts in there aren't in the main body of the article. It's a bit problematical as it's full of references and it's a bit hard ploughing through them all on the edit page. Also there's the question of where to put them in the article. Richerman (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Does anybody have a reference about the supposed coal mining which took place on Scout Moor in the 19th century? I've found a mention of it in a geograph image caption, but nothing from a reliable source. Can anybody help?

I think we're on the cusp of GAC otherwise. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few of the references about the construction mention the problems caused by mining in the 18th and 19th centuries e.g.

The key geotechnical issue for the turbines was the extensive un-recorded shallow coal workings in the area. Investigation including trial pits and coring at each location, aerial photographic interpretation, desk studies and geomorphological mapping of adits, shafts and seams throughout the site. The adopted solution was drill and grout for the high and medium risk locations.

Are you looking for any more than that? The sentence about it in the article comes from ref 14 Richerman (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of that land was originally for pasture, have a search for 'cheesden pasture', 'knowl pasture', and 'turf moor'. Also have a look for quarries - I believe there were many more quarries than collieries or pits - there was one on the east side of 'naden higher reservoir', and several more in the immediate vicinity.

There are a few collieries to the northwest of the peak (the strange volcano-like summit) on Turf Moor. Have a look here - you can see a long almost horizontal line heading to the quarry - that was once a colliery, with a tramway down to this reservoir. this is also the site of an old shaft. Hope this helps! Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is good stuff! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[1] - some in there also Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This has now been assessed as a Good Article and shortlisted for DYK. Richerman (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations folks, a fine effort. (I'm pretty sure the DYK? will make it to the front page) Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any specific group to ask this, so may as well ask here - this site claims that 'There is no copyright in photographs made before 31 December 1945.' Is this true? If so, it could be extremely useful to me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that is right, but the relevant licence tags on Commons specify 70 years, i.e, photos taken before 1938, so you might have trouble persuading the image police.[2][3] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: it depends. Longer but by no means full or even half-decent answer: copyright for such photos expired, but was retroactively revived in many cases due to law changes and international copyright agreements. The duration is given by the UK Intellectual Property Office website here. There's a lot of ifs depending on the circumstances, which makes it a minefield. If the copyright holder died in 1937 or earlier then it is definitely out of copyright in the UK. For a more helpful answer than this, try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect that Mediawiki servers being hosted in the US is also a factor. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that most of the articles I work on are historical, industrial revolution type things - there are plenty of images on the net that are taken around the turn of the century. Under the 70yrs+ rule I can only realistically use images that were taken before 1870 or thereabouts, because you never know, the person taking the picture may have lived a long life. If I could confirm that images before '45 are all copyright-free, it would make illustrating articles a damn site easier. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The image may be copyright-free, but many will claim copyright in the scan of the image. This was covered in a court case, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in which Corel claimed ... well, have a look. I usually respect scanners' claims, but that's a personal decision. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The law does seem to be a bit of a muddle in the absence of a specific UK test case but I'd be prepared to bet that a scan or a photograph of a previously published two-dimensional work of art, specifically a photograph, would not trigger a new copyright period belonging to the photographer/scanner. Not so certain about a photograph of a three-dimensional object though ... and previously unpublished photographs probably would be subject to copyright by the photographer/scanner. From a practical pov though, I think all that's required is to establish when the original photograph was first published, and if that was more than 70 years ago then its OK. That's 70 years after publication, not 70 years after the death of the photographer, hence the wikipedia 1938 publication date cutoff. Previously unpublished stuff is more problematic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

first published, and if that was more than 70 years ago then its OK. That's 70 years after publication, - excellent. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

An article request, which I would start myself but don't really have enough information. All I have is that the paper was owned by Edward Hulton, that it merged with the Evening News in the 1963, that it went tabloid several decades before the Evening News did, and that pre-merger it was viewed as the City paper and Evening News the United paper. Does anyone have more information? Oldelpaso (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They get a mention in the last paragraph of Greater_Manchester#Origins, but I piped it to the MEN. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd asked this a few months ago, when I had full access to a storage room containing thousands of bound editions of this newspaper, for free. I could have gotten you whatever you wanted. image Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Parrot and I have been working on the River Irwell article to get it up to GA standard at least. The sections are laid out more or less as suggested by the Wikiproject Rivers although I've split up the history section as it's quite long and I'm just going to add a couple of sentences to finish it off. Also the lead needs to be expanded a bit, but otherwise I think it's nearly there. Could others look it over and see what you think? One problem that's popped up today is that the map image is sliding off to one side and the image from the wikimedia link keeps wandering about as the page is edited. If someone could fix those for a start I'd be grateful. Richerman (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the citations need some attention. Some use {{cite}}, some use {{citation}}, and some are just raw URLs without publisher or last accessdate. The MoS says not to mix the two templates, as the results are formatted inconsistently. The date format in the References section needs to be consistent as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually stick to {{Citation}}, but only really for the reason that newer editors may find such wording simpler to use. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I do too, for much the same reason, plus it links nicely with the {{Harvnb}} template. The only point I was making was that whichever style is preferred, the article needs to use it consistently. Even to get through a GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fail :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oi, watch what you say about one of my articles ;-) You're right though, the citations do need tweaking. Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Expectations change. Many GAs (and many FAs) that passed last year wouldn't pass now. Hence the GA Sweeps Project. We need to make sure that all our tagged articles are kept up-to-date. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just came across Archaeoparasitology, a newly created article. This sentence jumped out: "The International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank in Manchester, England, provides tissue samples for a variety of uses, including parasitological studies." That sounds like an interesting sort of place! Could we find enough info for an article? (I wonder if there is a connection to the Manchester Mummy?) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth an article. There's an article on jstor which probably has some useful information, at least in the introduction http://www.jstor.org/pss/3560224. Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Manchester University Website gives enough information for the introduction and there are a number of references to it on the web such as this one. I don't think it will have any connection to the Manchester Mummy though as it's all about ancient Egyptian mummies. Richerman (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No connection with the Manchester Mummy at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Manchester city centre article is terrible. It's really bad to say its something that we're all surely famillar with, and know and love! I've just spent a bit of TLC on it, but it needs much more. I think we could make this into a really nice article.

That aside, that's got me thinking... we seem to be getting back into the swing of things with all these projects we have. How about updating our Short term aims? Something like:

• 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 GA -> FA status for Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine.

The new ones are:

• Obtain GA status for River Irwell
• Obtain FA status for Scout Moor Wind Farm
• Obtain GA status for Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

I'm thinking of tentitavely adding:

• Obtain GA status for Manchester city centre
• Obtain GA status for Congestion charging in Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF)

What do we think? Any suggestions? This hasn't been looked at for a while. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a reasonable set of targets. For myself, I'm drawn towards the technology subjects like the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, or those about Manchester's radical past, like the Peterloo Massacre. But we're a big project, we can hopefully help each other in our individual obsessions. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It's our teamwork which undoubtedly makes us such a strong team. Thinking of my main concern up there (as you mention the past), Manchester city centre could have a really strong history section if we try. Sure there will be quite a bit of overlap with Manchester and History of Manchester, but if stay focussed, we can tie alot of stuff together, like the Celts and Roman Fort, Manchester Township (England), Peterloo, 1996 IRA bombing, the tallest buildings, Arndale, and even the proposed congestion charge cordon - then there's the various quarters we can mention (Sheffield City Centre tackles that) - there's loads to go on really, and WP:UKCITIES is still applicable. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Those proposed short term aims look good to me, especially trying to get Manchester city centre into shape (on and off I've been trying to improve the History of Manchester article and a fair bit can be lifted from there). I think we're allowed to be ambitious in our short term-aims. Are we going to make the old short term aims mid term or get rid of them completely? Because I think it's important that we remind the project some of GMs biggest settlements need some serious work. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

When I get the photo I want (soon), I intend to put Manchester and Bolton Railway forward for GAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent stuff (although I think you stand a good chance with the M&BR without an extra image, altohugh it would be nice). Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)