Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

The latest reviewer to weigh in on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scout Moor Wind Farm says:

Seems very short of economic analysis of what is a business project after all. The two owners should be mentioned in the lead - what are the JV shares? What is the expected lifetime, and actual production figures? I know it's windy up there, but it doesn't blow all the time. There must be revenue projections, and given the movements in energy prices recently, some comment on how these might have changed would seem called for. Johnbod (talk)

I'm beginning to lose the will to live. What are JV shares and does anyone care anyway? Does anyone else want to try to find this information? A GAR with one reviewer I can cope with, but with FAR everytime you address the points raised somebody pops up with something else. As for the actual production figures - the bloody thing's only been part-operational since September. And as for the lead, if I add anything else it will end up bigger than rest of the article Richerman (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate the windymills with a vengeance but what I would say is that they're really only asking the same questions a casual reader might. JV shares might be joint venture? If people want energy figures, just tell them they'll have to wait until the site has been operation for a year, at which point such figures would probably be released. Mind you, its commercial information so perhaps they won't. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(E/Conflict with PoD) Just digging around, I don't think it's technically a JV (joint venture), whereby two companies each own 50% of the share capital. It seems that Scout Wind Farms Ltd, the company set up to operate the wind farm, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd (company reg number #5591978). I think, but can't yet confirm, this is ultimately part of Peel Holdings Ltd. I think the wind farm was originally put forward as a joint proposal by United Utilities and Peel (per this), but UU don't seem to have any direct involvement in therms of shareholding. I'll see if I can find out any more tomorrow. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've warmed to them since starting off this article. I've found, from reading articles such as wind power, that a lot of the criticisms I've read about them don't seem to be justified. They're something of a necessary evil that are prefereable to many other forms of electricity generation such as coal or nuclear power which have much more impact on the landscape. Richerman (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• bites lip...* Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know - sorry! Maybe one day over a pint..... :) Richerman (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in! I go past the wind farm every weekend on my way to work and I've never had a problem with them! I read somewhere, probably the MEN, that they had the same problems when they started erecting pylons. People have just learn to live with pylons and they are generally considered as just part of the landscape. Sorry, just felt like sharing my observations! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also shamelessly butting in (4 days later!)... I too think they're a necessary evil. I don't know enough about their efficiency (which seems to be contentious), but I usually see these as an alternative to having a nuclear power plant next door. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  02:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to threadjack, I currently have Radcliffe at FAC and a reviewer has asked for a reference for "...with Manchester City Centre itself 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe." How do I do that? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote the relevant Ordnance Survey Landranger sheet? It's at a sufficient scale to show it to that level of detail, and anyone who claims that reading a published map is OR deserves distain, IMHO! Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have one to hand and the website doesn't show enough detail. Anyone got one? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got a copy. I can add a ref tonight if required. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That'd be great thanks :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Done that, diff. (I think the cite map template could be better.) Mr Stephen (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I had to change it to {{Citation}} as mixing of that template with the {{Cite x}} template isn't allowed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

HTH. I think that {{citation}}'s markup is even worse in this case, but whatever keeps the peace. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to Scout Moor, it seems United Utilities pulled out of the project but the only reference I can find to that is here, however, there's no date on it and the link doesn't come up with the story. Any ideas? Do I just say UU later pulled out of the project and give the link as a reference? Richerman (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

7 March 2005, but it won't open for me. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough info there to cite it as a newspaper article even though the story itself is no longer online - thanks. I also found another reference on a BBC news site so I'll put them both in. Richerman (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been closely involved with the FAC. I've been busy. I'll try to help where I can from here on. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why this is tagged for WP:GM as it is in Sheffield. Is it just an error or is there some other reason, it has been like this since 2007? Keith D (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the article was tagged by a bot. If I remember, the tagging was done by category (which have probably been removed). There were a number of articles with very tenuous links to Greater Manchester tagged, so it probably was an error. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :I can only guess that it's because of its position on the former Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester Railway, although nearby stations are not tagged (and, in fact, neither is the line!). It's a tenuous connection ... I support removing the tag. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed template from Dunford Bridge railway station which is in Barnsley. Looks like tagged at the same time. Keith D (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just got chewed up by another editor for removing the line breaks in a cite web reference he'd added, see: here. Can someone tell me if there's a good reason why the line breaks are normally removed? Whenever I've left them in someone comes along and removes them. Richerman (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO there is none really, the user is being a bit silly. In the raw text of an article, citations stand out, regardless of whether each field is on a new line, because they use characters you don't usually get in prose. I also find it ridiculous that it would slow down maintenance. I always though it was a matter of personal preference, and I prefer without the breaks. You needn't worry about it impacting on the FAC, it doesn't actually affect how references are displayed in the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't really think it would impact on FAC but I do like things to be consistent. Richerman (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we think about Manc? An article on the subject has be tried before a few times now, but been deleted. This could technically by speedy-deleted per G4 of the CSD, but wanted to know what we thought first. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd delete it and stick it in the Manchester article personally, culture section perhaps. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better than previous attempts, but still hardly worth keeping. Perhaps we need to create some redirects to prevents new and inexperienced users from creating the article again? Nev1 (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found these, but accents aren't my thing. Perhaps User:Salfordsredarmy ought to be reminded about WP:BURDEN? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Where did we get upto with this? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nev1 and I have been working on this article in the last 24 hours. It's been suggested that if we expanded it a little further we could have not only a semi-decent article, but something suitable for DYK?

Does anybody have anything to add about this little village near Wigan? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded in a new section on Talk:Abram, Greater Manchester.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know anything about this coat of arms, or where one might find a copy of it? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Civicheraldry.co.uk has drawn a blank. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just found this, but the detail is still quite hard to pick out. If it was better I might be able to redraw it for us to use here at WP. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article now has ~7,300 characters of prose, more than the ~6,800 needed for the five-fold expansion. I think the hook should be related to the mining disaster of 1908 (there's a picture of the chimney to go with it, although there'll probably be something free use out there as well). Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a DYK? virgin though, so if someone is willing and able to go for this?.... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

They've introduced a template to make things easier, telling you what to fill out (oddly enough I found it harder to get right than without the template). How about "... that in 1908, Maypole Colliery in Abram, Greater Manchester, was the site of an explosion which killed 75 miners?" Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Shame we can't can a more historically representative image! But it's a good hook. Perhaps we ought to say "underground explosion" mind? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just off out, but I can put it on the DYK page tommorrow if it's not been done by then. Richerman (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been nominated. Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone else think it now pass C-class? Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

←Has been verified, so look out for it on the Main Page any time soon (next 48 hours or so, I'd guess). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been messing around in the last few days, putting together something I thought up when the project was in its infancy. It's a map that plots where we've "scored" a GA or FA. It's currently found at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. I'm happy to keep this in my sandbox just out of interest, but I wondered if we thought this was worth putting somewhere amongst our project? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How about at the end of the successes section on the project page? Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently all the unsourced information from the list of people from Manchester and Oldham was removed (leaving about two people on each list, but both have since been expanded). Two more lists, (The lists Salford and Trafford) have also been created, and all the lists are incomplete, so if anyone can add even just a couple of names to a list it would be helpful.

Slightly related, I've (experimentally) removed the notable people section from Sale, Greater Manchester (see why on my talk page). I'm thinking that maybe if we develop these lists, or just move some information around, we won't need lists of people in articles about settlements and we can just have a link in the see also section. Any thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very much in favour of that. I'm sick to death of seeing minor professional football players who probably only spent a season or two in the place listed as notable people connected to an area. If a person truly has some significan connection with a place that ought to be able to be covered in the body of the article i'd have thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, Malleus. The issues of being notable and a connection with a specific place being notable for a notable person tends to be utterly confounded in many editors' eyes, and to explain why a notable person's connection with a place is notable can normally only be adequately dealt with in the text rather than a list. (Of course, some people are sufficiently notable in their own right that the two issues do merge, but that is generally not the rule, in my opinion.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Football players with slight connections, soap stars, winners of TV "talent" shows, notorious murderers, fictitious members of fictitious pop groups (I kid you not! it happened repeatedly and determinedly in the case of Stoke-on-Trent, Gorillaz and Murdoc Niccals), etc, all need slightly different treatment.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There notabily should be highlighted with the page as opposed to being placed on the list article. Article pages seem to (rightly or wrongly) lack the same weight as full text article pages are good ways of steering those determined from adding the newest of soap stars onto WP without reducing the quality of the town pages. Anthony of the Desert

True, it's not perfect and it might be clumsy to establish both notability and a link to an area in list form. I suppose I'm suggesting we use these articles as a lightning rod to protect our articles on settlements. I think it's possible to work in people obviously linked with a town, Joule and Darren Campbell are still mentioned in the Sale article. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we saying that we remove these sections outright in favour of lists, or are we saying that we still need some prose to explain their notability and connection? I still think these sections have a place on Wikipedia - they might not be strictly necessary for every single place in the UK (particularly if we have strong district level lists now) (it's also worth pointing out Manchester doesn't have one), but I'm quite sure that readers find them useful and informative. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting removing the sections out right in favour of centralised lists organised per district. Just a thought. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think we can be so cut and dried about it. But I do think that often what is required is not a bare list, no matter where it appears (either in another article or on its own) but there is need for text to explain and describe the notability in some detail. Then the issue arises as to whether particular names and sections of text are better placed in other sections of an article, on a page with others, or somewhere else. Once more, I don't think we can give universal rules about this. Hence the need for discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The lists would hopefully follow a similar format to List of people from Trafford (name, why they're notable, and their link to the area). Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd be in favour of such a move, so long as we have strong list-class articles ready and in place. I mean I don't this would have been a good move had we been linking to the lists in their former condition (!). But, given they're on the up it might be a goer! Perhaps we ought to hang back until the lists are a little more mature, and we have one for each of our ten districts???? No prob if not mind. Could be a good improvement. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good lists will encourage good practice, I think. I quite like the way that the Trafford list is progressing, although I'd have to admit that I didn't even know it existed until just now. Some individuals are so connected with a settlement that not to include them in that settlement's article would be a minor crime. I'm thinking about John Rylands' connection with Stretford, for instance. Whether that needs to be stressed in a separate section called Notable people or not I'm less sure. One thing I am sure of though is that whether or not it's true that Ryan Giggs lives in Worsley, or ever lived in Worsley, is of absolutely no interest to me. And who on earth is Stephen McMahon? Am I supposed to care where he lives? Darren Campbell's relationship with Sale, on the other hand, could probably be covered in the Sports section. Notable people today, Cultural references tomorrow! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, the list has only existed for a few hours (which is why it's really a list of people from Sale). Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a question to clarify the viewpoint on both 'list of...' and 'notable people'. Should the people included on the list be permitted only to those actually born and/or raised in the area? I, personally, feel that this should be the way to go as opposed to someone who has mearly resided in the area. I'm sure that may mean that a number of names should have to deleted from some of the more affluent areas where the latest foreign footballer may have taken up residence but adds weight and clarity to what the MO is for inclusion. Anthony of the Desert

While I agree with you about the all too frequent footballer nonsense, I'd refer to the examples of John Rylands, who although he wasn't born in Stretford contributed significantly to area in his later life, as compared to Ian Curtis who was born there, but left with his mother when she was discharged from the maternity hospital. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be too rigid about restricting the inclusion criteria so that only people born in an area can be added to a list: for example, in North Staffordshire, the maternity hospital is in Stoke-on-Trent, which, if a birth criteria were applied too rigidly, would result in almost no one being included in any lists in articles about Newcastle under Lyme or Staffordshire Moorlands towns and village, except for those who were born sufficiently swiftly and unexpectedly to not make it to the Maternity Unit, or whose mothers specifically opted for home births. The same would apply to all kinds of villages and towns where Maternity Units are not located. So, this shows, I think, that a rigid birth criteria cannot be enforced or gain much support if a consensus were sought for it.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with DDStretch here. A rigid criteria wouldn't work IMO. Editorial discretion and consensus is probably the only workable way forwards, assuming notability and association with a place is satisfied (!). On the flipside, I see no reason why a person couldn't appear in more than one list in cases of uncertainty (e.g. John Collier to appear on both the Trafford and Rochdale listed?). The titles of these lists is purposefully ambiguous, i.e. it lists people "from" a place, not strictly born there or lived there. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair points one and all and I agree that with those made. I suppose with most things, clarity is the key and avoids deletions and confrontations with other editors. I suppose if we can get those that are not members of the Project to use such tools as the talk page properly and understand what the true meaning of 'notability' is then I suppose we, like Hannible from the A-Team, have a plan. Anthony of the Desert

Anybody know of anything about Chadderton Power Station? It had three cooling towers, opened in 1955 and apparently closed in 1986 (although I'm sure I remember it being there longer than that!). Beyond that I'm struggling for source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's currently the site of a £7M office development, but that's all I could get from the Manchester Evening News website. Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chadderton B Power Station opened in 1955. Oldham Corporation had decided in 1943 to replace the generating plant at their Slacks Valley Power Station in anticipation of greater demand for electricity. The Corporation chose to redevelop at Slacks Valley, a 95-acre site in Chadderton, about four miles from Oldham." [1]. There's a couple of mentions by the Chadderton Historical Society in their newsletter [2]; it might be worth getting in touch with them to see if they know of any good non-web references. There's a video of their demolition at [3]; the demolition was done by MJ Finnigan [4] (site also has some photos of demolition). Site had an electricity substation built on it in 1968 [5]. That's all from a simple google search. There's a bit more info also in a "Power Station" google book search Mike Peel (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the book in the references section here. I didn't add the material but it may provide some help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking of taking this to WP:GAC. Anybody willing to do a proof read? :D --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about GA, but I'll take a look through anyway. Probably not until after Xmas now though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look before I pop off to bed. One question though, in the lead, to what do the 6 sheriffs contribute? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a quick pre-bed look as well. Have proof-read two sections at random (Sports and Public Services). Looks well on the way to GA, but I'll inspect more closely tomorrow, with a bit of luck. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Burned a few cells in my eyes looking at Wikipedia's blinding white screens to bring this upto scratch!!

Re the 6 sheriffs, I borrowed the phrase from British History Online, also a simillar wording appears in one of the local history books I have too. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As another one taking a quick look before returning to my home dimension, my immediate impression is of that proverbial "sea of blue". Is it really necessary to wikilink "famine", or "architect", for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thought you were referring to the Great Famine (Ireland) then, but no, you're quite right. Delinked! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

←Just for info, ref [65] deadlinks; it's from the GMP website, which seems to have been "titivated" recently (i.e. they've moved all the pages round and broken all the links!). I've had a look for the quote supported by the ref but can't find it yet ... will continue digging around. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn! Did recall them doing this actually and meant to fix it. Thanks for the nudge! Hopefully we can track that quote as it's quite a nice modern insight. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good news: the same phrases were quoted in the Chadderton Area Plan (<ref name="Plan">). Replaced accordingly. It's so annoying when websites suddenly get revamped, because it usually trashes all the previous page links and everything; the same thing happened to me when I was in the middle of writing Brighton & Hove church articles and the Diocese of Chichester website (of vital importance as a source) suddenly got pulled apart pending "improvements". Needless to say, crucial documents went walkabout, maps disappeared etc.; the thing that saved me was the Internet Archive website, which periodically saves snapshots of websites and their subpages. I linked to the archived versions and everything was fine again. A useful resource to bear in mind if any of our WP:GM articles suffer from linkrot and we can't find alternative sources! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

...I thought some people might like to play around with this interesting site I found, particularly if they like maps. By the way, if anyone has a copy of Cary's Traveller's companion, or, A delineation of the turnpike roads of England and Wales, 1790 could they speak up... Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More specifically GM though, is this site, recently restored to operation, that has more than a few high quality scans of historical documents for Manchester. I never knew there was such a thing as 'The Manchester Town Hall Waltz', but it's all in there, notation included. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's really nice stuff! It's got some great stuff for Manchester! It's a little thin on the ground for some of the outlying towns, but yeh, it's great!

P.S. Also looking for a book: Local government in England and Wales : a guide to the new system (1974), but struggling!

P.P.S. Trying to find out if Rev. George Allen (former priest of Holy Trinity Church, Shaw) died pre-1938 (so I can use some scans from his 1907 book)! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Phone the church - they'll know, his time will probably be on the wall with the other priests. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sale and Chadderton have been nominated for WP:FA and WP:GA status respectively. For Sale's FAC, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I should probably have mentioned before: B of the Bang and Cine City, Withington are also currently nominated for WP:GA. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff, better put them on Template:GM News. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like that can sometimes slip under the radar, so it helps to use the news template if nothing else. A while ago, it occurred to me that the project could use a watchlist, much like the one WP:YORKS has. I've made a list of all the articles under WP:GM and the watchlist can be found here. It only covers articles, but hopefully, when I work out how, it will include categories but it doesn't cover talk pages. The intention of this is that we'll be more likely to spot vandalism such as the stuff in the thread above and Denshaw (IIRC we found out from TV news reports). Do people think it would be worth adding a link to the watchlist to the project page? Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A talk page watchlist can be obtained by using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester_articles *Goes off and searches for a reliable source documenting the nickname "B of the Bollocks"* Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things relating to Greater Manchester at Wikimedia Commons.

1. Category:Churches in Greater Manchester is getting quite mature. I was wondering if anyone was willing to help break this down into metropolitan borough categories?
2. If I wanted to create a subcategory of Salford that covered Swinton (and possibly some adjoining areas), what would be best/most useful? a) Swinton, Greater Manchester b) Swinton and Pendlebury c) Swinton, Clifton and Pendlebury? I'm inclined to go for option b, but thought it worth asking here first
3. We now have a Category:Textile mills in Greater Manchester, which you may wish to add to.

Thanks folks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My Commons alter ego, The Voice of Hassocks, is working on number 1. Hope to get all 88 pics recategorised before going out to tonight's New Year's Eve party :D Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks much more organised. Am I OK to go ahead and make a "Swinton and Pendlebury" subcategory of Salford? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Swinton and Pendlebury exist as anything more than an abolished council though? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not as a unit of local government. I could create seperate "Swinton" and "Pendlebury" if that's preferred, I just didn't know how useful it was to group the two together for diffusion of the main Salford category, which is maturing. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas everyone!....

An early Christmas pressie from a series of socks Christmas stockings, probably User:Yorkshirian's, came on 11 December 2008 in the form of removing all the subcategories from Category:People from Greater Manchester. Here are some examples (click the contributions):

• Bandenburg Ridle (talk · contribs)
• Sandeby (talk · contribs)
• Wode clgg (talk · contribs)

If everyone could check their areas of abode and and revert if necessary. If you could list any socks found here I'll tag and block em. Please also put a few of these subcategories on your watch lists so we can make sure this doesn't go undetected again.

Apart from that, again, hope you all have a merry Christmas! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

• Wonderlandedd (talk · contribs)
• Reg Vode (talk · contribs)

--Jza84 |  Talk  02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Got some more:

• Kzaro (talk · contribs)
• Beau-tee (talk · contribs)
• Revessora (talk · contribs)
• Berganfales (talk · contribs)
• Lopsjk (talk · contribs)

Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. All blocked too I notice. I say we just WP:RBI for now, but we could just semi-protect these if it get's irksome. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This link, and the fact there are no users with red user page links,indicates to me that we've cleared up all the damage on the categories. I don't think protecting would be practical though as there are over 400. Nev1 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)