Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 38

There are some online copies of some old local history books for Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton here.[1] I came across them whilst looking for another Middleton. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent find. Those three towns are important targets for sure! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say thank you to those who helped to polish up this article in the last couple of months. For those who don't know, it is now a featured article! Another for our fine collection!

Just pointing out that if Failsworth was to become a GA, it would bring us closer to having a second featured topic (The other being Wikipedia:Featured topics/Towns in Trafford). :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, the review can't have been open for much more than a week. Well done. Having Towns in Oldham as a Featured Topic seems like a good aim; there are a few loose ends at Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, but looking at the article again it's in better condition than I remembered. Nev1 (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Iǘe been involved in an interesting discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#harvnb-style citation). Some of our GA articles have broken #CITEREF links caused by differing behaviour between *cites XXX and *citations. If you follow the thread down, there is come amusing behaviour if you try to switch between *cite and *citation.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that's stuffed Parrot of Doom and I then on our next magnum opus. Just to check I understood correctly though, the {{cite}} family of templates now needs a new parameter to be set, "ref=harv", which is set by default in the {{citation}} template? Or is that only needed to make the {{Harvnb}} template work properly with {{cite}}? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the latter, Malleus, although I could be wrong. the ref=harv parameter is definitely needed with Harvnb, as I found out by accident a few months ago (causing slight frustration to this regular user of Harvnb!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I always use {{citation}} and {{Harvnb}} now, but I suppose I'll have to go and check the ones I did more than a year or so ago when I used {{cite}} and make sure that they're still OK. Or fix them. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this project probably has some of the most productive and opinionated editors on the entire wikipedia, certainly in the UK anyway. Yet there is hardly ever any discord, mostly just editors beavering quietly away and helping each other when they can, and we've had some major collaborative successes, Peterloo Massacre being an outstanding example.

So what's our secret? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire grit and a thick skin. Which probably comes from constantly having the piss taken out of you every time you go for a pint with your mates :) Richerman (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Cheshire myself ("Cheshire born, Cheshire bred, strong in the back and weak in the head"), but I think you're right about the thick skin bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll not hold your Cheshire roots against you as you're an honorary Mancunian now (I can see me getting into trouble again here!) Richerman (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sussex version of that is "...strong in the arm and thick in the head". Make of that what you will...! (Actually, if spoken with a true Sussex accent, it's 'ead.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was the Yorkshire version :) complete with missin "h"... --J3Mrs (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And there is a sea shanty that was sung while they hauled on the sails which went;

I am Liverpool born and bred (bring 'em down),

Strong in the arm and thick in the 'ead (bring 'em down)

Richerman (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

13 GM place articles that haven't yet been front paged, and I didn't bother checking for non-place FAs either.Parrot of Doom 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was reading an article about The Old Bailey in this week's Sunday Times and thought I'd see if the wikipedia article could use some enhancement. I was surprised to see that it was a start class article and thought "what an embarrassment for the London wikiproject - I'm sure our important buildings get better treatment". So I went to look at Manchester Town Hall... Oh dear! - for an article about one of our most important buildings it's pretty abysmal. The picture in the infobox makes the building look like it's falling down, the rest of the photos are equally crappy with three of them just stuffed in a gallery, there's very little text and only three references. Oddly, it was rated B class by the Architecture project, but I've changed that to start class, which is the rating our project has given it. Looks like it could use a bit a bit of TLC from the project. If we can get Rochdale Town Hall to GA standard surely we can do the same for Manchester? Richerman (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to help. Perhaps we can just mimic the Rochdale Town Hall layout? It seems to be a logical format, and consistency can only be a good thing. I imagine we can find more information about the interior mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I've made a start and found one of Waterhous's original drawings. The thumbnail of the drawing is a bit large, so maybe it needs to be replaced on commons with one a smaller version. I've changed the cost to the one given on the RIBA website of £775,000 and added the inflation template. The Manchester Council web site here gives some history but I don't want to rely too much on one source. I'm sure there will be something in Pevsner if someone has access to it and some of the other sources used for the Rochdale Town Hall article. Perhaps PoD would be good enough to take some decent photos. Richerman (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Faux pas alert: the "falling down" picture was actually taken by PoD last year :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear!.... I think it's the wide angle that makes the building look a little unfamilliar, otherwise the image is pretty crisp. There are 300+ suitable alternatives here, and a historical image here. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh bugger, I thought I'd checked all the images to see who taken them. My grovelling apologies to PoD - my only excuse is a chronic case of foot in mouth syndrome. The image is fine as an illustration of the building for the main body of the article but I don't think it's really suitable as the main image for the infobox. And if anyone would like a free copy of my latest book on motivational theory entitled "How to make friends and influence people", please let me know as they don't seem to be selling too well at the moment for some reason :) I did look at the images on Flikr but the ones I liked seemed to have a restrictive copyright. Richerman (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way to photograph that building and not make it appear to "lean over" is with a tilt-shift lens. They're not cheap however. Its a huge building with only a small area at the front, and only possible to photograph in full with a wide, almost fisheye, lens. That's why almost none of the Flickr images show as much scope as my photograph :) Parrot of Doom 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that's what the Photoshop crop with perspective function is for. All you have to do is make sure there's lots of redundant imagery around the central subject, then perspective crop it out. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was possible once before they built all around it and added the extension see here. And of course if someone had access to a helicopter..... Richerman (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably could still stand there and take that photograph, the trees are the problem though. Back then, trees = fuel... Parrot of Doom 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trees and lamposts and traffic lights and street signs and posters and cars etc, etc. Finding vantage points for photographs must have been so much easier back then - still, they didn't have digital cameras. Incidentally does anyone know of a reference for when the exterior stonework was cleaned? If I remember correctly, Manchester Uni was done around 1968/9 and I've found a reference for John Rylands Library (the original Deansgate Building) being done in 1969, so it was probably around that time. Richerman (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Town Hall 1899. Even in the days of rising fronts- keystone distortion is evident. Interesting how cluttered the foreground is- but perhaps that was deliberate.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we go about having the above user banned for persistent vandalism on the Bury F.C. article? Thanks Man2 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You go to the cesspit. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the user is using sockpuppetry to circumvent blocks and detection (Jimcrack (talk · contribs) to Mickjang (talk · contribs)). I've stuck Bury F.C. on my watchlist (and would ask kindly if others could do the same - even if just temporarily). If sockpuppetry increases we can agree (i.e. I'd rather have consensus) to semi-protect and/or block the accounts. Hopefully some education can get this editor on-side first though. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimcrack's reaction last time doesn't suggest to me that he wants to talk, but good luck. Nev1 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. Just so you know, I've nominated Old Trafford to be today's featured article for 19 February (the 100th anniversary of the first football match played there). To add your support or opposition to the nomination, go to WP:TFAR#February 19. Thanks. – PeeJay 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The exterior shot is rubbish. I shall endeavour to get a better one for you, should be plenty of time between now and then. Parrot of Doom 23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is File:Old Trafford, reflected.png? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah that's just as bad, overexposed sky, wrong side of building highlighted, poor framing. Leave it with me, its only around the corner :) Parrot of Doom 23:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Parrot! If possible, could you get better photos of the United Trinity statue and the Hublot clock tower? The photos I took aren't very good, IMO. The United Trinity statue is too dark and there's a nasty shadow at the bottom of the Hublot clock tower photo. Cheers man! – PeeJay 23:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I may be able to do those tomorrow if the light is right. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, did you get a chance to take those photos on Sunday? – PeeJay 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it was snowing. I will, though. Parrot of Doom 10:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, a beautiful day for photography and I was asked to work today at Old Trafford, but I was already booked for the Bolton match—which was shite. I'll not forget. Parrot of Doom 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well its Winter and Old Trafford is south-facing, but I got some photographs anyway. They were installing the 100th anniversary poster, I'm not sure if that's a bonus or not. I couldn't get Matt Busby because of the work. I also have a shot of the clock, here, and a more centrally-framed version if you would prefer that. Parrot of Doom 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the "five-star rating" bit in the lead isn't in the body of the article. That needs to be fixed. Parrot of Doom 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, man! Those pics are pretty good! I think the centrally-framed photo of the clock tower would be preferable for the article though. I was hoping for one of the United Trinity statue too, but no worries. As for the "five-star rating" bit, I'm not sure how I would work it into the article. Obviously a stadium had to be recognised as "five-star" by UEFA for it to host a Champions League final (as OT did in 2003), but there's never been a big ceremony for a stadium being rated as five-star, so I can't shoe-horn it in that way. All I know is that OT was five-star rated (now an "Elite stadium"), I just don't know when the rating was applied/introduced. – PeeJay 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can get the trinity statue when the light is right. The UEFA bit should be in the body though, and not just the lead. I'm sure you'll find a way. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mainly a Preston issue, but it have Peterloo references. McCaffery I had not heard of theis incident before.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I have this song on on an LP by the Dubliners (remember those big black vinyl things? - that's the LP's not the Dubliners!) and I often wondered where it came from. Not really anything to do with Peterloo though - there's just a passing reference to it in the text. It's difficult to see why he got so much sympathy though - he was unfairly treated but shooting the guy was a bit extreme. Richerman (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

was prodded some days ago. I don't know if anything can be salvaged, but may be worth a look. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was prodded for good reason. That should never have been moved from user space to main space. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to go as it stands but there is probably some useful stuff in there that could be moved into the St Michael's Flags and Angel Meadow Park article, which is one that we talked about improving. Should it be a merge rather than a delete? Richerman (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some digging around in preparation to tackle Failsworth (Oldham's last town article not to be a GA or FA). Firstly I'm hoping to appeal to the team to help get involved in a virtual rewrite. Failworth is much more an extension of Manchester than Oldham so it might be a little more attractive to some folk out there.

My second point is about The Witchwood.... I found this by sifting through what links to Failsworth. Is it a hoax? Is it self promotion? Is it worth keeping?

Same goes for Anthony Farnell. Is this worth keeping? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Witchwood is actually very well known on the pub music circuit (if only for it's very small dressing room) as well as its delight in selling real ale. Admittedly that article does look a little promotional, but I'm sure that proper references could be found, as well as an interesting history. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done some tidying of the The Witchwood article, but it needs much much more. Presently it links to two articles and I don't think it would survive AfD on the basis of absent notability. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ASK Developments certainly exist, they've been doing the rebuilding of Urmston town centre. Parrot of Doom 11:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Inventive Leisure anything to do with them? It's also a related article in a terrible state. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've nominated that article for deletion, I can't think of anything notable about them. Parrot of Doom 12:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See [2]. Am I right in thinking that they haven't actually been able to provide reliable references to show their point of view?

I'm very tempted to email them about this article, as it seems to be very misleading in other ways too. e.g. "Ofqual, a regulatory body for qualifications, exams and tests in England, has spoken out about the website and how inaccurate the information can be in the hope that students will avoid it." - they haven't, they actually provided good advice on how students should use Wikipedia properly. saying that they "hope that students will avoid it" is completely groundless to my knowledge. Mike Peel (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's not much right with that article, is there. My mother lives in Southport, so I'm absolutely certain that it's in Merseyside, not Lancashire. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An e-mail would be a good idea. Something pops up on Talk:Lancashire occassionally, but FoRL never bother to provide proof. Lancashire should be a much better article anyway. It would be interesting for it to be 27 November's TFA. Nev1 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Friends Of Real Lancashire however say they have recived statements from the Duchy of Lancashire's [sic] office confirming the information to be untrue."[3] Compare and contrast: "...the Duchy now appoints High Sheriffs each year for the counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside."[4] It seems that at least the Duke of Lancaster has come to terms with the relocation of Southport to the metropolitan county of Merseyside some 36 years ago. Perhaps it's time to break the news to her subjects.^{[weasel words]}

"Although comments and letters have been sent to the editor of Wikipedia, Mr Dawson said that no action has since been taken."[5]^{[unreliable source?]} What a shame that the editor of t' Wikipedia is so obstinate. Maybe there ought to be more than one editor for such a big encyclopedia. Now if only there were some way this Wikipedia editor could involve the wider community when writing all those dangerous articles. It's not as if Wikifolk have ever wasted any time debating historic county boundaries. Translation: slow news day.

— Richardguk (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just found out that, as an employee of the University of Salford, I have access, using my Athens password, to the Gale online database of newspapers at the British Library from 1600 to the end of the nineteenth century - as well as other collections of pamphlets etc. It's an amazing resource that has full page scans of the newspapers and is searchable using keywords. It's similar to the Times archive that you now have to pay to access. I've found some amazing stuff that can really add colour to an article, such as a letter describing Brindley's aqueduct for the Bridgewater Canal over the Irwell in wonderfully florid language. I'll be adding extracts from that to the article as soon as I have time to type it up. If anyone wants me to have a look for anything just let me know - but bear in mind I'll have to type it up, so don't all shout at once! I've just added a report of the Great Chartist Rally on Kersal Moor to that article which I'm copying here as an example.

“

THE GREAT MEETING OF THE RADICALS OF LANCASHIRE (abridged from the Morning Advertiser) Monday night, half-past six o'clock. The morning was a lowering one but, notwithstanding this, crowds of persons began to assemble in the streets shortly after daybreak and many processions from the country had arrived by nine o’clock. The various trades of Manchester assembled in Smithfield, and previous to their marching to Kersal Moor, presented a formidable appearance in respect to numbers. The Moor is nearly four miles distant from Manchester, and the ground fixed for the meeting is that upon which the Manchester Races take place. The hustings were erected near the Stand-House and in such a position that they were surrounded by an amphitheatre of at least fifteen acres, every person on any portion of the ground being enabled to see all that passed. All along the roads to Manchester the footpaths were thronged to excess, and in the area before the old Collegiate Church, which overlooked the procession, there were many thousands of females assembled. By twelve o’clock one half of the ground was occupied, and the immense multitude even at that time presented a truly awful appearance. Before one o’clock however the ground was completely occupied and the meeting then was certainly the largest that has ever taken place in the British Empire. – not less than 300,000 people could have been present. As the various speakers arrived upon the hustings they were loudly cheered... - Freeman's Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser (Dublin, Ireland) [1]

”

Although I've read about the rally before, there's nothing like an eye-witness account to give you the impression of what it was like to be there. Richerman (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Something about the Lancashire Cotton Famine might be useful. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You must have read my mind - that was next on my list of things to research :) Richerman (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What do we think? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD is what I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Prodded. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an important topic that we ought to be able to get to GA without too much more effort. I've added some stuff about the local reaction to the bombing, the lead obviously needs some work, and there are still a few uncited bits. Anything else before we try our arm at GAN? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd decided this one was too hot to handle? Richerman (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind; Manchester Martyrs gave me Dutch courage. Once I've found a few more citations I'm going to take it to GAN, and we'll see what happens. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What citations are you short of? I think we can safely describe the main explosive as ammonium nitrate and Semtex, rather than 'fertilizer'. I think the evacuation procedure could could do with a bit of padding–it's not easy to clear tens of thousands of people spread over a busy city centre–and maybe mentions of the Traffic Warden who gave it a ticket and the PC who clambered under the van to try and get the engine number, and the shoppers who brushed past the van (it was in the bloody way, after all). The decription of the explosion itself is a bit vague: locally there was a lot of masonry thrown up in the air, but most of the casualties were caused by flying glass associated with the blast wave. Somewhere there's a breakdown of the casualties (I think it's just the acute cases though, not sure if psychological trauma is included). Mr Stephen (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions. It's the second and third paragraph of the Reconstruction section I'm bothered about. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can fix that, today with any luck. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Being shamelessly hollow, isn't there a higher quality image that could be used? We can probably claim fair-use quite easily for this one, as it's a moment in history rather than a landmark, person etc. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, that one's been there ever since I first saw the article. Seems OK to me ... claiming fair use for anything seems to be getting harder and harder anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some notes ages ago on the redevelopment after the bomb, and its effects on the Arndale. I have put some of it at User:Mr Stephen/redev. if any of it fits, help yourselves. Kip now. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that "the bomb was great for Manchester" idea needs to be tackled; I must admit I hated those toilet block tiles on the outside of the Arndale Centre, and despite what council leaders have since claimed I'm inclined to believe that they'd still be there were it not for the bomb, along with that gross M&S building. I'm thinking that topic maybe deserves a section of its own. I'm now also beginning to wonder whether we shouldn't press on with this and get it up to FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember visiting Urbis which, in part, celebrated the revitalisation of the city (not just the centre) after the bombing. It held an exhibition on it in around 2006 I think (probably the 10th anniversary come to think of it). There may be content surround this that could support such a section (I support it too). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"The largest bomb ever detonated in Great Britain during peacetime" could do with a citation - if it's true... -- Fursday 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am having an extra strong cuppa tea to celebrate, that I have posted the fifty third article to the series {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}}. The first batch is thus finished. As anyone who has ever ce one of my posting- they will be familiar with my signature spelling mistakes- random ´bbb´ s and other errors of someone with a reading age of twelve and falling. Can I encourage anyone to join in and do some bare-knuckle editing- tagging and generally extending, ammending, checking and fixing. There is a limit to my local knowledge- so that is an area that folks who have never stepped foot in a mill could tackle. I am not university registered so I can't access some of the potentially useful online archives. I have aimed for completeness, so some of the article are thin on specific information- generic info has been copied from well sourced Wiki articles but some of the text is over linked. Some reading this may never had edited a Wiki article before- no matter click on the discussion tab- type up your improvements there and an old lag will transfer it to the page for you.

So whats on my personal todo list

• Another cuppa
• Tidying up the code of the Infobox mill building template (Having used it 60 times I have a few ideas..
• Go through the lot and write articles on all the redlinks, especially those in {{Lancashire Cotton}}
• Await the geograph upload to commons and add other images to some article, comparing and contrasting the mill today with the fair use images of 1951
• Complete the contents of the Lists of Mills in...
• Take on other major mills, Eckersleys, Horrockses, Shiloh etc

But do take a look --ClemRutter (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a great resource you've shared for the encyclopedia. I'm very appreciative that someone has the insight and committment to this important topic.

This is a first draft-I am very happy for others to do major edits. Don't hold back if you have access to better quality info. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just checking {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}} though; are the land divisions (Bury, Lancs, Manchester & Salford etc) areas used by the corporation? And the image of the spinner, is there a logo or HQ of the corporation that would better represent it? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The divisions, was for our editors benefit. LCC almost certainly didn't- i think they grouped them by cotton count and purpose. The image was lifted from another template - It must be replaced. I have a registered trademark here- I am bruised by the Fair use process- could a scan of that be used in template space? It is a blue shield with left, Red Rose over Cotton boll, right Initials LCC yellow.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a great piece of work, for sure. I've had a quick look through Monton Mill, Eccles, and I have to say I'm a bit puzzled by the History section. What has James Nasmyth's engineering works got to do with the story of Monton Mill, for instance? Or the Ship Canal? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably needs editing with an axe. History-well a bit of Philosophy. I started as a purist, then I had two thoughts. Many of the readers are only going to want to read about one mill, so history really needs to reflect the history of the area giving the context of where the mill was built. Similarly, we should try and put the context of what was happening when the mill was built. Secondly, most of the geographical history could be found ready referenced in the page on that locality. As each of the mills had a common LCC history- there should be a common paragraph. If it were that simple then we could use a bot to write the articles. There is a great difference in the amount of material around on each mill, for some we really only have the photograph and the name, and others are really well documented. All the LCC mills were very late mills and if the less than efficient spinning frames could be replaced with state of the art frames they could be made profitable again. A few weren't improved, they were serving niche markets, so refurbishment was low on the to-do list. But that becomes OR. Judgement about what was relevant to the geographical context of Monton, I think is best left to someone who has worked on the Monton article. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's some good work, I don't know how you have the patience :) I remember the Wilton Mill in Radcliffe, the bell-like structure on the tower was green. It was demolished at some point in the late 80s-early 90s. I also grew up literally next door to Radcliffe Paper Mill, and have fond memories of the smells (which weren't always nice), and the derelict areas around the mill in which we played as children. Parrot of Doom 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember Rutland Mill, Shaw as a teenager, walking up to school. I never knew its history.

I think this was the issue. They were just big buildings where you might end up having to work if you didn't do well at school. We only knew the names of them if it was written on the chimney. When first got a book on the Ancoats Mills, It took me a few days to realise that I had driven past them to work every day for 3 years.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as another side issue, is the use of the format "NAME Mill, LOCATION" necessary? Surely, there's only one Newby Mill for example, and the "location" could be dropped? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Consistency really. There were 1115 mills in Greater Manchester and some names come up frequently Wellington Mill (2 in Oldham alone), Vale Mill (3 in Oldham), Junction Mill, Albion Mill etc. Yes, Newby is unusual but Stott Park Bobbin Mill at Newby Bridge, Cumbria was also known as Newby Mill, and Newby Mill was a greyhound that raced recently at Belle Vue.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This text is currently being proofread on Wikisource - wikisource:The History of the Church and Manor of Wigan. Does anyone know which church/manor it would be referring to? Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There were many medieval manors around Greater Manchester. Have a look at British history online, you should find a few references to it in there. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The parish church. I quote from the Wigan article: "The rectors of the parish church were lords of the manor of Wigan, a sub-manor of Neweton, until the 19th century." --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not the time to start this article, given yesterday's events in Chile, but a fascinating topic for later. I hadn't realised that Manchester sits on top of four geologically active faults.[6] --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure there's a list of earthquakes somewhere on Wikipedia, and a large one in Manchester is on that list. Parrot of Doom 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep - List of earthquakes in the United Kingdom. Might give you somewhere to start? Parrot of Doom 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone here have an Athens account? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I have. What are you after? Richerman (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This article, on the Manchester earthquake of 1777. Yeah, I know it'll never be anything more than a tiny footnote in history, but it interests me nevertheless, saddo that I am. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just getting the message "Session Cookie Error An error has occured because we were unable to send a cookie to your web browser" I shouldn't be because cookies are enabled. Can you go back a bit and give me the link from google or wherever? Richerman (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What about this? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put in my user name and password and clicked "Athens log in" but it doesn't seem to want to let me in for some reason. Richerman (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks for trying. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF, but: 79.67.38.165 (talk · contribs). Mr Stephen (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have undone two of them :) Oh well I suppose it's one way of getting Lancashire into the lead :( --J3Mrs (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have written this [7]. I want to link it to the Leigh article [8] where it says Bedford Leigh and I don't know how to do it as Leigh railway station links to the wrong Leigh. That seems plain as mud to me but I hope somebody understands and can help. Thanks --J3Mrs (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we'd leave the open station at Leigh railway station and put the other one at Leigh railway station (Manchester), with a {{hatnote}} on Leigh railway station. It's complicated in this case, as there were two railway stations in "your" Leigh, both called "Leigh"; the one you've written about and one on the Bolton and Leigh Railway which currently doesn't have its own article but thanks to Wikipedia's "every railway station no matter how obscure should have a separate page" policy, needs to be kept free. I'll leave it to someone who knows the geography of Leigh more than me (which is nil) to determine what the correct names should be; once you've picked the name, just use the "move" tab to move the sandbox to the new name. – iridescent 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the above sounds complicated, I had to try to make this mess make sense. – iridescent 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That should be Leigh railway station (Greater Manchester), or should it be Leigh railway station, Greater Manchester? Anyway, I think the disambiguation should anyone write an article about the other Leigh station can be dealt with if and when that happens. I remember a similar situation arose recently over the various Balkan Badnjak traditions, only one of which, Serbian, had an article at that time. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, I can be quite/very dim sometimes. The other Leigh station was Westleigh or even West Leigh. Perhaps I should write that too! I know the geography but am useless with links or anything I think is complicated! I think I'll have a drink  :)--J3Mrs (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly more complicated than that; the B&L one was renamed West Leigh in 1876 but prior to that was just "Leigh", so should it ever get an article will need to be listed as both. Agree with Malleus that that's as-and-when, though. – iridescent 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "Leigh railway station (Greater Manchester) or Leigh railway station, Greater Manchester", consensus seems to be Leigh (Greater Manchester) railway station—see Adlington (Cheshire) railway station/Adlington (Lancashire) railway station, Alresford (Essex) railway station/Alresford (Hampshire) railway station etc. – iridescent 22:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know and as Westleigh was the very first "Leigh" station it should have been easy :( The Bedford Leigh station had three names, Bedford Leigh, Leigh & Bedford and Leigh. Why can't things be simple? --J3Mrs (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all the points above; I had typed a nice answer (an hour ago), then my girlfriend phoned and it was quickly superseded!! Leigh (Greater Manchester) railway station is the one to use. List of closed railway stations in Britain: K-L currently has a redlink to Leigh railway station (Lancashire), but that seems non-standard; when you move the article from the sandbox, I would recommend editing the list to link to Leigh (Greater Manchester) railway station. If anybody writes the article for the "other" Leigh (Westleigh), a disambiguation page @ Leigh railway station (and moving the Kent station to Leigh (Kent) railway station) would be desirable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness that's what I did, thanks to Iridescent. I've been wondering what to do with it for ages :( The second part of your answer leaves me baffled so I probably won't write Leigh (Westleigh) in the near future. :) Thanks --J3Mrs (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you write that article I'm sure Hassocks would be only too happy to help. We're a very helpful bunch here at WP:GM. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I didn't write that very clearly—sorry (re-reading it now, I'm quite confused myself; probably means I should stop typing and go to bed!). Anyway, as it stands, everything looks in order, and as Malleus said there's no need to disambiguate further unless/until an article is written for Westleigh (in which case I'm sure I could indeed dig out some of my railway books and find something useful!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I know how helpful you all are. It's just I am easily confused and loathe to do anything that makes me appear dimmer than usual. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed the following from the Manchester article:

In 2009 Greater Manchester gained city region status from the government along with Leeds and it is proposed for April 2010 that a new super council, similar to that of London is formed under the name of Manchester City Region Combined Authority (MCRCA) along with a Transport for Greater Manchester body based on Transport for London. Manchester and Salford would be the central components along with the adjoining districts of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale,Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan. The new combined authority would become the largest UK authority outside London and would devolve power for transport, education, health and other local sevices to City Region level.^{[citation needed]}

I found this which demonstrates that the county has been granted "city region" status, but supports little else that I removed. While it belongs in the Greater Manchester article, I'm dubious as to its worth in the Manchester article, at least more than a sentence or two. Thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one sentence in Manchester & more in Greater Manchester. As both are FAs, good-quality referencing is in order. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Manchester City Region article as it happens... but I don't know if it ought to be in the GM article - perhaps as a new sub-section of the history bit? Or, does this need to be elevated with immediate effect to 'Top' priority for the project? I'm not following exactly what's happening with the City Region (or is it Statutory City Region?) -- is a City Region being super-imposed on to the county as a new tier of local government? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just made this change and raised a point at Talk:Greater Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you good folk to just check my recent changes to our top priorty article Greater Manchester? I have updated it somewhat with regards to developments to new governance arrangements. I'm conscious it needs approval as it involves fairly bold changes. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that John Barbirolli‎ is another GA for the Greater Manchester WikiProject.  :) --J3Mrs (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a landmark; the project now has 100 FA/FL/GAs --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)