Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Does anyone know if the Reg Revans Centre is at Manchester Uni or Salford? I have been doing some copy-edit-type tweaks to Reg Revans but found that if I was going to make the "Legacy" section clearer I better know what I was talking about... First it says it is at Salford, then it says it has moved to Manchester.

N.B. The Manchester sentence was added in this edit. I might also undo the change in meaning introduced by this edit

Yaris678 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Revans Academy for Action Learning and Research is at Manchester Business School, part of Manchester University.[1] Evans taught at UMIST (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Teccnology), which was merged with the University of Manchester a few years ago, so in that sense I suppose you could say that the centre has moved. So far as I know Evans had nothing to do with Salford University. Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that Chorlton Metrolink station, hitherto a redirect, has been expanded to a full article, much of which duplicates Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station. I thought that the latter article was to be moved, per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 35#Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station. To my mind, we now have a case of WP:CFORK; but it might be that this is a half-completed cut&paste move (but this also is undesirable, see WP:CUTPASTE) - either way, it needs sorting out. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, per UK Stations policy. WatcherZero (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are plenty of articles that link to the above, but unless I'm wrong, Manchester is called simply...Manchester? Is "City of" some kind of official title I'm unaware of? Parrot of Doom 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that "City of Manchester" refers specifically to the borough rather than the settlement, but as they are near enuogh co-terminus we only have one article on the subject. For what it's worth "City of Manchester" is used by Manchester City Council to refer to the borough [2] [3]. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In all formal settings ive seen it refered to as City of Manchester, the odd one out is it refers to the Town Hall rather than City Hall. WatcherZero (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the capitalisation that I think causes problems. "City of Manchester" may be the wider borough, but "city of Manchester", or just Manchester, is the settlement. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of these are railway station articles. On those, the infobox has two parameters: |locale=, which is the specific location of the station, and |borough=, which is the relevant local authority. For the latter, we would put [[Metropolitan Borough of Foo|Foo]], for Bolton, Bury, Oldham etc.; or [[City of Foo|Foo]] for Manchester or Salford, because those are more "correct" than Metropolitan Borough of Manchester and Metropolitan Borough of Salford. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A year and a half ago WP:GM launched a rewrite of the article on Rochdale's town hall. Today it's come to light that there may be copyright problems with this GA. I've started looking into this. When dealing with online sources, there's always the possibility that duplication tools throw up false positives and show pages that have copied from Wikipedia. I don't believe that to be the case here as right at the top the link4life webpage says the text is "Taken from Rochdale Jubilee. A Record of fifty years of Municipal Work. 1856 to 1906." I checked the wayback machine, but neither the link4life page nor the page from Public Monument and Sculpture Association National Recording Project were contained there. To make searching the page history easier using this tool, I've merged the article's history with that of User:Jza84/Sandbox7, where the draft was originally put together. I've not yet looked in-depth, but so far it doesn't look good, for instance this edit contains text identical to link4life. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it seems that there's been some pretty straightforward copying, as you suggest.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if Rochdale Jubilee. A Record of fifty years of Municipal Work. 1856 to 1906 is out of copyright. The British library here tells us it was edited by Lt.-Colonel Henry Fishwick and published in 1906. Fishwick died in 1914 (obituary) so according to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights the copyright has expired. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still on the face of it plagiarism, even though arguably using a public domain source in this way is perfectly acceptable under wikipedia's plagiarism policy. But I still think we ought to fix it up and set a good example. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

At least Rochdale Jubilee is out of copyright, that goes some way to explaining how this came about but I think the whys and hows can wait until after the article has been sorted. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No remaining matches with the link4life web page.[5] Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a digit missing from the link4life page so it redirected here. There are still a few matches. The comparison with Public Monument and Sculpture Association shows that we don't have to get rid of all the matches. Some phrases are just unavoidable, for example the tool throws up "Queen Victoria". Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Duh! Ok, I'll work on those. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as PM&SA is concerned, I don't think the remaining cases highlighted by the duplication tool are anything to worry about. Lower down you're getting false positives such as the phrase "the architect" even though the text either side differs from the PM&SA page. Even the string of "was designed by Alfred Waterhouse" is surrounded by text sufficient different from the original that I don't think we have to worry. We don't have to worry about "W. A. Peters and Son", but a fresher pair of eyes than mine might still see problems. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and good job on cleaning this up. The question now, I think, is whether or not the article should go through GA reassessment or be de-listed. I think doing a GAR would certify that the article is indeed "clean" and if this was the only problem with the article than it shouldn't be too much (more) work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To justify its reassessment you (or someone else) would have to identify any remaining problems with the article that would mean it no longer met the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As it says on the tin. Any comments (good or bad) welcome either here or on the article's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do, sorry I've been occupied with "IRL" stuff lately. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I know you've been busy. I don't think it's ready for FAC yet, but it's coming along. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing I know is missing is an account of how Manchester Council disentangled itself from the Ship Canal Company for a one-off payment of £10 million and the promise of further investment in Manchester after Peel Holdings bought the canal and proposed to build the Trafford Centre. At that time the council held 11 of the 21 seats on the board of the company, and although they realised that the Trafford Centre would be in the best interests of the shareholders, like all of the other GM councils they were against it. I couldn't remember until today where I'd seen account of that, but I've remembered it was in King's Detonation, which I've now ordered from the library. Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Phase 1 is now complete. I'll wait until you've got a bit more time on your hands PoD before even considering an attack on Phase 2. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done and I'm sorry I wasn't able to help much. I've been occupied with other matters, truth be told I'm training for a 100-mile cycle ride in September, that's taking up four hours every day. I can easily do 40 miles every day, no problem, but I hit a wall at about 70 so I'm working on how to get past that :( Then there's work, life, etc. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got your hands full. I think I might ask for a peer review once I feel a bit happier with a few aspects of the article such as the disengagement of Manchester City Council, which I still haven't dealt with. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

... and given your training regime I won't invite you help with my latest obsession lest it makes you feel thirsty, our Byzantine licensing laws. Did you know for instance that the 11:00 pm closing time for pubs comes from the rules applied to the beerhouses introduced by the 1830 Beerhouse Act? And that at the time pubs were only legally obliged to close between 1:00 am and 4:00 am? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for a peer review now if anyone would care to offer an opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been assured several times it's in Trafford but I'm not convinced.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a similar problem with "The Quays", which is just a branding exercise. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a map--J3Mrs (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the debate on the MediaCity page. I am aware that MediaCity as it stands (i.e. the Salford side) is termed as phase 1. There is talk on MediaCity's website of a phase 2 (with up to a further 200 acres). Whether the Coronation Street set forms part of phase 2, I'm not sure. Certainly, as far as I can tell, the land on both sides of the canal is owned by Peel, so as above it would really be a case of what Peel choose to brand it as.

However, perhaps the end of the present argument is that to put it in the article, we need a reliable source to say that the Coronation St set is MediaCity. I'm not aware of any source that says this unequivocally. Yes there are sources that say ITV are coming to MediaCity - but that can refer to the office space. I'm not even sure that mentions of Coronation Street on the website validate the claim that MediaCity is also in Trafford as these could just refer to the use of studio space in Salford. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait to see what it's actually called when it's built.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's north of the ship canal (to be precise, it's on the north quay of No. 9 Dock): no way is it in Trafford. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Peel's property on the other side of the canal has always been part of the whole scheme even before ITV, it was originally intended for offices. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Coronation Street set will be built at Trafford Wharf. Indeed the MediaCityUK website says [6],

ITV is building a bespoke production centre for Coronation Street on Trafford Wharf next to Imperial War Museum North, linked by a new bridge across the Manchester Ship Canal to the rest of the MediaCityUK complex.

So the answer is both. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Britain’s longest-running soap will relocate to a new state-of-the art production facility to be built on the MediaCityUK site next to the Imperial War Museum North." see Peel Media Announces ITV Move to MediaCityUK at www.peel.uk. Make of that what you will. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Manchester United F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Manchester City F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Manchester Titans at WP:AfD. (see here for nomination). Please feel free to comment at the nomination page. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On the right is Halle Square in the Arndale, around Christmas 1977. Upstairs to the left is C&A (maybe C&A is downstairs too?). The shuttering upstairs on the right would become Beaverbrooks. I think a 'then and now' comparison would add to the Arndale article. Could someone take an up to date photograph from the same viewpoint? The kind of thing I have in mind is this photograph; obviously shops have changed, but the big change in layout is the daylight coming into the modern shot (the Arndale in 1977 was entirely artificially lit). There are a couple more 1977 shots here at geograph.

Blimey, I remember that layout! I particularly remember those things hanging from the ceiling, I recall they had small light bulbs in them. Parrot of Doom 19:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

...are interested in geology and the like, here's a document I found while looking for something else. It may interest some folk, it covers geology in Manchester and East Cheshire. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop taking information about towns such as bolton and bury out,such as ones which mention that they are in Lancashire which they are,as i am from the bolton and bury area i think i should know that they are in Lancashire,and i will not be told by someone on here where i live.also people who are from around here would take serious offence if you said they live in greater manchester.all you are doing is causing trouble.stop now.the tradiotional county boundaries of lancashire have not been altered.i cannot believe how bloody minded and disrespectful you are as i have been looking up articles on people who have now died,and you mention greater manchester.this is enough to make those people turn in their graves,as they were proud of their Lancastrian culture.show some respect please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.233.125 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and Counties of England. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I was born in Bury, then in Lancashire and now in Greater Manchester. I'm from the area and I'm not at all insulted by the boundary changes. If you live in Bolton or Bury then you live in Greater Manchester. If you don't like it, move further north. Parrot of Doom 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It may also be necessary to exhume the bodies of deceased Lancastrians and move them further north, too, if the OP is certain that they would be grossly offended by their remains now being in Greater Manchester. It's interesting that Greater Manchester keeps growing; I remember when Bury was in GM but Bolton was still in Lancashire, but now, by the sound of it, it's gobbled up both of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Your memory may be playing tricks on you as when Greater Manchester was created in 1974 both Bolton and Bury were part of it. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought more disrespectful to deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bolton & Bury became part of Greater Manchester at the same time.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought the solution was always to mention the "historical county" as well as the ceremonial or metropolitan (or whatever else it may well be these days) in terms of the towns/cities/settlements. However it cane be a bit inconsistently applied when it comes to people, i.e. looking at his recent edits re: Robert Whitehead, the previous "Greater Manchester" mentioning was wrong. Meanwhile one of his changes regarding Warburtons were actually valid "Warburtons is the most popular bread in its native Lancashire and Greater Manchester area with a 45% market share compared with a 15% share of London" isn't what the news article says. It says "45 per cent in its native Lancashire to about 15 per cent in London and the South East". As Greater Manchester isn't "Lancashire" without citation can we prove it is a 45% market share? Of course I am joking and just drawing out one point for emphasis as to how it can all get very sloppy around the fringes. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It can get a bit complicated. The usual phrasing in settlement articles can be seen at Sale, Greater Manchester: "Sale is a town within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, in Greater Manchester, England. Historically part of Cheshire..." As for biographies, they should use the counties as they were when the person was alive, so there's no problem with this edit. And you're right about the Warburtons article, the reference doesn't mention Greater Manchester so I've tweaked the article to reflect what the source says. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

i have been looking these last few weeks,about the county issues,and i have come to the conclusion that Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire,and that Greater Manchester is in Lancashire,Yorkshire and Cheshire.why do you think lets say when Bolton and Bury play its called a Lancashire derby,and when Oldham play Leeds its called a roses derby,Lancashire and Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

to prove my point further most of the Boroughs of Greater Manchester have red roses on their coat of arms,and Lancashire county cricket is based at old trafford,so there you are LANCASHIRE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, but you are wasting yours and everybody else's time by repeating this nonsense. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not this rubbish again. Have you nothing better to do with your time? Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How am i wasting mine and everybodys time,the truth hurts doesent it gentlemen? and if ive not got anything better to do with my time,how can you talk your the 1 whos never off here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What sporting organisations choose to call their fixtures, and what boroughs choose to put on their coats of arms, is entirely their choice: they are not bound by any Wikipedia policies (and nor could we expect them to be). We may report (with the use of reliable sources, per WP:V) that the coat of arms of Bolton MBC includes red roses, just as we may report that the arms of Manchester includes a sailing ship. But it's a long time since sailing ships were seen around No. 1 Dock. They display these devices as a commemoration of the past, not a statement of the present. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ok redrose 64,maybe bury and manchester are greater manchester but bolton is definiatly Lancashire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're so certain tell Bolton council, not us. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

omg,ive spoke to several members of the council and they all agree with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright nev1,without arguing with each other,alls im gonner say is this,you stick to worrying about where you come from and ill worry about bolton and bury,is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick to creating sourced content for this encyclopedia. If you make unsourced edits, they will be reverted. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If one of you had tell me how to insert proof onto wikipedia which prove bolton and bury are in Lancashire,then i would,and maybe you could show these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.23.25 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Referencing for beginners, and the more advanced Citing sources. But please ensure that all sources are reliable, and that your edits do not violate our core policies of no original research, neutrality and verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Also many businesses in Bolton and Bury say on their vans Bolton,Lancashire and Bury,Lancashire,and Bolton and Bury celebrste Lancashire Day and The Duke of Lancasters regiment comes to Bolton and Bury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.23.25 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I celebrate Trafalgar Day, but that doesn't mean I live in the Province of Cádiz. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many companies retain old regions for heritage reasons. Heritage and personal opinion however are not the same as facts.Koncorde (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If Bolton and Bury arent in Lancashire,then how come The County Palatine of Lancashire covers Greater Manchester,Merseyside and parts of Cumbria,in fact You lot even stat this on the greater manchester article,now you are saying they re not in Lancashire,your just contradicting yourselves,if the county palatine covers all these therefore they must be in Lancashire.Dur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. Manchester is in Greater Manchester, AND is also in the historical county of Lancashire. However the modern county of Lancashire has been reduced and it is therefore inaccurate to say that it is within that modern county. People, individuals, their businesses etc can all refer to themselves however they wish.Koncorde (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This website might prove a very handy resource for those who are interested in old maps and things. It's much faster than old-maps.co.uk, and carries no watermarks. It also has 1970s aerial photography. I'll add it to the useful links section. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The website at www.gmcro.co.uk has been down for at least a week. If this is permanent we may need to fix about 200 links. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be achieveable with something like the way back machine. Parrot of Doom 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I rang them up. Apparently all the information has been transferred to here at www.manchester.gov.uk. I can't find a single thing we linked to, but will look a little more later. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a wonderful exhibition of his work on at the Lowry. He painted the Manchester Ship Canal and drew Wet Earth Colliery amongst all the other stuff. I know this isn't the place but it's well worth a visit.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The L. S. Lowry article only had a passing mention on Valette's influence, but the Guardian article about the exhibition had rather a nice quote that I added. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The title says it all. The blurb's here. We can expect lots of vandalism. Nev1 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all. Being semi-protected before, during, and after the day probably helped. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That has to be the least edited TFA ever. Shame the stats are down. Parrot of Doom 08:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This might interest some. I'll certainly be interested to know if they'll be digging in either Bury or Urmston. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about whether a serction in the above article should be split into its own article. The section is called "Liverpool-Manchester as one region". Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone identifying themselves as this helpful person is currently seeking help here. (I'm sure members of this project won't hold her IP address's block log against her!) I think MelbourneStar is going to give her some advice, but others may wish to assist. The archives to which she can arrange access may perhaps come in useful for other things? Her account's talk page seems to be at User talk:Rachel Kneale. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are three articles, Bradford-with-Beswick unsourced, Bradford, Manchester some refs, and Beswick no refs. Bradford with Beswick seems superfluous to me. The information in it could be added to the other two and it could be got rid of. Any thoughts? I could move the info and find refs for Beswick but beyond that I have no idea how to go about it.J3Mrs (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of Bradford-with-Beswick and redirect it to Bradford. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look how to do it, I don't recall doing it before. I hope nobody minds.J3Mrs (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We've been here before. Let me try and remember tomorrow. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just created a new article on the little-known 19th century Manchester Botanist, Richard Buxton. Could someone please assess the article and add a rating for me? Thanks Richerman (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick copyedit but it all seems fine to me. I reckon a C-class verging on B, purely because it could do with a modern source or two. Has anyone else written about him, or referenced his work? Parrot of Doom 02:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's most appreciated. There were a couple of places where you changed the meaning but I've corrected them. There are a couple of modern references in there (John Percy and James Cash) but they are the only ones I could find. Almost everything that's known about about him seems to have come from the short autobiography in his own book anyway, and he seems to be mostly forgotten about today. Richerman (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cash was published in 1873. I will amend the article & see what else can be found. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone, preferably with a good knowledge of the area, please review the Friezland article. I have just removed two categories from the article - Category:Villages in Greater Manchester and Category:Towns and villages of the Peak District, as Friezland is neither a town or village. The article describes it as a Hamlet, which it apparently is not, however that description appears to be a copyvio from this website:- Friezland brass band, which is located in Saddleworth. The Friezland primary School Ofsted Report states there are 106 pupils aged 4-11, which is way more than a 'Hamlet would provide. It also states the school address is in Greenfield, Greater Manchester, Oldam. The Greenfield article states Greenfield is in the Parish of Saddleworth. The Friezland Parish Church website indicates Friezland is a Parish in it's own right, yet part of the 'Saddleworth Team'. Vision of Britain.org states:- "FRIEZLAND, a chapelry in the parishes of Mottram and Rochdale, Lancashire and W. R. Yorkshire; at the backbone of England, near Greenfield". All in all it's rather confusing, so the article really does need sorting. NB: I have requested some info on the history of the parish of Friezland, by e-mail, from the 'Saddleworth Team website and will advise on that when received. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Friezland is an Ecclesiastical Parish, it looks like it includes surrounding villages and hamlets such as Uppermill & Greenfield. Within this area is Friezland itself. Based on maps and such it appears to be part of Greenfield, and may simply be a named area of no actual political or statistical reference (similar to say "Derbyshire Hill" in Parr, St Helens, that was named solely for the school), but that might just be how the two have grown together over the years. Saddleworth Civil Parish is overlaid on top of the EP. the Civil parish will be responsible for town council type things. The EP will likely be solely responsible for the Church grounds and much simpler local concerns.Koncorde (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a Friezland railway station between 1886 and 1917. There have been cases where the railway planners, short of a real place after which to name their station, picked some obscure name instead; and in some cases the surrounding area took on the name of the station. The best example that I know of is Crewe, named after Crewe railway station, which was itself named after Crewe Hall, which in turn was named after Ranulph Crewe. Other examples include Calvert railway station and Verney Junction railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Friezland predates the railway. It appears to have been named after Dutch settlers (Friesian/Frisian). Only anecdotal evidence for it though. Koncorde (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all - hope the team is well,

I came across the Symbols of Manchester article via the Manchester page, and wondered if there was a piece of work which needed doing to improve the truth (!), or rather accuracy/verifiability of the content.... maybe even delete the page if I'm honest.

My understanding is that "a bee" (rather than "The Manchester Bee") is a heraldic motif of Manchester City Council - there's technically no such thing as "The Manchester Bee", rather bees are symbolic of the local authority, and (perhaps) by extension, the city. Simillarly, is Wikipedia the right forum to proclaim that the Ship Canal and the canal system "remains a great source of pride for Mancunians"... probably not. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back Jza :) I'd have no problem with that being deleted, although looking at the article's history, some editors here (cough) might not want to get involved in that discussion... Parrot of Doom 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I too, am pleased to see you Jza. Do as you see fit. Like PoD I have no problem with it either. You might find lots of things need....... sorting out. J3Mrs (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear... is it the work of Mr. "Historically part of Lancashire", so beloved of Bolton, Bury and places around? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Manchester will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Manchester's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just written this article and wondered if someone would be so kind as to rate it, and fix any obvious mistakes I've overlooked. There doesn't seem to be much coverage of Manchester's bridges, and so given the ease with which I was able to find source for this article, I may rectify that. Parrot of Doom 13:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a really interesting article PoD, nice to see you writing essential and vital articles. I had a go at assessing it, feel free to disagree. I hope I haven't removed any double spaces. :) J3Mrs (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had a banhammer I'd use it on people who remove my double spaces ಠ_ಠ Parrot of Doom 18:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom/Blackfriar's Bridge, Manchester - Blackfriar's, Blackfriars', or Blackfriars? I can't seem to find a definitive version. Parrot of Doom 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with Blackfriars. What does the Listing say? I hate that website. J3Mrs (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it and it doesn't bother with an apostrophe. J3Mrs (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, so I moved it to Blackfriars Bridge, Manchester. The wooden bridge image seems to be "imagined", as all the sources I've read indicate that the old bridge was very low to the waterline, and accessed by steps. I wish Manchester still looked like it does in those images though. The river looks so much nicer without those office blocks built right up to the edge. Parrot of Doom 17:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The definitive spelling used by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Ltd was Blackfriars. The significance is that Head Office of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation was Blackfriars House, Manchester 3. Its telephone number was BLAckfriars 3483. This address and telephone number was known world-wide. The document was dated January 1951- I was taken and introduced to the office staff in 1952, but shamefully did not take any photographs of the occasion! --ClemRutter (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks people. Interestingly I discovered that my long-held preconception, that the bridge parapets were filled in by some 1950's council busybody worried about the smell from the river, weren't quite true. It was some 1870s busybody that did that, the council did a half-job of restoring them in 1991. I also found photographs which suggest a similar thing happened to Victoria Bridge, but nothing in writing. New Bailey Bridge, Manchester next, I think :) Parrot of Doom 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Adolphe Valette painted that one. :) J3Mrs (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two conflicting sources. One is the Manchester Guardian between 1843 and 1844, detailing the construction of Albert Bridge, Manchester. The other is the listed buildings register, which for some reason gives a different designer, and an opening year six years too late (I haven't checked to see if that corresponds with tollgate removal or similar yet). I'm going to email English Heritage to see what they say, but I can find no mention of the designer they quote anywhere else, save the odd guide book. There's absolutely no mention of a Jesse Hartley anywhere in contemporary records, in fact the Manchester Guardian gives George W. Buck as the designer - Albert Bridge has a skew arch, and Buck was well known as an expert on skew arches.

I wonder, do EH just accept the information they're given (presumably in this case by either Salford or Manchester council), or do they perform their own investigation before listing? Parrot of Doom 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it may be the case that EH's listed architect made a few changes on the original design. Parrot of Doom 18:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looked in Clare Hartwell :Pevsner Architectural Guides Manchester. On P247 quote "by Jesse Hartley, 1844 replaced bridge of 1775. (changed 1875 to 1775 - PoD) A single, low segmental arch of stone with pilaster terminals and curved abutments." J3Mrs (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is I think someone may have got the Albert Dock, which Hartley was responsible for, confused with the Albert Bridge. All my searches of 19th century sources reveal nothing, the 21st century sources all stem, I think, from the EH listing. And wouldn't you know it, the EH site crashes when I try to email them .... Parrot of Doom 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. The English Heritage listings, especially older ones (and this one is getting on for 25 years old now), do sometimes have errors—even quite significant ones occasionally. I had cause to e-mail them recently to correct a serious error in the attribution and dating of a listed building (both the year and the architect were completely wrong; they had mixed up two different NatWest branches, essentially. 155–158 North Street, Brighton is the article in question.) They corrected the listing within 48 hours of receiving my e-mail, in which I quoted the relevant sources confirming the correct details; so do give it a go, if you can get the website to work! The e-mail address I used was minoramendmentstothelist@english-heritage.org.uk, by the way. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well at least EH now admit that they may be making errors and, more to the point, are prepared to correct them. This was not always the case. The descriptions in Images of England are set in concrete and, not infrequently, wrong. I approached them some time ago about the date they gave for a listed house in Runcorn, which on evidence I had was impossible. I wrote, giving a detailed argument. I cannot now remember the precise response, but in summary it was something like "tough". Perhaps we all ought to now be assiduous in informing EH of errors; it is in their interest, and in the interest of the large numbers of people who consult the website. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have pencilled a correction in my book. I still hate that website. J3Mrs (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hassocks, I've just emailed them at that address. We'll see what they have to say. I was responsible for a beam engine near Radcliffe being listed and as I recall they relied on records supplied by myself and an interested engineering society for the detail. Parrot of Doom 12:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lowry and Controversy on entrance policy

Hi! I was rather disappointed that you so summarily removed the addition to The Lowry page about the story about their attitude to youngsters entering the building "without supervision". It was the Salford Star that first brought the "unwritten policy" to light - and it has since spread wider, not just The Guardian. Are there other museums with a similar policy? As far as I know, none of these museums actually have it written on the websites or on their front door. So is this story worth including in Wikipedia? I would argue YES. It shows that the buildings are more than bricks and mortar and unveiling ceremonies. See, for example: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts --TTKK (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree, as I said in the edit summary many museums adopt this policy towards unaccompanied youngsters (written or unwritten) and a stunt by the Salford Star, even if it was taken up by the Guardian, doesn't deserve coverage. And I read the sources and considered what was there before removing undue reference to a stunt. I also consider undue weight has been given in the article to which you linked. J3Mrs (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with J3Mrs, if this develops into a bigger story than a line or two may be warranted, but right now it appears to be a storm in a teacup and not deserving of mention. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And I absolutely disagree with J3Mrs. Where exactly is the evidence that "lots of galleries apply a similar policy regarding unaccompanied children"? So, just because it was a 'sting' arranged by a local paper why does that make it invalid and just a "stunt". It's exposing real injustice. And it's perfectly notable. A so-called public Art Gallery has become the preserve of those who wear the right clothes and are the right age? how pathetic. I don't see why we have to disregard a totally legitmate story carried by a national newspaper just because one editor decides they know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.200.196 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's edit and wonder what other editors might think. J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Breaking down the paragraph sentence by sentence, I think it's clear there are some issues with the material.

• "In May 2006 the Salford Star magazine organised a sting operation against the Lowry to demonstrate its intolerance towards youngsters wishing to enter the complex without adult or teacher supervision, though such a policy is not publically acknowledged."

Over dramatises things, especially "intolerance" which is a loaded word.

• "In his article in The Guardian about the incident, David Conn described how the Salford Star arranged for six local teenage boys to visit the centre with telephone cameras as well as secretly recording the operation."

The method isn't particularly important.

• "With no explanation given, the youths were stopped at the reception and first asked to leave and then forced out by security guards."

Seems a reasonable summary of the events, everything else is pretty much surplus.

• "The Salford Star printed alongside their original story all the pledges the Lowry has made, in return for its public investment, about ensuring that "it is used by local people"."

The format the Salford Star's article took is irrelevant.

• "The photos taken by the youths have since been published on The Guardian website under the title "Sunday afternoon at the Lowry"."

What photos The Guardian used has no place in an encyclopedia article.

In short if the incident was to be included, it would need pruning to avoid placing undue weight on it. But then what it boils down to is the Lowry turned away six kids. Is that really worth mentioning? However, I'd be interested to see if the Lowry responded to the story. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why has this discussion been moved here? It should be at The Lowry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.166.168 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lowry article might well have less watchers than this talkpage, which is basically for anyone interested in topics related to Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 11:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)