Eisspeedway

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Bad news

The December issue of the newsletter, which has been a success thankfully, won't be delivered (or indeed wrote) tomorrow. I'm sort of snowed under with pressure at the moment. I'm trying to get Vatican City to GA, do the above list which I've still not edited, help write a section on the signpost and do my Macbeth coursework. Ah geez. It'll probably be delivered on the 5th. All the best, — Rudget contributions 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But I did at least get time to write this today. :) — Rudget contributions 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Great Chinatown article, we definatly needed one. Good luck with your Macbeth essay, that's the most important of your to-do list! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Aims?

Just a quick recap on a proposal someone made in the talk page archives... do we plan to update our project's aims any time in the near future?? If so (and I'm welcoming input here), can I make the following suggestions for us?:

What do folks think? Do we need to drop/ammend/add to this list? Any ideas for timescale? What about getting one of our FA's on the mainpage for the day? Anything about new users or articles? Just somethings to think about, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ambitious yet very achievable, if everyone pitches in! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


I agree with pretty much all of that, and I think it's appropriate to rethink the project's aims now that Manchester is FA. I'd certainly like to see Greater Manchester put up for GA now, and I'd like to see all of the borough articles GA listed asap; I don't mind which one we start with after GM.

I'd also like to see a push at the Salford article to get it least up to GA, as you know. I think many of the Salford articles look a bit unloved, and I've been spending some time working on a few of them. One of which, Chat Moss, I think will be an FA candidate with just a little bit more work. I think that I can get Ordsall Hall up to GA as well, but with quite a bit more work.

I'm sure I don't need to make any comment on your suggestion about bringing Stretford and Altrincham up to FA. :)

What kinds of "topics" do you have in mind? I've had in mind an article about Invention and discovery in Manchester for a little while now.

So far as top priority articles are concerned, it's been my impression that the way this project works best has been when a dedicated editor or two work an article up, and then call in the troops to give it a final polish and then to support with any work that's needed during the review. With the best will in the world, although I recognise that there are many top rated articles needing attention, some of them appeal to me less than some more local topics, although I'd still do whatever I could to help with copyediting and the like. But I digress. Thumbs up from me for those updated project aims. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if we all pulled together we could push Greater Manchester up to FA standard, skipping GA, as it is so important. Thanks to Jza84 and others there is now the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines so there is plenty to go off plus there is a small handful of FA counties already to learn from. Maybe a our first collaboration of the month? If we decide that would be useful someone can post a message to all members of the project requesting some help and I think we could get it done in no time at all! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Somerset is up for FA, so might be useful to look at that for ideas. — Rudget contributions 11:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news! (for once, apart from Manchester gaining FA, probably)

I'm going to start the newsletter in a day or so, once my part in the signpost goes live. Best, — Rudget contributions 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done — Rudget contributions 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stations help

Anybody who likes doing research please can you try and find out the exact opening years of Moston railway station and Dean Lane railway station, not just decades please! I'm trying to finish my List of stations in Manchester, I will be converting the closed stations list to a table soon as I can. Thanks people. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is by design or if you weren't aware but Levenshulme had 2 railway stations. The one that is currently open and Levenshulme South that has been closed for a while. It's currently a "RepoTV" store, but it was opened in the mid 1800s and closed, errr, actually I'm not sure when it closed, but I'm sure I could find out. --WebHamster 22:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise there was a station in Longsight that was built/opened in 1843, but sorry, yet again I can't remember the date it closed. --WebHamster 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created Levenshulme South railway station now with some dates I found for it but not sure dates for Longsight railway station on here it says the station built in 1842 was the relocated station. Does anybody have any books about old railway lines in Manchester? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This actually comes up in my research for Belle Vue Zoo. The original Longsight station ("at the point where the railway line crossed Stockport Road") opened in June 1840. This caused problems with the then new Belle Vue by cutting part of the gardens in two. The Manchester & Birmingham Railway finally relented to protests and relocated the station adjacent to Kirkmanshulme Lane (I think it's where the railway engineering works is now, just near Ariatech Computers). The relocated station opened in May 1842. The relocation actually helped BVZ thrive then as it was a good drop off place for organised excursions to the zoo. The info came from The Belle Vue Story by Robert Nicholls (2nd edition p6) ISBN 1852160705. --WebHamster 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, it's amazing the little nuggets that show up in research. I was amazed to find that there was a prison larger than Strangeways on Hyde Road, West Gorton, called Belle Vue Prison. It opened in 1848 and closed in 1888 due to mining subsidence then subsequently demolished in 1890 (some of the building blocks were used to build the rhino enclosure in BVZ). I know it's not relevant to this topic, but I'm just fascinated with the history of my local area. Something that's only started appealing since editing here :) --WebHamster 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I had somewhat the same epiphany. And having thought about it since, I think it's important for people to have a sense of the history of the place that they're living in, even when it is an apparently nondescript suburb of Manchester. The more people that understand and then come to respect the areas that we're writing about, the more people will start to care about those areas, and try to improve them. Well, that's my dream and my motivation anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 06:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you be able to create the Longsight railway station article for me then please? It only need to be a stub I just want some bits of information. Cheers! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, all done. --WebHamster 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you sniffed around Google Books? I often find snippets of information in there. Parrot of Doom 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had a look but most just refer to the Longsight train shed. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually they're the same thing. The problem is though I can't find any definitive date for when the station part ceased to be a station. The engineering depot has been there since day one. AFAIK no passenger trains currently stop there, but as I'm not a train user don't bank on that being correct :) --WebHamster 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right, there are no passenger services there. The site is however home to the Manchester International Depot which was supposed to house the trains for the Regional Eurostar which of course was stopped by the useless government even though it would have accelerated economic growth here and would have brought huge investment to us. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe there was also a station on Wilbraham Road between Fallowfield and Chorlton-cum-Hardy. Pit-yacker 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any information on dates of opening and closure? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It will probably be in Johnson, E M (2000). The Fallowfield line: an illustrated review of the Manchester Central Station line. Romiley: Foxline. ISBN 1870119-69X. It's in Manchester's central library.
Some notes I made from Brackenbury, Allan (2005). Railway passenger stations in Greater Manchester: a chronology. Cheadle: Railway and canal Historical Society, North West Group. say that Hyde Road and Levenshulme South were both open from 2 May 1892 to 7 July 1958. Mr Stephen 12:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No source but List of closed railway stations in Britain: T-Z, claims it closed in 1958. Pit-yacker 11:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Here we go, from Brackenbury above.
  • Dean Lane, 17 May 1880, named Dean Lane (Newton Heath) before 7 May 1973
  • Longsight, May 1843 (first timetabled service) to 15 Sept 1958
  • Moston, Feb 1872 (first timetabled service)
  • Wilbraham Road 2 May 1892 to 7 July 1958, named Alexandra Park before 1 July 1923
HTH Mr Stephen 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know where White City railway station was? In the latest MEN report about what Greater Manchester will get out of the congestion charge here it says they will be rebuilding White City and Salford Crescent stations, where was White City? Was it on the site of the old amusement park called White City? Does anybody else know about it with possible history information? Thanks! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that it was close to where the metro link station is now at the junction of Manchester Road and Stretford Road at Trafford Bar.--WebHamster 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
you could try looking at http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/index.html Its got lots of old maps of Manchester's railways and canals and other transport information. Richerman (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, found it now. Go to to http://manchesterhistory.net/whitecity/home.html click on "location" and you'll see a location map. There's a railway station just nearby which must be White City as it's the only one there. Richerman (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's where I thought it was, the yellow road just to the right is Manchester Road. I recall a brick building that looked just like a doorway leading to some stairs. It had the British Rail sign just to the right of the door. --WebHamster 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the two stations on that map are now Old Trafford and Trafford Bar; they were Warwick Road and Old Trafford respectively. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go. Lower left map on pdf page 9/10. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for that! Seems like a pointless station really with the Metrolink nearby unless they have plans for development nearby? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah but the station was there many years before the metrolink was even thought of. No point in not using something that's already there I suppose. :) --WebHamster 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, from what I've heard trams don't like going downhill. The railway line at that point is below road level. I can imagine all the commuters spilling their lattes down the neck of the person in front :) --WebHamster 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham FAC

Since getting Altrincham and Stretford promoted to FA has become one of the projects aims, I thought I'd nominate the Alty article which I did on the 4th. So far it's been pretty quiet, but if people could keep an eye on it and chip in if they think they could help that'd be great. I should have mentioned it earlier, but better late than never. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the FA nomination. If I may just add one thing though, I think it would be a good idea if members of this project didn't pile in with their Support !votes; that could be interpreted as Nev1 having canvassed for support. Rather we should each do what we can to address any concerns that might be raised during the nomination. Just my two-pennyworth. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good point - one which I whole-heartedly concur with. We should be seeking to apply the utmost in critical thinking here to ensure we get an outstanding article, rather than just a new badge!
On Altrincham I may as well say it here (I think it'll have a greater effect), but the article doesn't "feel" FA. Does/did Altrincham have a town hall at all? Perhaps an image in the infobox would help with the presentation. Some of the sources are missing authors and/or publisher and format, whilst there appears to be a reliance on internet sources (which is something I personally dislike - but that's just me being picky and not something that is a Wiki policy or guideline!), -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn canvassing, I should have added a disclaimer! What I meant was I might not be able to deal with everything that comes up on my own. I'll see what I can do about getting authors etc. for sources tomorrow. As for the internet sources, they may not be tangible but Images of England and the 'Specialist School and Academies Trust' to give just two examples are very reliable, more so than say a newspaper article saying the same thing as this is more or less first hand information. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being unpopular, I think this needs a tough copyedit from someone with 'distance' I offer the following as MHO for starters. (I just read the following & a looks a bit brusque, sorry for that - I hope you can read it in the constructive light that it is intended to be in.)

    • do "Free Borough" and "Charter" need capitals?
It's Charter as in 'Royal Charter' so it should be capitalised shouldn't it? I'm not sure about Free Borough Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "... it has been postulated that the town was established"; WP:WEASEL - make it clear whose opinion this is (the nearest reference follows a sentence on a different subject). removed weasel words; repeated reference as it refers to both parts of same para Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "... unusual although not uncommon during the medieval period"; sorry, what does that mean? rephrased Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "... suggested that there may have been a drying kiln or malting floor in the house, dating from the 13th or 14th century"; is it the house, the kiln/floor, or both that date from then? rephrased Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • [the fair] "was only abolished as late as 1895"; there is no context - is that late? When did other fairs stop? I don't have a context, it was my own way of speaking: I just think 600 years is a long time Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "and Bowdon (but not in Bowdon) on Lloyd Street/Railway Street"; I think I know what you mean, but I'm sure it could be clearer. This is Bowdon's first mention, I think we can afford a wikilink. rephrased, it was called Bowdon station though it wasn't in Bowdon
    • "By 1901, less than 20% of workers were employed in agriculture." This is its first mention - had there been more at some stage? Much later we have "Historically, Altrincham was a market town with a small number of its population employed in agriculture." I'm unsure where this is going.
    • "By 1937, there were 130 train services daily between Manchester and the stations in Altrincham."; delete "the stations in" - where else would the trains go? removed redundant phrase Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Rail travel times to Manchester in 1887 averaged 30 minutes"; this is obviously introduced for a purpose, probably to contrast with 2007, but it is out of context as it stands and the 2007 figure doesn't appear. removed; it takes about the same time today Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "250 acres (101 ha)" It's not important, but I think 100 ha will be quite accurate enough. changed conversion to km2 which is more widely understood Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The first para of Civic history is plain confusing to me. It's a borough in 1290, but not a borough in 1835; so how can the borough exist in order to be abolished in 1886?
    • Political representation - just too many Altrinchams.
    • "Despite the presence of retailers such as Tesco, Sainsburys and Marks & Spencer" is a hostage to a spammer adding "and Joe's Megastore".
    1. "the development of Broadheath as an industrial area";
    2. "The industrial area of Broadheath, spanning an area...";
    3. "established Broadheath as an industrial area of national standing";
    4. "A direct result of the industrialisation of Broadheath ";
    5. "The Broadheath area of the town was a light industrial centre";
    6. "particularly the Broadheath area, which was developed into an industrial estate";
    • and again in the lead. Too many!

Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though you said it needs a copy edit from someone impartial, I've had a go at doing some of it myself as what was at fault was mainly my own sloppy text and someone else might not know what I was trying to say. If you are being brusque I didn't notice: there's no point in beating around the bush. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a suitable image that could go into the infobox? I'm thinking something like Altrincham's station clock tower, but a panorama or other landmark would be great too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pendlebury article

I have been looking at the Pendlebury article and I can’t understand how it got a “B” rating as it’s a jumble of unrelated and unsubstantiated facts. These are the problems I’ve found with it.

  • There are only five references in the article, four of which are in the lead paragraph.
  • There is no demography section.
  • There’s nothing about the origin of the name or the change from Pendleburgh to Pendlbury.
  • The early history section has a line and a half of early history about King John in 1199 (with a “citation needed” tag) and then goes straight on to the charter of incorporation in 1934, which hardly counts as early history in my book.
  • There is a heading “The industrial Revolution and Coal” but all the text is about coal mining after WW2.
  • Under “Civic History” there is suddenly a sentence about the location of Pendlebury which doesn’t seem to relate to anything.
  • The Geography section consists of one sentence.
  • Under “Landmarks” there’s a bit about the church which then goes on about the Clifton hall Colliery disaster without giving a date, but then gives the date for the pit closure.
  • The “landmarks” section then goes on at length about Agecroft Hall, which was demolished moved to Richmond, Virginia in 1925 and so is hardly a landmark in Pendlebury any more. In fact there is a stub Agecroft Hall which I think would be a much better place for most of the information, with a link from the Pendlebury article.
  • There’s no mention of the rather large war memorial sited in the town
  • There’s a sentence all on it’s own in the middle of the “Railways” section that reads “Perhaps ironically, the surviving Swinton railway station is also located in Pendlebury, meaning that the town once featured 3 railway stations within its boundaries” What does that have to do with anything?
  • There are a number of external links scattered through the article and then an “external links” section at the end.

When I have time I’ll have a go at rewriting the article but in the meantime shouldn’t a collection of unreferenced bits and pieces like this be rated as start-class at best? Richerman (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this was my mistake. I apologise unreservedly. But it would be nice to get some additional interest and feedback here on the article in the meantime ;). -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No apologies needed, I was just a bit mystified really.Richerman (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As there has been no more discussion I've changed the rating to start class and added a cleanup tag Richerman (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:North West England

Good news! It’s now a featured portal. — Rudget speak.work 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a featured portal... anybody else like the idea of Portal:Greater Manchester? (currently a re-dir to NWE) There is a Portal:Cheshire and now that the North West England portal is featured it will need a little less attention so starting a new one could be easy? Anybody like the idea? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...It'd probably share the same sort of things on NWE. Limited maybe? — Rudget speak.work 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done on achieving FA for the NW portal! I know this meant alot to you! It's a really great page!
On a GM portal, I'd say yes - I like the idea, but not just yet. I think (and it's just my opinion) we need to concentrate on our article content first, get a few more GAs and FAs, then look at a portal... perhaps when we've achieve all our short or mid term project goals? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well there is no rush, I think it would be a great addition to the project though. And I don't think it will be too limited, there is a Portal:Cheshire and the population of GM is more than double that of Cheshire's and is the second most build up region outside London. Again it's no rush, people can spend the time until then gathering ideas for content. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 07:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Greater Manchester

I would like to draw the project's attention to this proposal to delete the List of churches in Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe List of churches in London should go up for AFD then or is this just a bias that London is more notable than GM? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The article should be kept as a resource for people from across the world searching for baptismal records etc. It does need some work though as there are no lead or history sections and the list is by no means comprehensive. I'll be adding some of my local churches as soon as I have a few minutes to spare. Having looked at the List of churches in London article it has the sections but lacks references and is full of POV stuff. Richerman 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the article is staying! I have already tried to improve it. I propose a general style the whole list should stick to with one table per borough/city per my example List of churches in Greater Manchester#Manchester, obviously the list is incomplete and I think formatting is a major issue. Thoughts on new design? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there should be a 'website' column partly because it's not usual in lists and partly because it lends credence to the "WP is not a directory" crowd. Other than that though it looks okay to me, with the exception of the centred text, that just looks plain nasty! :) --WebHamster 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the websites, I only put that column in because alot of them already have it, I have removed it now and aligned the text left. I also noticed the inclusion of a Mosque and Synagogue when the list is supposed to be about churches. Agree these should be removed? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 04:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I doubt that there would be (m)any places in the UK with sufficient mosques or synagogues that naming them in the article (if appropriate) would be in danger of becoming a list. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a couple of changes to the table format, so see what you think. We obviously need to do a little bit of work on this list so that we can head another AfD nomination off at the pass, and probably something similar with the list of schools as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the table very much now, it is much easier on the eye with some colour in there. It would be great if there was a published list of all churches in different areas but I don't know of any so it looks like some research is in order. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
For me "church" is synonymous with "place of worship" which is why I included our local mosque, but I suppose that, after checking the dictionary, it does mean "a building for public Christian worship" so therefore they (it) should go. And yup, that new table is much nicer than the standard wikitable (shudder) and when the whole page is done will look really good. --WebHamster 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) The whole page is done now, and it's still using a wikitable. Thank heavens for embedded CSS. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I've added Stockport and Tameside. My comment about the wikitable (shudder) is in relation to the default wikitable class. For straight forward tables like these wikicode does the trick just as well as HTML. I'm just programmed better for HTML (I don't have to think about it) as I've been designing websites for about 11 years. I'm getting to be an auld phart who can't get his head round new ways of doing things :) --WebHamster 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Walking home form the pub (in Prestwich) last night I got to wondering, as you do after a couple of pints, which is the oldest church in Greater Manchester. I was thinking about the history section for the list of course! Anyway I thought it might be St. Mary's Prestwich which is thought to have been built about 1500 but when I looked it up on the net I found this [1] website with a list of daughter parishes of St. Mary's with the dates the churches were built. St. Mary's Oldham was 1406, although there was a church on the site in Prestwich from about 1200, but not the present building. Does that make the Oldham one the oldest in the area or does anyone know of any older than that? Also, I wonder if all the 41 churches mentioned still exist. This list could get very long if there are that many in just Prestwich-cum-Oldham. Are they all going in or just the notable ones?Richerman (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All of 'em. Not much of a list otherwise. The notable ones ought also to be covered either in their own articles and/or in the article about the area they're in. I don't think that churches that have been demolished/converted to offices or whatever ought to be included though, just active churches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like the oldest churches in Greater Manchester might be best served in an article entitled Religion in Greater Manchester that compliments the church list, perhaps?... From memory, I think St. Leonards in Middleton is one of the oldest in the county.
I agree we ought to have articles on the most notable churches - the Cathedrals and major Parish churches. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I googled St mary's oldham and the parish church was rebuilt in 1830 anyway, assuming that's the one it meant Richerman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's the same one!... Though I think you've set a good challenge to find out the oldest Christian place of worship in Greater Manchester. I can't imagine Oldham's was the earliest anyway, as it wasn't populous until the early 1800s. I would imagine it is the one in Prestwich, but possibly one in Rochdale or Middleton. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
St Leonard's is the favourite so far, some of it dates back to 1120 it seems. if you look here Richerman (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
A Religion in Greater Manchester article sounds like a good idea to me. But I'm still struggling to understand what a church's "foundation date" means. :( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it refers to the grouping together of the congregation (like a club) rather than the actual church building itself. Most of the research I've seen shows that churches ended up getting built second to a group of like-minded people coming together with a desire to worship. --WebHamster 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That concerns me too - I've been troubled with that in the Church list article... these seem to be the dates when the churches were built, rather than when the ground was first consecrated or used for worship. Perhaps this needs to be changed? Also, we're using the word "District" in the List of churches in Greater Manchester article, when really we should be using the word place or area (the word district strictly meaning an area used for local government).
Just an advance on St. Leonards.... parts of St. Chads in Rochdale are pre-1066 (!) and its tower dates from 1190. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose "built" should be the recommended de facto standard as it's more likely to be published rather than any of the other dates. --WebHamster 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. Oh, and according to some site called Wikipedia, St Michael and All Angels’ Church, Ashton-under-Lyne was mentioned in the Domesday Book! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah but,ah but - a church "on the site" was mentioned in the Domesday Book and it has been rebuilt twice since then. Now then, where did Adam and Eve go to church? Time for my bed I think! Richerman (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to it. ;) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Built would often give a range of dates though, like 1836–1838, as opposed to the date of completion of the building. I do agree though that the dates of building would probably be the most verifiable, and so I'd probably be inclined to go for the date that the building work finished, as opposed to the consecration date or whatever. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the column heading now; on reflection I don't have a problem with saying that a church was built 1836–1838. I think that "foundation date" gig just threw me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I just increased the "built" column to allow room for refs etc as it was wrapping them down to another line. --WebHamster 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you allowed to do that? I don't remember giving you permission to make alterations to my beautiful table? (Oh how wish that we had smileys, or some other way of making it obvious when we brusque northeners were just taking the piss :) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In this brusque northerner's case one can add the tactlessness of AS, oh and the fact that I'm usually taking the piss more than I'm being serious. As a result I recognise it in others... it's metaphor and allegory I come unstuck with! --WebHamster 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You at least have an excuse. I have an acquaintance who has a mild form of AS, and it's almost like their empathy chip is missing. But I have no excuse at all for my own tactlessness, other than being, well, tactless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I didn't realise you were both editting that page (I thought I'd be the only one up!). I may have altered some of your additions - innocently I promise! -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you only nuked a minor little edit of mine, it was no biggie to redo. --WebHamster 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is starting to shape up nicely now. That AfD was maybe a helpful wake-up call. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! We're certainly in a better position that List of churches in London - which I for one would expect to be the leading such article... this could turn into a nice little project for us. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, who can resist a challenge. Let's go for it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you lot ever go to bed? I thought I was getting a bit obsessive about wikipedia but I see I'm just an amateur. It's a new day now and I notice Freechild has been having a go at the List of churches in London article, but he seems to have toned things down a bit and put on "citations missing" and "notability" tags this time. Still, his full on nuclear attack technique worked in our case so maybe the AfD tag is the quickest way to get an article improved. Richerman (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I go to bed... sometimes. Even then I usually plot and scheme my next edits. But can you blame me when there's so much to do? I sometimes wonder how these articles would've looked if we each hadn't come to edit here - can you imagine!?.... anyway, just thought I'd give everyone a nudge to knuckle into the List of churches in Greater Manchester article at some point this week, whether that be adding your local church, a reference, starting an article for the most notable of churches, expanding the lead (like that in List of churches in London), obtaining a photograph, or finding a date (as in year, not the expensive companion with the same name).... we could get a freak featured list out of this one! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be doable for our list, but I rather like the layout of List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --WebHamster 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly a very nice looking article, but I think we'll probably be struggling even to find verifiable completion dates for lots of GM churches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, in addition to the Images of England site, and some of the individual church websites, we have UK Church database, A Church Near You, and the Diocese of Manchester sites. GENUKI sometimes have church completion dates, whilst local history books (including the online History of Lancs book) will also help.
I too like the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - but I would imagine our list is going to be quite massive, so we may want to think about how feasible it is and/or if we can condense it effectively. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've also just come across The Churches Of Britain and Ireland: Greater Manchester! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bench mark database

I just came across this website which may be of interest to any of you geographers out there if you didn't know about it already http://www.bench-marks.org.uk/. It gives the location of all the benchmarks and trig points in the country with distances between them etc. Although it's a bit complicated for a bear of little brain like me to use it looks as if it might be useful. It even lists benchmarks on buildings that are long gone such as the colliery buildings in Pendleton - which is how I came across it in the first place. Richerman (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent source. It looks like a really good one for the mother UK geography WikiProject. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it, I thought it looked useful for something!!! Richerman (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A small favour

I just created the {{Greater Manchester Metrolink stations}} template, to be used on all the Metrolink stations articles. Unfortunatly I had big hardware failure problems and now need to spend my time recovering my laptop so I can keep doing all my uni assignments. So basically could somebody put the template on all of the Metrolink station articles please, I have not put it on any yet. Thanks in advance! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the stations which are in bold are the ones with rail connections as part of the station, I don't know how/if I should point this out on the template so feel free to add if it needs it! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an excellent template! Looks like it might be best placed on articles by someone with access to an AWB. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Making a start now. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to all the articles in Category:Manchester Metrolink Bury-Altrincham line stations and Category:Manchester Metrolink Eccles line stations - see links. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia amazing?

When I first started looking for info on Kersal on the British History "Townships" website I found the word "thegnage" that I thought was a misprint. Then I joined the project and kept finding the word as I looked for info on other places so I decided to google it to find out what it meant. And where was the only place I found information on it? the wikipedia article on thegn of course, which explained all. Well ok, I admit it. I thought it was pronounced "theg - nage"! I knew Macbeth was the "thane of Cawdor" but I didn't know it was originally spelt thegn. In the few months since I joined this project I've learned more about history, local and otherwise, than I have in the previous 58 years. I've found out about the amazing achievements of unsung local heroes like William Crabtree and Jeremiah Horrocks and the man who invented the micrometer William Gascoigne and then felt compelled to sneak off and write an article on the man who carried on their work Richard Towneley. I've also edited articles about newts and all sorts of things (sorry guys but I needed a break!) and after a chance remark by another editor about Aspergers looked it up (in wikipedia of course) and found out that Isaac Newton was thought to have it. So without Aspergers we wouldn't have the work of Newton or Einstein and we'd be more ingnorant about the universe without it. How cool is that Hammie? And I've also discovered little covens of wikignomes that beaver away at all hours of the day and night just for fun. It's a bit like finding the Borrowers under you floorboards! Keep it up lads and lassies and one day we could conquer the world. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the best thing I've ever read on Wikipedia! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sometimes thought that wikipedia gives us a window onto the best and the worst of ourselves. There's bickering and vandalism, politics and favouritism, but sailing gracefully above all of that is the vast majority of editors who freely contribute their time and effort just because of a vision. The vision that knowledge should be freely and easily available to everyone, everywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POST

Just to inform you that this WikiProject will become featured in this week's signpost. (Which was meant to be posted yesterday) :) — Rudget speak.work 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! We're going to be famous! Great stuff. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, lost me for a minute there..... you mean Signpost - nice interview! Richerman (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Just an idea. Anyone up for some deletion sorting. I came across an example before, you can see it here. — Rudget Contributions 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea, but one that as a confirmed eventualist I'd probably be quite unsuited to. I'd be running myself ragged trying to do enough work on nominated articles just so that they wouldn't be deleted. :) I haven't yet seen an GM article that I'd felt like nominating for AfD anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant it as a display board for all members of the project to comment on a single page containing all GM related articles. It may encourage bias, but hopefully it wouldn't occur. — Rudget Contributions 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were proposing a separate GM:AfD. In that case I'm heartily in favour of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's quite alright. Just have to try and persuade the others now. Hopefully, it'll go down like my last suggestion. :) — Rudget Contributions 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be keener to see a system for stub sorting!... however, looks good, though like Malleus I'm not sure I've seen many GM articles suitable for deletion, if any! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article

Anybody think we could make one of our FA's hit the mainpage sometime soon? I'm thinking Manchester. Does anybody have any experience with the nomination process? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into that already and basically I think we need to choose a date to nominate it on and the current noms seem to choose dates relevent to the subject to give a rationale for the nomination. Manchester was the article I was trying to nominate but I couldn't think of any big dates in the Mancunian calendar. Also only five nominations at a time are allowed and it seems to be constantly full. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Might be nice to book 1 April 2008 for Greater Manchester then, if we can get it to FA by that time!... I can't really think of a rationale for a specific date that would allow us to display any of our FAs. It certainly seems like something we should consider for the project though; WP:KENT has had a couple of their FA towns displayed in the past, and todays FA Lethbridge looks not too dis-simillar from a few of our FAs. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What about the date of the Peterloo Massacre? — Rudget Contributions 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good one! Though its 8/9 months off!... there's the "Christmas Blitz" on the nights of 22/23 and 23/24 December 1940 which is round the corner. 15 June 1996 was the IRA bomb. The article doesn't give the exact date as to when Manchester was granted City status - just the year. That needs fixing regardless! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I suppose it's a bit of a lengthy while until August 16th, but the Christmas Blitz idea is good! I'd pick that out of all the others. But it all depends on the users who (!)vote on whether or not to display it. — Rudget Contributions 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that the Christmas Blitz article is still a stub. Still there's always next year. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2008 is a big year of sport in Manchester, see here. One of the showpieces is the UEFA cup final "televised live in over 200 countries and territories worldwide" on 14 May at COMS, but I guess any on this list would be OK. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The stadium is already an FA, so that looks like a good candidate for 14 May. The 21st June is also a good candidate I think; the 60th anniversary of the running of the world's first stored programme at Manchester University in 1948, on the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Heck, I bet there are lots more significant dates than we've got featured articles to nominate - so far, anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Manchester City F.C. and City of Manchester Stadium have already appeared on the Main Page. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Most Main Page selections do not appear there as the result of a request - submitting it at featured article candidates implicitly acts as a form of request. The scheduling is determined by the featured article director, User:Raul654. The request page is only used for cases where a specific date is desired. Raul gives some explanation of the selection process at User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#The_main_page_featured_article. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone else agree?

I've just assessed the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine article as top priority. Does everyone else agree with that assessment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, though can't say I know much about it beyond the obvious! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that it's a subject close to my heart, so I thought I'd better check that I wasn't letting my heart rule my head. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_6