Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Times have just put 200 years of scanned articles on line at http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/archive/ It has all the content of The Times from 1785 to 1985 and they say there will be an introductory period of free access, so this would be a good time to add any references to history sections of articles (Peterloo for instance?). I've only had a quick look at the home page so far but they say in the papaer that they are eventually going to add all content to the present day - which will be brilliant. Richerman (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This archive is something else. So far I've read the contemporary reports of

Peterloo and the big chartist meeting on Kersal Moor as well as reliving my time at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970

. You can save a jpeg of the articles too.

This does look REALLY good actually (I had overlooked this notice). I'm having difficulty logging in, but I've already located some stuff about Greater Manchester's creation. There's loads of content. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you still waiting for the email confirmation? It took about three quarters of an hour for mine to arrive but it came eventually. Richerman (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yer, that seems to be the problem. I'll just be patient then if that's the case, but, as you say, this site really is something else! A great resource. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue mon brave! When you get there you'll find that the OCR text from the old papers is not too good, so I'd stick to saving the jpeg if I were you. Richerman (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card. You can use your library card to access the site without going through a registration process. For those post-1985 articles, your Manchester library card also gets you access to Newsbank. More info at manchester.gov.uk Oldelpaso (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, there's plenty of stuff on there to be getting along with. In fact there's so much information you have to be careful you don't end up using everything! Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A little help there. One of our traditional counties advocates is asserting that an area of Wigan is part of Lancashire, even though GMR is in the name! He has already reported me on

I've pointed him in the direction of

WP:UKCITIES, although he does share all the classic (and misappropriated) views of the Association of British Counties. I'll monitor the situation. --Jza84 |  Talk 

23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He is going on about his school now, Up Holland High School, I've checked on a map and the boundry seems to go right through it between Wigan and West Lancs. A google search says it is in the Lancashire LEA but it has a Wigan address and part of Orrell, Greater Manchester. We can't say it is in Wigan, Lancashire because that's just plain wrong, is this school in Nomans Land? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in West Lancashire. Wigan is used "postally", in a simillar way Warburton, Greater Manchester uses LYMM as it's posttown. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is in the town of Orrell according to their website, is Orrell split over two counties? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly yes. It's not a unique phenomenon though - Ramsbottom being another example. If it is then the editors of that page may need to revisit the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added an infobox and done a bit of editting, but as an article it's completely unsourced. Anybody know the area? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It failed its GAC =(. I thought it was a good article too, what happened? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Um [shuffles feet] I dropped the ball on that one, I was busy irl and couldn't edit. I've messaged they editor who failed it after implementing his recommendations. Hopefully we won't have to wait another month for a review.

Nev1 (talk

) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we'd secured this as a GA it'd been so long! I'm sorry to hear we didn't manage it, but I'm sure we certainly will next time (which is hopefully soon). --Jza84 |  Talk  19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The annoying thing is the required edits were so small and easy to do it hardly seemed worth failing.

Nev1 (talk

) 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And talking of things that have taken a long time, how's

Nev1 (talk

) 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nearly there - we need citation for Butterworth Hall Mill's demolition date. Get that, and we get an GA. :D --Jza84 |  Talk  19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reviewer has since passed

Nev1 (talk

) 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

...And it's been

Nev1 (talk

) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did worry about the history section actually (though you could probably lift some info from the main Salford article which is well referenced). I'm a bit dismayed by the delisting - I understood that we're going for GA, rather than FA. A cursory glance asserts that this is certainly a "good article" if not a "Good Article". --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been passed again, and I think this time it stay that way ;-)

Well done! A great article and great acheivement! Onwards and upwards (I think we're still beating

WP:YORKS)! :D --Jza84 |  Talk 

00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not part of Greater Manchester I know, but in the absence of a

Just a note that our category at WikiCommons (here) would benefit from a little en-masse TLC. Some of the categorisation is outdated or applied inconsistently. Thought it might be worth giving a quick Summer clean by us. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a handy tool for moving wikipedia images to wikicommons here. --

talk

) 00:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowly tidying it up, but help would be appreciated - there's a lot of images! In addition to tidying up the categorization, it would be good if we moved as many of the Manchester-related images as possible from Wikipedia to the Commons, as they're much easier to find once they're there and categorized properly (I keep finding lots of images of Manchester on Wikipedia that aren't used anywhere). It also makes it much easier for editors of other language Wikipedias to include images in their articles, and they can also be used on Wikinews et al. Note that images have to have a free license to be on the Commons, though. Mike Peel (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of tidying this eve too, creating some new categories, and moving the bulk of the content under the vauge "Greater Manchester" to more specific boroughs or categories. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies: I spent most of my time within commons:Category:Manchester, so didn't notice your edits. Nice work. Mike Peel (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for an apology at all! Great work with Manchester too. I think there remains a lot of uncategorised images and some of the categorised images may need additional categories to help with navigation, if not now, then futher down the line as the content grows. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again folks, what do we think about

WP:AFD. Mike Peel (talk

) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Too early to say, its only an hour or two old. I think he may need help with some spelling though ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried

WP:CSD G11. --Jza84 |  Talk 

21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm; that may do it, although if that article is advertising then it's very bad advertising... Mike Peel (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I think it is a well-meant article. On reflection

Wikipedia:CSD_A7#A7 was probably a better call actually, but I guess we can see what happens... --Jza84 |  Talk 

22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This might indicate that the page in question could be merged into that article? Parrot of Doom (talk

) 22:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He's put something about it on the Wigan page too. However the links go to a website about a place called Garage pro Wrestling - I'm confused!Richerman (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On the article-that-was, it was variously "Garbage", "Garage" and "Garge"... Mike Peel (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not much else to explain, really. Great job though. Excellent read for such a small piece of our history :) Rudget (logs) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, I created a Belfield, Greater Manchester stub last night. Not sure if there was anyone who frequents the DYK parts of WP who thought they could take this to the main page somehow. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To go on

WP:DYK, the article needs to be about 50% longer (> 1500 characters) and not marked as a stub. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The DYK Rules

.

Nice start to the article, though. I like the referencing. The article says that "For centuries a major landmark in the area was Belfield Hall" - does that mean that it no longer exists? If not, what happened to it? If it is still there, you need to rephrase this... Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the article. I think it would be worth going for DYK? using the bit about the Hospitallar Knights as a hook. We're about 250 characters short, also the article shouldn't be listed as a stub.

Nev1 (talk

) 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing seems to stand out to me, why not integrate the history and timeline section?

Nev1 (talk

) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a neat way to do that? I was wondering if there was a template that would tidy up that timeline thing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of converting the timeline into prose and integrating it that way. If you choose to keep the timeline you might want to check out

Nev1 (talk

) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good plan - I think that would require a lot of research, and would certainly keep me busy :) I can email members of the society for help. I was also considering a section on local wildlife and nature, since Salford City Council have designated part of the canal as a Site of Biological Importance (para 13.20). Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A section on the local wildlife sounds like an excellent idea to me. I should probably add a not on the Site of Biological Importance to the

Nev1 (talk

) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Right I've done it, and expanded on a few bits and pieces while I was in there. It looks much neater now. Is it standard practice to put links on the years, or are they ok as they are? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nev1 (talk

) 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed you've put the article forward at

Nev1 (talk

) 12:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too hot on canal infrastructure myself, but I'll certainly have a dig around in my books to help out with the referencing. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugger, it's been reviewed and failed barely a day after the article was nominated. What are the chances of that. I don't think that's a reason to stop improving it though, and maybe put it forward at WP:GAC again in the near future.

heh, I think the reviewer makes a good point though and I'll strive to improve the references. A trip to't'library is in order I think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I resubmitted it. Hopefully now there are more references and there will be time to correct any points the review(ers) make Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello team, user Joshii and I have been working on a table and map respectively, for possible use on the Greater Manchester article - probably the history section.

A link to our work is found at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. What do people think? I'm reluctant to add it just yet, as I'm not convinced it looks right with all the redlinks. Also, could the table be streamlined somehow? Hope you guys find the map informative.... took me bloody ages! .... and now I can finally finish some other user's requests!... --Jza84 |  Talk  04:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to that, the links are all to the former Urban Districts and Municipal Boroughs so it's very historical so links to the current towns and villages would not be suitable. Lots of stubs to be made! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 04:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first one as the table clearly shows the relationship between the former and current areas. Nice job by the way. Paypwip (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I prefer the first one as well. I think with 70 areas to include the alternatives could look a little unwieldy. Nice work you two! --

talk

) 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sounds like good feedback. So if we're to go with number 1, then are we happy with the layout of the table? Can it be improved in any way? And... where abouts would this go? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the concept, the table, and the layout of the map a lot. Would it be a massive effort to (a) make the map an SVG instead of a png and (b) use less, er, bold colours? Mr Stephen (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can try whip something up, sure. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the image pegged top right leaning any more towards your tastes and sensibilities? I can't seem to get an SVG of the file to load properly. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it - very nice! One thing though about the colour schemes: Manchester and Salford have "city" colours which are close to the Urban District colours. As they were County Boroughs, shouldn't they be in County Borough-type colours? Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Getting there I think. There's a pallatte at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Can we have a run at: cities to #FFD0D0; county boroughs to #F8A20C (not much chnage TBH & maybe the current is better); municipal boroughs to #3CE67B. Then modify the internal boundaries per the pallatte to the two shades of brown. With less black in the boundaries, the text should stand out more. If it's reasonably straightforward to try, how does that look? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more small thing - it's not obvious what the striped colour on Ringway means. (Oh, and would it be overkill to show the pre-1974 county boundaries on there, including the "split" Stockport?) Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is good feedback. User:MRSC also pointed out that in official reports and the like, county boroughs would be shown as such, regardless of city status, so I think we can go with that. I'll have a look at the pantones provided by Mr Stephen and see what I can do too.

With regards to pre-74 boundaries, I'm struggling. This map is based on one repeated in a few books I own. It doesn't have the former county boundaries on it. Plus there's the issue of which set of boundaries we go for - they were not static (Lancashire extending through Manchester's incorporations, and Mossley and Stockport also crossing "tradtional" boundaries"). That said, I am thinking of a seperate, ancient county boundary map which could serve that purpose. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Is that more like what you guys were thinking of? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The city and county boroughs look a bit similar now though, isn't one of the suggested colours more of a pink? (I bet that's not its approved name!) Mr Stephen (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We have moved it into the table to here. Any amendments are welcome and anybody who wants to create some stubs that would be amazing. We already have the greatest metropolitan county article and it just gets better and better. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What I had in mind for the "pre-1974" boundaries were the counties as they stood on 31 March 1974. As you say, the boundaries moved around as the various units changed within, but this map shows the status at that date (though Stockport was still split between Lancashire and Cheshire at that time). And Ringway's still confusing - though I like the latest version of the colour scheme best. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that to Jza at the time he was creating it but he said his source materials did not include the county boundries so he didn't know where they would go. Anybody got a map with them on? Ringway is confusing, it was part of the Bucklow Rural District so it should be coloured in the rural but the map is based on Jza's source material so there must be a reason for the rural/urban stripes. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 10:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society.

ISBN 0861931270. page 32, we read (with expansion of the great number of contractiosn used for comprehension reasons) "Ringway: Civil parish created in 1900 from the part of Hale civil parish not constituted Hale Urban District (fn: 256). Local Government: Bucklow Poor Law Union and Rural District. There was a boundary change in 1936 (fn: 7). Transferred in 1974 to Greater Manchester (fn: 28)." I've omitted the last bit which just describes its history in terms of parliamentary representation. The footnotes just give a reference to the government bills that contained the changes. If we take a look at Hale's entry, (page 20 of Youngs) it has two entries. The relevant bits of the first one confirms a boundary change in 1900 which created Ringway civil parish, and another boundary change in 1936. Hale Rural District was in existence from 1895 until 1900, when Hale Urban District was formed which lasted until 1974, when it was transferred to Greater Manchester. Now, this may be wrong, but could the map issue surrounding Ringway be an attempt to take into account the pre 1974 boundary changes, because there doesn't appear to be a date on which any "snapshot" of the pre 1974 local government areas were frozen to draw the original map, and I've come across similar problems in a number of issues about areas that were more rapidly in a state of flux during the late 19th and early 20th century? Perhaps fixing the map at just prior to 1974 might help? (An article on the pre-1974 local government areas of Cheshire might help, and I've already got tat on my worklist.)  DDStretch  (talk)

10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work DDStretch! I think you may be right. I've introduced the split-colour scheme for Ringway myself as a way of showing that (according to the accompanying written material), "Ringway was a civil parish part in Hale Urban District and part in Bucklow Rural District". I can change it no problem, but what was Ringway on 31 March 1974? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From 1900 to 1974, Ringway civil parish was in Bucklow Rural District. Prior to 1900, Ringway civil parish didn't exist as it was part of Hale civil parish. Hale civil parish was split between two different local government areas from 1895 (when the local government areas here were set up) until 1900. The two local government areas were Hale Rural District and Bucklow Rural District. In 1900, the Bucklow Rural District part of Hale civil parish was split from the rest and formed as Ringway civil parish entirely within Bucklow Rural District. The confusion may be driven partly by the presence of "Hale civil parish", and "Hale Rural District" (which in 1900 effectively became "Hale Urban District"). Does that help?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat! So, on 31 March 1974, Ringway was a civil parish within Bucklow Rurual District? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep: the Youngs book is normally quite accurate, and it gives no "riders" to this.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Youngs is certainly an authority on these types of things. I'll get on with amending the image, but the table may also require attention with regards to this factoid. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the table in any detail, but I could look at it in conjunction with the Youngs book and flag up any discrepancies here, if you like. I think it would be less potentially confusing if a single person did the editing of it, however. What do you think?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article is within the scope of this wikiproject? I could use a bit of help tidying it up :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely in scope I'd say. --

talk

) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis. Speedy Delete? Pit-yacker (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it too me. Interesting article, if it'd had some references. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with a speedy deletion. The editor who wrote the article clearly has a knowledge of the area, and more importantly an interest, and I think we should encourage them to work on wikipedia, although not on articles such as this.

Nev1 (talk

) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question is, is he a

WP:MERSEY man? :P --Jza84 |  Talk 

20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe he'll want to start

Nev1 (talk

) 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have put the article up for speedy deletion. I note that the authors talk page also has a speedy delete for North-West metroplex. As Nev1 sussgests he/she does seem to have a knowledge of the area and could be useful if encouraged to work on other articles. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody else comes along soon, I'll hit the delete tab myself. I've started a

User:Jza84/Merseyside subpage to help our regional cousins along (seeing as we've now had a healthy headstart :P) --Jza84 |  Talk 

20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jza, you're an admin so you can tell us what the deleted North-West metroplex article was about? Is it the same thing as this new article he has made? Would just be interesting to know as I have heard of the Manchester-Liverpool "megaopolis" which is due to urban sprawl but never a North-West metroplex? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooooo. What's in it for me if I tell you all? THE POWER! ... actually yes, it was an identical article. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was speedied as db-author, no? What CSD criterion would you apply to this? I would try a prod, personally, to give him time to flesh it out (or otherwise). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Mr Stephen. This could be quite interesting if fleshed out, and if it isn't then it can easily be prodded or taken to AfD. I'll admit to being dubious though, because there's still an awful lot of green space between Liverpool and Manchester. Or at least there was when I drove down the M62 yesterday. --

talk

) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just incase anybody was not aware, Liverpool-Manchester is an EU defined

Urban Area using their own criteria. Obviously that is just a population statistic and doesn't constitute a megalopolis but I think that stat is what inspired him to create the article. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat

_┘ 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a speculative article about the Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis would be just fine, if supported by some reliable sources. Which is why I'd be inclined to go for the prod instead of CSD. --

talk

) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A megalopolis is similar to a conurbation, except that it involves the meeting of two or more metropolitan areas. It isn't necessarily related to issues of population size, a very large city is often referred to by the term megacity.

The urban part of the North West is a megalopolis according to both definition and the reality of the area; the article is a work in progress intended to help understanding of the metropolitan nature of the region, versus self-contained city regions such as the West Midlands, Glasgow, etc, which currently operate in metropolitan isolation. "Megapolitan" is rarely an official title in the same way as "metropolitan", but is instead a physical event with associated socio-economic outcomes (ie. increased labour pool, larger market, increased cross-region mobility, etc).

The Liverpool Manchester megalopolis has been referred to by others previously; other terms that have been used are North-West city region, North-West megalopolis, North-West conurbation. Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis is the most appropriate for this article, as it accurately describes the phenomena in an understandable format. It has been difficult to choose a title for this article, but the phenomena is worthy of note.

The article also addresses the inaccuracy of the use of 'North-West' by Merseysiders or Mancunians to refer to only the megapolitan part of the region.

Incidentally, I was also considering authoring articles on other such urban areas, such as the West Midlands, which also has a unique and interesting background and history.--Genolian3 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to see some reliable third-party references to the Liverpool-Manchester megalopoplis. Presently it has the feel of original research. --

talk

) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Third-party references may indeed come, however this is a phenomena of geography and urban sprawl that has influenced way of life in the region, and so evidence will inevitably be overwhelmingly qualitative rather than quantitative, however this doesn't detract from the fact that the megalopolis is physical and is a part of everyday life. Qualitatively, from people in Chester going to the Trafford Centre, to someone in Altrincham popping to Ikea in Warrington, to someone from Warrington going to work in Eccles, the boundaries between the areas have been blurred for some time and the reality of people's experiences whether for business or otherwise is to experience and access the area as a whole. Quantitatively, although there may be pockets of green space and smaller towns in the space inbetween, the area is overwhelmingly 'urban', in addition most of that area ('empty' or not) does belong to either Merseyside or Greater Manchester (and so is classed as metropolitan), with only smaller, non-separating parts belonging to Lancashire or Cheshire.--Genolian3 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but for it to be the subject of a wikipedia article it has to be referenced to reliable third-party sources. At present it looks merely conjectural, and would very likely fail an attempt to have it deleted. --

talk

) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I can --Genolian3 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Just a quick update that this article has been nominated for deletion here. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the right choice now. --

talk

) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article requests are currently being accepted for July 16 – August 15,[1] so it won't be long before we can nominate the

Where is this points system found? I'm confident that "our" article will make for a better main page article than the opposition. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Points system can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Rudget (logs) 18:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just read it. So, two points... gulp! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side though, if we don't make it this year, then it could have four points next year, which ought to see it safe. :-)

Is this really worth keeping? I'm inclined to nominate for deletion if we can't do something about this page. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There are worse articles than that out there. I agree it is not the best article out there but it just needs a bit of cleanup and lists converting to prose and it wouldn't be such a bad article. Birmingham has an article about culture

Culture in Luton! So, anyway, I think the article should stay and just needs some attention. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat

_┘ 10:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that this is not an unwanted article, but my problem is that if I follow

WP:CITE et al and remove unverified content, we will be reduced to little more than a stub. It needs a complete rewrite and much TLC - as with most of these "X of Manchester" articles seem to. --Jza84 |  Talk 

18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please

I can't see this being hugely useful to be honest. ^┌Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither can I. Certainly not the new C class anyway, I'm more agnostic about having more than one reviewer look at A class though. --

talk

) 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". Oh well, the joys of consensus editting. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I never really saw the point in A Class to be honest, let alone this. —PolishName 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the new C class. The B class was far too broad and covered articles that were just better than start class, to those that were ready for a GA assessment. I think it's a lot clearer what the criteria are now and you shoudn't get the ridiculous situation where an an article that's completely unreferenced is given a B rating. There was a proposal to move A class below GA as well, as most articles go from GA to FA, but unfortunately it didn't get through. Richerman (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see the point. I'd also dispute your claim that most articles go from GA to FA. Many don't ever go to GA, they go straight to FA, like our

talk

) 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't phrase that too clearly. What I meant was that the next step for a GA article is usually to improve it and put it up for FA assessment without giving it an A grade. And the point of C class is that it's better than start class but the article still has some major problems, while B class articles may have some minor problems but they're well on the way towards GA standard. Richerman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I wonder what C-class articles we have. We should probably find some examples so we're consistent. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess we probably have quite a few, as the main C class criteria appears to be adequate referencing. Including one of my favourites,

talk

) 00:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sholver too perhaps? And Denshaw? Rochdale still being a B-class according to my understanding. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's about how I understand it. The difference between stub and start is article structure. The difference between start and C is referencing. The difference between C and B is completeness. --

talk

) 00:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Something's not adding up somewhere. Our assessment system doesn't seem to be picking up C-class articles (eg. Talk:Bolton and Talk:Denshaw). I've updated the project banner here, but still no luck. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is working now. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Have I got Image:Stockport_Coat_of_Arms.jpg under the right licence or is it Public Domain? Kieran5676 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks OK to me; it's definitely not public domain anyway. As the copyright holder has given permission for its use on wikipedia I don't think you need to make the fair use claim though. But remember that whenever fair use is claimed (which, as I said, I don't think applies here), you need to give a fair use statement for each use of the image, not just one blanket one. --

talk

) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly WebHamster, who did most of the work on

It's good, but it still needs some work; for example the 'financial difficulties' section is completely unreferenced. I think it would certainly be work trying to provided some referencing though. While we're on the subject of articles close to GA, I've been eyeing up

Nev1 (talk

) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've already used Cooper - I'll take a look at Frangopulo for some factoids. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great thanks. I've been looking for an image to put in the History section; I found a gif of a portrait of Alexander Radclyffe and a jpg of the Radclyffe coat of arms, but the first had no copyright info and didn't say where it came from, and the second is copyrighted to Salford Council. --

talk

) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, you're right. I plundered Cooper for anything I could find. :-) --

talk

) 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What do we think about this one? PROD? SD? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would qualify as a G11 (blatant advertising) speedy delete. --

talk

) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Definite advertising, straight to their website and no references. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm inclined to agree, and prepared to delete. Going once... --Jza84 |  Talk  13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, going twice.....Richerman (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised it is still undeleted.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gone. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just browsing through the list of portals now and wondering why on earth we don't already have one!? I know there's already one for North West England, but there's a portal for Cheshire, so why not Greater Manchester? Anyone with me on this? —PolishName 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Rudget might be of use to you on this one. I believe he's holds a distinguished position within the portal area of Wikipedia. Sounds like an interesting project though. On the flipside, I was actually thinking of proposing a shared NW England newsletter and noticeboard going forwards (rationale being it raises more awareness of work in various WikiProjects and draws good editors from each camp). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll pass the idea by him. The shared newsletter sounds a good idea; the GM newsletter is sometimes lacking in news... —PolishName 15:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics aside, this article warrents attention. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? The list could be displayed a little better but it is referenced at least. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of issues I can spot. But, although I'm pro-charge, I'm worried about the notablity/longevity of this page more than anything (would Encarta/Britannica have such a page me ponders???). Wouldn't it be better to merge with the main

Manchester congestion charge article as a table? And, if not, and there are presentation issues, is anybody willing to address them? Is it "Unitedcity" or "United City" too? --Jza84 |  Talk 

22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ahem - http://www.unitedcity.co.uk/ - personally I don't see what is notable about this, its probably better if merged into the congestion charge article as a couple of lines. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

actually if you click 'supporters club' it pretty much repeats the list given in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not about the congestion charge, its about a large group of companies in Greater Manchester behind the TiF bid (its simlar to List of companies based in Greater Manchester)and it could be expanded massively over the next 7 years as more stories and information comes out. To me that 'Manchester Congestion Charge' article should be infact called 'Manchester Transport Innovation Fund Bid' which includes the congestion charge articles. Its a massive job through. No one should be really "Pro Charge" they should be "Pro TiF". The current TiF article is lacking and the charge is only around 1/16th of the full story. As someone who has been looking over it for the last year I'd say it just needs someone else to go through it once to improve afew points. Am not the huge wikipedia expert so I just need someone add afew bits to make it better (Contents, External links, Categories and maybe a side bar) and make it more viewer friendly. Then I'll add more of a story and facts instead of just a list of companies. Its not something that you just want get lost in the congestion charge article, it doesn't belong there. Andysimo123 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the Consultation Brochure and the phrase GMTPE seems to use is "congestion charging in Greater Manchester". --Jza84 |  Talk  17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but its part of the TiF bid. Without TiF there is no congestion charge. Without TiF there is no £3 Billion in transport improvements. Read up on it. TiF is the project, the charge is just one part of it. Andysimo123 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree.

Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) is an article that could be used to link each city's TIF bid. The Manchester TIF bid article would then include a link to the proposed congestion charge. No need to change the name of the congestion charge article, just make it more focussed on the charge and put the TIF information in the Manchester TIF bid page. If that makes sense. Parrot of Doom (talk

) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So do you mean giving Manchester its own TiF page or just banging it in the current TiF page? I'd agree with either, alot is missing and the current TiF page is abit outdated. Andysimo123 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest- 1) main TIF page, as above, describing the TIF in detail, and each city, each city having a link to that city's article (TIF Manchester for instance). 2) A TIF page for Manchester, with all the local news and proposals, problems, objections, etc. That article to have further links (if there is enough text to warrant it) to Manchester specific articles such as transport improvements, congestion charge, etc.Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is to stay or be expanded then surely for balance there should also be a page for Greater Manchester Momentum Group, a group of large businesses with the opposite opinion. Paypwip (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd only be comfortable with a retitle if we can find reliable third party references to such a name, of course. But I agree, we ought to be able to make this a great source. Would the "Consultation Brochure" be considered reliable by us all as a source? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking through my copy of the consultation brochure earlier. It's published by GMPTE on behalf of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities. Sounds pretty reliable to me. --

talk

) 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of what they intend to spend the money on then yes, it is a reliable source, but any claimed benefits should only be quoted as claimed by GMPTE/AGMA, not concrete facts. The consultation brochure appears to have been extremely carefully worded like a politic manifesto. Paypwip (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(<-) OK. Well, this whole area of Wikipedia on the congestion charge needs some communal TLC IMHO. We have a top priority article that is currently very poorly covered. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We have loads of important GM articles in need of TLC. I'd love to help, but I'm pretty much tied up with the

talk

) 00:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello folks,

Following a quick discussion at

The citations needed need to be addressed before it is nominated, some people just oppose straight away based on that regardless of the quality of the article. ^┌Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The one about the tower blocks in Salford could use the ref in the list of tallest buildings in Salford. G-MEX is a doddle, I can do that later this eve. On the other hand, the one about the Lord-Lieutenant has proved resistant to my methods. There is a "clarify" in the sports section regarding Manchester Storm; I think the situation is a bit more complicated that the current version suggests. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. There's now just a single "citation needed" tag and a single "clarify" tag which need addressing. There's still quite a few citations without a citation template, but other than that we're close to having something nominatable. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was working through the citations bit, then I messed up with cite news. I spent half an hour plus trying to work it out. Turns out the template has been broken... There are a few strange refs, eg Tory plan to abolish GLC and metropolitan councils, but rates stay and the next two - maybe The Times? State of the English Cities: Volume 1 doesn't match its url at first blush. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of those were borrowed from other articles, like the metropolitan county page. I'll ask a couple of non-project users who work on that content to pop over if they get chance. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We're getting there now! I've found this which states the Queen appointed the last Lord Lieutenant of Greater Manchester, but, this suggests all Lord Lieuntenants are appointed by the Queen, and so doesn't quite elaborate on that single "clarify" issue we have. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

--Actually, I've cracked it. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At FAC

Greater Manchester is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greater Manchester, which I expect (even demand!) all to watchlist! Fingers crossed we'll get some good reviewers and good feedback. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm sure we can do this. --

talk

) 00:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made some comments/suggestions about the article that I wasn't sure where to make. I almost left them on the article's talk page, but ended up putting them on the FAC nomination page along with a support vote; hope that's OK. Mike Peel (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to tempt fate, this is looking quite promising now. Feedback doesn't get much better than this. --

PS. I've just noticed though that we now need to remove all of the autoformatting from the dates in citations etc. :-( --

Why is this? Has MOS changed? Reason I ask is that is may have implications for our existing FAs. Seems like a significant change of direction for MOS if so. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed in citations. TBH I don't think it's needed at all. If wikilinking dates makes the article too blue to read comfortably, then put pressure on the devs to fix it. If wikilinking dates is to be proscribed, then someone ought to write a script or bot to do the donkey work. For someone to have to spend an age taking out what others spent an age putting in is just too ridiculous for words. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MoS is in the process of changing, which is Tony went through and removed the autoformatting from the dates in the body of the article. This and this may help clarify things a little. The problem that leaves us with now is that the MOS demands that date are consistently either autoformatted or not throughout the whole article, including in citations and footnotes. --

talk

) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through and (I believe) un-autoformatted all of the dates in the article now. The problem with autoformatting is that it hides inconsistent date formats from logged in users, so we think everything looks hunky-dory, but a regular reader sees inconsistent date formatting. This is our flagship article, it ought to be the best we can make it, an example for others to follow. "Greater Manchester expects that every ...", well, maybe I'm getting slightly carried away now. :lol: --

An article about a place of Mancunian sporting heritage, Hyde Road, is currently on peer review. Comments would be most welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at this a couple of times now, and it looks Good to me! The capital G was

intentional! Good luck with this! --Jza84 |  Talk 

23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests now accepting main page requests for August 16. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, Norhern version of Waterloo? Simply south (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it now, but an objection has been raised straight away that I frankly don't understand. --

talk

) 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there are only allowed to be 5 nominations allowed on the page at anyone time (not by one person/group but overall). Looks like Peterloo is number 6 in the nominations.

Nev1 (talk

) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Peterloo, could someone who was involved in writing the article (or who is at least familiar with the subject) write a summary for the

Nev1 (talk

) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we give

Nev1 (talk

) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

... hense why I put the notice here rather than attempt the nomination myself! Yikes - doesn't make any sense to me at all! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SandyG has kindly offered to hold my hand and lead me through the process, so all is not yet lost. :-) --

talk

) 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We have some competition for the 16 August slot, as explained here. --

talk

) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like competition for the day on the main page; he's just saying that Quatermass should be removed from the nomination table shortly as they requested the 18th July, 2 days time. Mike Peel (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a point going begging for "Requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor of the article requested: 1 point" Have all the top contributors nominated front page FAs? (I'm only a 5 edit man, that's me out.) Is there any chance of grabbing the points for no "similar article recently featured on main page"? Those riots in Birmingham seem to me to be the only vaguely similar stuff, and you could argue that the Brum event was civil disobediance, whereas this was a peaceful gathering broken up by violence on the part of the authorities. If you like. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a fair bit of work on it and I've never nominated a front page article. Is there anything you want me to do or is Malleus a main page virgin too? Richerman (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to take over responsibility for the front page nomination. I completely cocked it up when I tried. :-) --

talk

) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Er well - I meant if I was the only one who could gain an extra point by not having nominated before. The idea of going for FA with the Peterloo article was your baby originally, I'm sure you're a bit more clued up now and you have had the offer of help from Sandy Georgia. I'll have a go at it if you really want me to but I don't really think I have any more knowledge of the process than you do. Richerman (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We're both main page virgins, so either of us would get the extra point for the article. You could hardly know less about the process than I do, and anyway, SandyG will do whatever she can to help. So go for it. :-) --

talk

) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's a very skilful pass by Malleus :-P

Nev1 (talk

) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaah help - there are only four articles on the page now and I've got nothing prepared to go on. Any chance of you putting your nomination back on Malleus or letting me have the text you used so I can do it? Also, do you know what the problem was that SG mentioned about the number of points? Richerman (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've worked it out myself and made the nomination now - only to be told I got it wrong. Howevwer the nomination is still there at the moment but I need to get to bed. Could somebody else have a look at the two discussions on the project page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and also on the associated talk page and see if you can add anything useful to the discussion? Richerman (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the process is completely opaque to me, and I've got no idea at all what the latest objection is about. --

talk

) 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, just before I go to bed..... There was an article for which I couldn't see any points claimed and there were none in the table above so I replaced it. Then I was told that it had some points claimed for it (I must have missed them) but for some reason they had been deleted from the table. I was also told I should have deleted the Emily Dickinson article instead as it was the next to go, but no-one has reverted my change up to now. That sparked off a discussion about whether the subject is notable because it's only talked about in British schools. There is now a discussion about the 12 year old rule in the next section on the talk page and it seems to be that the history of California is something that every 12 year-old in the world would be taught but Peterloo is too parochial. I'm beginning to despair and lose the will to live as you did. How about a suicide pact? Richerman (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, at least it means that we won't have to be on guard on 18 August reverting all of the inevitable vandalism. :-) --

talk

) 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All is not lost - we're still there on the page and I've claimed another point as suggested by Mr Stephen above, but its all gone quiet at the moment (Americans all asleep maybe?) and no votes either way have come in yet. Richerman (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the good news is that we are still haging in there on the page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and that there have been no oppose votes for the nomination. The bad news is that so far we have had only one supporting vote - from our own user:polishname. I think we're being ignored due to my cockup in removing the wrong article from the list in the first place. Only time will tell now I suppose. Richerman (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the MOS no longer requires dates to be wikilinked. Following a gentle hint at FAC, Malleus Fatuorum spent some time removing the formatting from Greater Manchester. It turns out to be fairly easy to get AWB to do most of the donkey work, see my trials here and here. As I soon ran into some opposition, any further runs would be on a requested basis, but it can be done. The 'cite web' template is also due to be modified sometime this weekend to reduce the blueness of the reference lists. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm allowed to use AWB I've never looked at it to see how it works. Would you mind running it through

talk

) 00:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some kind of "patch" added to my wikibrowser (and I'm talking pre-admin days here) that when I go to edit, I have additional "tabs" at the top for dates and units. Its probably obsolete now, but I wonder where I can get an upgrade? I don't even know how to change this feature. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(database lock) Jza: maybe you have something in your monobook.js? Malleus: will try ... Mr Stephen (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that many changes to the body of the text. The modified template will make a difference, though. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll wait until the template's modified before I tidy up the rest. --

talk

) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup - you're right, I've something in my monobook! I've put a request at MOSDATE talk for an upgrade so I can help. I'm hoping all our FAs (and if possible, GAs) can be brought inline with the new MOSDATE rules. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell Jza84, you're an administrator. Just wave your magic wand! :lol: --

talk

) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the impression other admins like to give off - the reality is we just have two extra tabs at the top! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Replace the entire contents of your User:Jza84/monobook.js with the entire contents of User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. Then follow the instructions on the monobook page to clear your cache (Press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, Press Ctrl-F5 in IE). You will find a new tab called 'all dates' that will remove autoformatting links too. Caveat: you own all edits that you make. Lightmouse (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Very useful, thanks! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That really is a very nice piece of work Lightmouse! I'm going to use that monobook myself. It's given me a few ideas as well ... --

talk

) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do tell! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean but it all sounds very exciting.. I think. I recently came across a tool useful for converting historical money into its modern equivalent here. I wish I could take credit for finding it, but I nicked it from an article

Nev1 (talk

) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been using this one for a while. It would be interesting to see if the two sites agree. --

talk

) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...no, the one I brought up seems to over estimate by quite a bit. I'd be tempted to use the one you suggest since it's the 'national archives'.

Nev1 (talk

) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the project now has it's first nomination for a featured article on the main page. Due to the opacity of the rules for nominating articles I slightly cocked up the placing of the nomination and managed to wind up the people who deal with the page. Actually looking back at the diff for the nomination I don't think I did anything wrong and I had even followed advice from one of the people who look after the nominations anyway. In the end, after a lot of discussion on the talk page, the nomination wasn't reverted and they conceded the Peterloo article had three points compared to the two points for the one I removed. I think I have now made my peace with them and even got some changes made on the project page to make things clearer in future, however the nomination has now been there for two days and it seems to be that the editors who usually discuss them are just ignoring it, neither supporting or opposing it, in the hope that it will fade away through lack of support (call me paranoid if you like). I have no wish to canvass support from anyone here, but I'm annoyed that my inexperience is being used against the nomination of the article (which mainly got to FA through the hard work of Malleus and Jza) in this way and would like to at least generate some discussion from other editors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests to break this silly deadlock situation. Could some of you have a look and at least try to stimulate a bit of discussion? And if it's decided that this constitutes canvassing, to be honest I'm past caring, as I don't think the nomination is being treated in an equitable manner. Richerman (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just let it ride, and see what happens. I cocked the nomination up before you agreed to take it over anyway, so let's just see how it plays out. --

talk

) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Richerman, I still don't know what you did wrong; I know I would have done the same in your position. You're certainly not the only one who's found the whole process a mystery. I have and it seems whoever nominated the hurricane season had some problems too.

Nev1 (talk

) 01:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I looked though the hurricane nomination and could find no claim for points from the nominator, only a comment from someone else that it should have one point - see the diff here. There were also no points in the table at the top so I put in the edit summary that I was replacing an article with no points with one with at least two points. Later in the discussion on the talk page it was said that the one I replaced clearly had two points claimed for it and then someone said there had been some points in the table but they'd been deleted. That then sparked off a discussion about who was allowed to change the points anyway - and they didn't really agree on that! To be honest think they're a bit sore that their new explanations on the page were shown to be not as clear as they thought. I do just about understand the strange and convoluted system they use now but it's taken me a lot of time to get there. Richerman (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, if you don't get it through this time at least there'll be an extra point next year for it being a decency anniversary ;-) -- Fursday 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Or 2019 or were still here by then :-) Richerman (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I had with this process was the one described in Norman's

This is something that had escaped me up to now. I now understand more or less the system for getting the articles on to the project page (not that I agree with it) but I couldn't understand why they stayed there so long once they got there. I had assumed that all the articles were voted on and there would be a constant turnover as it was decided which ones were going on the main page. In the event I was surprised that, since I've been watching the page, none have gone as yet. However, it's now becoming clear from Malleus's questioning that only a small number get voted on anyway. I have been contributing to the discussions about getting the rules for the page made more understandable, with some success so far. However, now I understand that we're only talking about a small amount of the main page content anyway I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth bothering about. How did this guy Raul get all this power anyway - I thought wikipedia was all about consensus? The other thing I don't understand is that the DYK page is run by the community and works perfectly well, but for some reason we're told the same system won't work for the featured article page. Richerman (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an answer to my question about how Raul got to be featured article director here. If you trawl back through the archives on that page you'll get the full story. Richerman (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Peterloo is now going to lose 2 points now because a "similar" article,

history of solidarity, has been scheduled for the 26th of July - see here. I've lost patience with them now as they're just making the rules up as they go along - que sera, sera. I think I'll just stick with the DYK page in future. Richerman (talk

) 09:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is very frustrating. This is all very arbitary - the History of Solidarity isn't a "simillar" topic from where I am coming from. There's also a three week gap between them. What a daft system - if there is no other proposal from another FA for that date, I don't see what the point opposing it is. It'll be our readers who lose out, not us. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

spoken version soon. Trafford has one coming as well (I've narrated but not yet edited). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)

11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see some similarities, but not enough to make it a "similar article" in my book. The person who picked this up seems to be just twisting the arguments made by user:Fursday - which didn't seem to be accepted for the notability argument - to count against it. It may just hang in there with one point if the scheduling for the 16th is done fairly soon but I'll just let them argue between themselves about the points and see what happens. Richerman (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As it looks to me, User:Raul654 has scheduled Everton F.C. for the 16th August TFA slot. It has/had 2 points. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The list of articles for clean-up has thrown up a proposed merger between

Just in case anyone is wondering, the place seems to be called Sunny Bank and the road Sunnybank.

Nev1 (talk

) 18:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the area and am left wondering what on earth is so notable about it? Its typical, semi detached housing, a few shops, some fields and trees. Entirely unremarkable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware this point has already been flagged up before, hopefully now it can rouse more discussion.

The NWE portal is a de facto GM portal at the moment anyway because of the amount of Featured and Good material the project has generated; even Cheshire, a

project with a couple of FAs and about a dozen GAs, is swamped by the Greater Manchester material. Because of this, I support the 'devolution' of portals and believe that a GM portal would soon reach featured status. The portals for the other counties (excluding Cheshire

which already has one) would be more problematic because, as Rudget said, the quality of coverage is quite poor. Perhaps this would end up motivating editors to improve articles related to those areas... well, there's no harm in hoping.

Also, I don't believe a NWE portal would be redundant (at least in the long term), it could still feature work from Greater Manchester (and eventually the other portals) because there are so many good quality articles that it would be easy to avoid duplication. Perhaps the amount of GM related material could be reduced to in proportion so that the NWE is more representative of the region.

PS: any update from Jza on whether wikiproject Merseyside will ever be started?

Nev1 (talk

) 18:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Nev1 here, but then again, I suppose I'm a little bias... ;)—PolishName 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to Nev1 first) There's still little scope to found a Merseyside WP I'm afraid. We need 10 users, and we only have 5 (and I'm pledging support on the basis that this is a necessity to improve that corner of WP, as opposed to being especially involved with its rollout). I'm also thinking we may need a joint "Lancashire and Cumbria" WP, with these localities being far more sparsley populated (they could split at a later date, but this is another matter).

With regards to this proposal for a GM portal, I'm more on the side with Rudget on this; I like the NWE portal, and have alot of time and respect for it. Yes it's dominated by GM, but isn't the NW too? However, I'm open to discussion and could be convinced.

On a simillar note, I'm actually thinking we should have a "shared" NWE notice board - allowing both GM and Cheshire (and in the future, Merseyside, Cumbria and Lancs) projects to reachout to broader audiences of editors for feedback and news etc. The GM noticeboard is usually updated by users who are in close communication with each other anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

On balance I'm with Rudget on this too. Apart from Cheshire, there doesn't seem to be much activity on NW articles other than from this project. It's probably inevitable, at least in the short to medium term that GM will continue to dominate the NWE portal, but so what? --

talk

) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jza84 first. I'm all up for the shared NWE noticeboard. I'm sure it would increase involvement and allow users to interact and work together more, especially if the Lancs-Cumbria and Merseyside wikiprojects were to be created.

Back to portal issue. I think creating a Merseyside portal could easily boost editing and involvement within its articles, and interest in the would-be wikiproject. Merseyside has quite a lot going on at the moment what with it being the European Capital of Culture this year. There is already a Chesire portal (as I'm sure you all already know) and Cumbria portal, although it looks like it could do with a makeover. The real problem I think would be Lancashire. But, as with Merseyside, I do think that a portal could open up a lot of new editors. I don't see any reason for the NWE portal to be dissolved either. If we were to create new portals, attract new editors, then create new wikiprojects, I think we could easily give the NWE portal a broader scope, especially if we were to include a 'good article' section on its front page. —PolishName 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello folks, I have a puzzle for everyone!

AFAICT, according to page 8 of this publication, the coat of arms of Royton's former urban district council (seen here) was created in 1962, by a local sign-writer. It doesn't appear at civicheraldry.co.uk or the The History of Lancs. It appears in a local history book I have, but it doesn't explain its origin.

Fine you might think... so it was designed in 1962... but... it's cut into the stonework of a building from 1919 (see here), and appears to be an icon used by the former local board of health which pre-dates 1894 (see bottom left of the first page of this PDF)! Confusing!

Can anybody help trace the origin of the arms? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd say the 1962 painting was just that - a recreation of the existing coat of arms, by an interested local. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so to. I'll stay on the hunt! Thanks! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)