Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 25

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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Hi all

I have been stupid, I was editing my sandbox and trying to get the archive box to display correctly like it did when I first copied the page over to my sandbox.

Problem was that after I pasted the search code into the sandbox/archivelist page everything looked the same, with the search code added, but when I saved it, the nice little listing of the archives disappeared and I was just left with one archive, the first, and the search box.

Whilst I was trying to fix it, I had lots of pages open in my browser and I inadvertently pasted the code into the wrong box, clicked save then wondered why it said Project Greater Manchester at the top - at least it works on my talk page tho - if you put a word into the search box it will search the Gtr Man Talk archives

As you can see, it seems I have destroyed the archivelist - I am so sorry :¬(

I have spent a couple of hours now trawling through just about every page i can find on archives, miszabot and other things and have ended up with the conclusion that this one is beyond me !!

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It seems that the archive box automatically looks for a page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/archivelist; if it finds it, it uses that, otherwise it generates the contents automatically. You created that talk page last night; I've just deleted it. Let me (or Jza, or any other admin) know if you want it undeleting, or any of its contents moving elsewhere. Also, don't worry so much. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not like I made a good impression with that one !

Thanks for putting me out of my misery - couldn't sleep cause thought I really did it harm, but at least I learned a lot about making archives and archive boxes lol

Did you look at the one on my chat ? We were discussing getting that search box there but after we talked about it, no-one seems to want to follow up

Feel free to mess around with my chat page to see how I scripted it

And thanks again for fixing that - i didn't realise till quite late on that when i clicked the "edit this box" (in the archive box) that it went to a page that didn't exist, so I must have created it in mine and then here but wasn't sure whether I was just going to make it worse !

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're living up to your name :) As it says somewhere - you can't break wikipedia as nothing gets permanently deleted. It's all there somewhere in the history. Richerman (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel so bad Chaosdruid, I've just done exactly the same thing! Another page to be deleted by the first passing admin, please. :-) --

Fatuorum

23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, these archives are proving more complicated than I thought.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nev1. It's on such occasions that I feel the lack of that delete button—not being able to cover up for my own cockups I mean. :lol: --

Fatuorum

23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this. I've created a template at template:Archive GM searchable. It should work for other project talk pages. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo ! got there in the end lol ---Chaosdruid (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone feels up to it, I'd appreciate some thoughts on the

22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What form would you like the feedback in ? Would you prefer
"your bit"
"suggestion"
or some other format ?
It's a very technical subject I know lol, as I had started gathering info about it some months ago both for my own pleasure and with the intention of doing exactly this lol
Are you intending to follow up with the rest ?
(I went to UMIST as child in 1974 and was shown some of the early machines - I even got to programme the MU5 with tape !)--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Any comments welcome either here on the article's talk page. I'm not sure if I'll take on the rest, we'll see, but if you're interested we could maybe collaborate on one of the later machines. They're all in pretty poor shape! The amount of misinformation in this article was incredible, probably because many sources confuse the Manchester Mark 1 with the Ferranti Mark 1. And I've found it quite alarming to see the nonsense that was in this article mirrored on God knows how many other web sites.

Fatuorum

23:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. In 1974 I was in the final year of my psychology degree course. Happy days! --

Fatuorum

23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're giving away your age now! You must be at least a child of the 50s! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think I have such an affinity with the Manchester Mark 1? We were born at about the same time. :lol: --

Fatuorum

00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you also had an affinity for the Peterloo Massacre! You come across much younger, although I know you'll hate me saying that! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre will always be one of my favourites, and one that I'll always be proud to have helped with. The article was a disgrace before we came along; I just thought it was disrespectful to give those who gave so much in the name of democracy to give them so little back in return. When I'm driving around the areas that contingents came from I'm always astonished that people actually walked all that distance, then walked back after they'd escaped the cavalry charges, sometimes with horrific wounds, to be in work the next day as if nothing had happened. I'd have been in bed for at least a week after just the walk! --

Fatuorum

00:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about earlier first - maybe try and get some free copy details on the Collosus, or Mk2 rebuild. My first use of computer was the PET (I was very lucky to get to see MU5 at UMIST at the tender age of 9) then I went to college and we worked on a Harris mainframe - punchcard input on that was a let down after writing progs for my maths and geog homework on the PET.
That mainframe was the first ever computer I hacked - we gained access to the sysops to play their star-trek game lol anyway I'll ahve a look at it tomorrow and get back to you - did you go onto museum of virtual computing ? [1]--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You had a PET? You must have been born to wealthy parents. I built my first computer by following a series of articles in Electronics Today, for which I blew the EPROMS myself. Massive they were, 8 Kb each. :-) --

Fatuorum

00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we had a prefab at school and it had a teachers room between the two classrooms and the teacher had a PET in there - I used to program it and run my homework on it during lunch or after school - we were poor but I passed 11+ and got lucky

I built a mixing desk - got the plans from some book for 2x stereo mixer so I built one with 6 in and 2 out lol - same source !--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My Dad bought a Pet in 1979, when I was 7. 8k of RAM and an integrated cassette deck, I used to write things on it in BASIC. We even had a plug-in sound module for it! Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - I just went through my history and found I typed "Clossus" which is why i thought there was no page on it lol - I really need to learn to type better--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fatuorum

17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Talking of the Peterloo Massacre....the above article, which is about an important part of our local history, is in a bit of a sorry state. I've been trying to photograph the beautiful stained glass window that commemorates it in North Manchester Hospital with very little success due to reflections from the lights in the hospital and my camera not focussing on it properly - looks like a job for the Parrot of Doom! There is a quite a bit of stuff on the web about the famine - maybe that would be a good collaboration for the future. Richerman (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can get your camera to focus on the wall next to the window and then take a picture.

Nev1 (talk

) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that would be a good topic to improve as a project. Very important topic that changed our region (alot of our municipal heritage was initiated because of the cotton panic). --Jza84 |  Talk  01:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh - why didn't I think of that! Didn't notice till I got home actually. Here's my rather pathetic attempt at a photo - it was taken in a rush though :) There also a fascinating contemporary article in the New York Times archive on the web too which gives a list of numbers unemployed in the various mills and factories in Manchester at the time. Richerman (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That article is Here figures would make a good table. Richerman (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right Richerman, the famine deserves far better than that. --

Fatuorum

01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that would interest you Malleus - did you mean it deserves a better photo :) - if so I agree. BTW there's a Cotton Famine Road in Rochdale see here Richerman (talk)

There's a bit at Alexandra Park, Oldham about the cotton famine, and soon there will be a File:Blue Plaque, Alexandra Park.jpg. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I got a book from Gutenberg on that very subject - I think Mr P has similar access ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another pic with some detail from the bottom of the window The sign next to the window says it was ain a convalescent home in Southport which was built with surplus from the relief fund. The home's still in use but has been rebuiltRicherman (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we kinda steal the image at this eBay listing? Dunno about its relevance, but seems to be related. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's certainly in the public domain - it says "published in the "Illustrated London News" July 25, 1868. This print is 140 years old!" I suppose it shows it wasn't just of local relevance. The colour's even worse than my picture though :) Richerman (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And in answer to JZA's question elsewhere about the picture - I didn't put it in commons as the quality's not too good. Richerman (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I think we both know the man whom can tackle this photographic challenge! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we do. The window is on an internal wall and has been restored by adding another layer on the back, so it can only be seen properly when the lights are on behind it. However, I think they only put them on when the corridor lights are on, so you get them reflected in it. You'd probably need a tall assistant (or two) to hold up a large piece of card up to block out the corridor lights. Alternatively you'd have to ask them to turn of the corridor lights for you Richerman (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want a good picture of it, you'll need a tripod, and a flag on a pole. Not a wavy flag, but a large sheet of fabric on a frame to stop the light at the top from being reflected. I'd consider doign it but its a bit far for me for just the one photograph. The credit crunch means I can only afford to use half the CCD on my camera :D Seriously though, if you get a tripod (they're dead cheap), take a photograph using the self-timer function - that'll reduce vibration on the camera to nil. You could also use a polarising filter to eliminate the reflections. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Now there's an idea. I've got a friend who's retired and is a keen photographer. That would be a nice little project for him - he's got more photography equipment than you can shake a stick at. Richerman (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just another mildy aggressive reminder that Salford really needs some collective TLC. It's one of the most important settlements in our region, and I'd personally say it's the most interesting place in Greater Manchester too! If we really blast this article as a team we could get this to GA standard within ten days, really! I've been doing alot of work, but I'm a little exhausted with it and running out of ideas. Anyone willing to help? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What help do you need ? I can take a sabbatical for a few days from the projects I am looking at, so am available for whatever I can assist with.--Chaosdruid (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's alot of good stuff in the article, and I think it's very well illustrated, it's just the content that has "^{[citation needed]}" tags by it that need references, whilst some sections like Religion, Notable people, and Sports need completely writing or rewriting. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do something with some of the sports, but I'll struggle for sources for horse racing. If I get the chance I'll get Simon Inglis' Played in Manchester out of the library, that'll cover it. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to Manchester Library, they have a book about the racecourse(s), Ramsden, Caroline (1966). Farewell Manchester: history of Manchester Racecourse. London: J A Allen & Co.. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for those edits Malleus

I don't exactly know why we use the & nbsp and would appreciate an explanation so I can do it properly
Also thanks for the ['s I didn't even notice them for concentrating on the text lol.

I have spent around 18 hours on research now, and some interesting facts have come to light concerning both Adamson and the Astley pit. These are mainly from the maps I have found and books with accident reports in them. There are a few discrepancies, probably due to the renaming of some of the areas and roads over time. It looks like there were more sites than previoulsy mentioned but I will carry on and make sure I get it right before committing myself to "paper".
I have used some maps from 1850-1910 and after spending 8 hours over the past 2 days downloading them bit by bit I have to assemble them now to see exactly what is going on. Adamson appears to have had 3 locations (named on the maps) plus the final Adamson & Co site which I saw as a child, so I need to tie them all in to make sure the timeline is correct.

As for the Astley Deep Pit, it is very confusing as some are calling it the Dewsnap Colliery, though that was actually a company which had 2 or 3 mines at one time, and eventually it was owned by Dunkirk Colliery, there was a Dunkirk mine also !
Similarly there are 3 other pits at various times over the 100 or so years and it may take some time to cross reference it all

As you can see I have not been idle and my head hurts !!

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

nbsp is used to keep things together, so if you write "5 pounds" with nbsp between the 5 and the p, that '5 pounds' will always stay together, no matter how the browser window is resized. Just helps the reader make sense of things. In your edit window you can find it, by clicking 'wiki markup' - its in there. I think normally that button says 'insert', its just below the 'save page-show preview-show changes' buttons. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that - so its like an anti-linebreak -Chaosdruid (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. You might find this helpful. Then again, you might not. :-) --

Fatuorum

19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

from The Vegetarian Society own website - sorry posted in wrong chat - See Salford chat page--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone recognise this? It's on the motorway bridge in Worsley. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definately something to do with the Bridgewaters, probably the arms of the Dukes of Bridgewater. I'll try and find something to verify it. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that St Marks school was demolished to make way for the motorway - I wonder if it came from that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well a Google Image search threw this up, which thickens the plot! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Half the story is here. I suppose you are expected to buy the book ... Mr Stephen (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My photo is better than his :P Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think his photos are that great tbh! You should publish Parrot! P.S. File:Worsley Packet House.jpg is great, but I uploaded the version at geograph rather than Flickr (so it's smaller). I think it's perfect for Worsley's infobox, what do you think? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the Bridgewaters [2]. The Latin motto for the school is the same as the Duke of Bridgewater's, but the date on the stone is 1903. According to Jza's source, the school was founded in 1950 (unless there was an earlier one).

Nev1 (talk

) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have that book... I'll have a sift through. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ah hah! "The Court Leet was held at ‘The Grapes’ until the Court House

was built. The inn was eventually demolished to make way for the construction of a new gatehouse and carriage drive to Worsley New Hall. ‘The Grapes’ closed its doors for the last time on 14th May 1903 and the present day Bridgewater Hotel on Barton Road opened the very next night. The gatehouse was demolished to make way for the M62 motorway. The sandstone coat of the arms of the Earl of Ellesmere that decorated the front of the gatehouse was preserved and is now incorporated into the stonework of the motorway bridge that you cross under on your way to St Marks." - from here. Thanks for the help peeps. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm is to be todays featured article on 29 January 2008! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that it was possible it would be picked up by the FA director as it's not a subject that's been featured before as far as I know. It makes all the hard work seem worth while. An excellent collaborative effort by the project. Richerman (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats ! --Chaosdruid (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great news! I've got a free evening tonight so I'll dust off that microphone and do a spoken version... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ... done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)

Thank you! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Scout Moor's made the front page now and the vandalism's started. Richerman (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's all hands on deck for the next 24 hours. There will be some good suggestions made amongst all of the dross, or at least there usually is. ;-) --

Fatuorum

01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to admire the standard of vandalism. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for one of those good suggestions for improvement though - or maybe the article's just perfect already. :)

Hi all

I have started to rework the Astley Deep pit page, and stupidly forgot to start it in my sandbox.
I am about to copy it over, but will leave the public page as is for now - probably finish this by 00:00
thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have pasted it back onto the live page, but need to add a few things and check grammar etc. - Anyone got some time to have a quick look at refs needed etc ? all help appreciated as usual, and Wiki cookies to the first 2 !! lol

I know some of it is a bit disjointed but hopefully I'll find the other 2 pieces I was going to reference about the geology and include most of it on the Dukinfield page which I need to work on next. I have been trying to patch together some scans of a 1940 OS map of Manchester but the files are getting silly sizes, I think it was 680mb last night and took all day to line everything up.

Anyway hope all is well and catch u soon--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC) PS, I managed to get Manchester Mark 1 ref kept on the Mersenne prime page after some discussion, as well as including The Wheel on the history of Data storage page

DShamen (talk · contribs) has been making some structual changes to the categories under Category:Greater Manchester (best viewed via his/her contributions). Some of them I'm a little concerned about but wanted to see what others think. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A few of the changes popped up on my watchlist, the majority of changes seem mostly to be re-categorisation (eg: putting

Nev1 (talk

) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the minor duplication of categories (through parent categories), I think the rest of DShamen's edits to the structure seem valid [3]. I think the problem can be easily resolved by pointing it out on DShamen's talk page.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I suppose the overcat-ing isn't as far reaching as I'd first feared. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be an idea to keep an eye on it: The editor did implement a large number of categories of the "People from..." type for Cheshire, which involved very small villages having a category when they are unlikely to have more than one or two entries. It still hasn't been changed back.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am a (relatively) inexperienced article writer, at least in writing this kind of article, so I'd appreciate some help with this. I'm hoping to get the above article to GA standards soon. I began to work on the Demographics section, but I found it really tedious to do, and I'm unsure what to include and how to write it. Same with Economy. I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me out here, with suggestions on improving the article. Thanks, Majorly talk 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

When writing demography and economy sections for articles, I pretty much just use a template and change the figures and access dates for the references. It's pretty dry stuff, but just look at

Nev1 (talk

) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the usual sources (ie: statistics.gov), Cheadle Hulme does not appear to be listed separately. Is it part of Cheadle and Gatley? This will make statistics for the demo. and eco. sections difficult. Where did the population figure of 28,952 come from? It might provide other useful stats.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not part of Cheadle and Gatley, it's part of Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. The population stats come from statistics.gov - Cheadle Hulme is split into North and South, and the amount for each was added together. Majorly talk 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Cheadle Hulme was a part of

Nev1 (talk

) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I suppose so. It's not a very well defined area (it's hard to describe as a village or a town, it's kind of in between...) Whenever is good for you, I appreciate it :) Majorly talk 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello team, I have completed the above list (as far as I can tell) and am looking to take it to

) 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead, and intend to take the article to FLC later this evening. Does anyone see anything glaring that should be addressed first?

Nev1 (talk

) 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the column widths standardised across all the tables, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone objects to the ribbon of images down the righthand side. But FLC seems fairly arbitrary, so who can tell. Good luck with the nomination. --

Fatuorum

18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've standardised the widths (I'd completely forgotten how until I looked at Grade I LBs in GM). As for the ribbon of images, I think it's pretty easily rationalised. Cheers,

Nev1 (talk

) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the ribbon too, but I'd bet the mortgage that someone will complain about "blocks of white". $£*&&£*^ 'em I say. --

Fatuorum

19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the Radcliffe Tower image. I think perhaps you should try and find a better image of Marple Aqueduct, the subject of that image is actually the railway viaduct. This would be better. I may try this summer to get a good picture, but its a massive pain to do as the valley is overgrown. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are generally not great to be honest but they're what was available when I started the list ages ago, I'll have another look. I see what you mean about the valley being overgrown, how's this for the aqueduct?

Nev1 (talk

) 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't show the aqueduct though, just the top of it. There are very old images around drawn from the riverbed, that's probably the best vantage point, or maybe as a passenger on the train. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the "People without biographies" section, as in

Fatuorum

01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure of the point of segregating the redlinks from people with biographies (actually, I just copied the lay out from

Nev1 (talk

) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that White has a ODNB article, so his link could easily be turned blue. Probably should be, in fact I may do that later ... --

Fatuorum

18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've never started an article before with the intention of taking it to DYK, but White's connection with

Fatuorum

20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fatuorum

22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The most interesting thing possible, that he was born in Manchester.

Nev1 (talk

) 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. :-) --

Fatuorum

00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That he embalmed the Mummy (in Manchester)? Actually I'd find it more interesting if he'd put a red hot poker up her bum to test for death. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says that he didn't? Seems to have been fairly common ... I'm quite certain that he knew she was dead. --

Fatuorum

01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I've done the reformatting of the list but it looks very bare! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of this kind of list, for the same reason that I'm not a fan of the Notable residents section of settlement articles. What are the criteria for inclusion in these lists? Born in a maternity hospital in the area, but then taken home with your mother? A short visit in the summer of 1872? Died there? --

Fatuorum

02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say really. I suppose its a matter of editorial judgement (did I just say that?!). So long as there's a reference provided I personally don't mind, but I've tried to go one furter by adding small rationales in

List of people from Oldham. --Jza84 |  Talk 

02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think every list needs to be clear about the criteria for inclusion. --

Fatuorum

02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a guideline drawn up that people can refer too whenever this comes up. However, I don't think WT:GM is the right place to discuss the issue as at best we'd have a mandate for changing Greater Manchester articles and no consensus anywhere else. It's probably worth bringing this up at

Nev1 (talk

) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any desire to discuss it anywhere else. As has happened so often in the past, I think we need to take a lead. --

Fatuorum

02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

(outdent) I've written before (and elsewhere) about what kinds of criteria I consider should be used. It seems to me that if we analyze the situation as far as is sensible, there are three related conditions that could need to be satisfied before a name is left on a list or added to a list:

1. Is there reliable evidence that the person is notable?
2. Is there reliable evidence that there is a connection between the person and the place?
3. Is there reliable evidence that the connection between the person and the place notable in itself?

Now,in terms of this bundle of three criteria, there is at least one trade-off:

• Some people are so notable in themselves that being able to demonstrate the first two criteria are passed might be sufficient, taken together, to justify adding these people, even though we may not be able to show that the third criterion has been passed.
• However, it should always be necessary to be able to demonstrate the first and second criteria are passed.
• Also, in some (perhaps many) cases, the third criteria may be included in any reliable evidence that demonstrates the second criterion is passed, so a suitable reliable source may demonstrate that the second and third criteria are passed.

I think it would go without saying that the evidence should be included in the article.

There is a matter of how to deal with unverified entries to any "Notable Residents" or similar section. For living people

WP:BLP

applies, and, to be on the safe side, and with an eye to future applications for GA and FA status, I think it may be best to carry out the following actions:

1. Set up a section on the article's talk page. It will be repository of unverified additions to the "Notable Residents", and should be suitably titled as such. There needs to be a simple explanation of what its use is to be. This section should not be removed by any archiving tool if possible.
2. Any insufficiently verified addition of a dead person to the "Notable Residents" section should be transferred to this section pending sufficient verification of the claim.
3. Any insufficiently verified addition of a living person to the section must be removed from that section.
4. If the preceding situation is one in which contentious information is included (see
   WP:BLP
   , it should simply be deleted.
5. If it does not contain contentious information, it should be treated in the same manner as the insufficiently verified information for a dead person.
6. Once sufficient verification has been found and included in the section on the talk page, the entry and accompanying information can be struck out, and the material transferred back into the section in the article.
7. Providing a link to other wikipedia articles which may verify some or all of the criteria needed is not sufficient: if there are suitable citations, etc, in the other wikipedia articles, they should be duplicated in this article, since (amongst other things) we cannot rely on the material remaiing in other articles.

An early implementation of the above process (some details may differ) can be seen on Talk:Warrington#Notable residents. It may seen involved and a lot, but actually doing it is quite simple (some things take more time to describe than actually do.)

It leaves some things undone: for example, under what conditions can we decide that just the first two criteria are sufficient? But I do think it would deal with the vast bulk of other entries well, leaving more space and time to discuss these "difficult cases". It also specifies a set of recommended actions that completely complies with other wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of merging the

) 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, seems very sensible. --

Fatuorum

01:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete. Well, I say merge, but all there was to add was a couple of extra categories, anything else would have duplicated information already present.

Nev1 (talk

) 13:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Converting historical amounts to present day value

Until recently I've been doing this the hard way, but a week or so ago I stumbled across this useful little template, {{Inflation}}, which makes the job much easier and even keeps the conversion up-to-date. And if you put this {{Inflation-fn|UK}} at the end of the sentence it even generates the necessary inline citation as well.

As in:

The contract ran for five years from November 1948, and involved an estimated £35,000 per year (£1.61 million today).^[1]

Apologies if everyone already knew about this. --

14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a fantastic tool! I certainly didn't know about it. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was once critiqued for using historic amounts of money in English pounds, and not including what this would have costed in historic dollars compared to today's dollars. I like this template though :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to Radcliffe, Greater Manchester. Hopefully I've done it correctly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very useful, I can think of a few articles I'll be using this on. Cheers,

Nev1 (talk

) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sources

I received an email from "Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit" about an archaeological investigation into a ring-cairn and henge-like structure in Radcliffe. If I don't go into Manchester to get a copy of the report, is it ok to reference such information in an article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean referencing an e-mail, then probably not, no, on the basis it hasn't been published. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok no problem. I guess I'll have to see if they'll email it to me, or I'll go and visit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have more details, does the information come from a report?

Nev1 (talk

) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's from a report. I don't think the person who emailed me will mind if I quote his reply here.

• "The site you are enquiring about came to light when the expansion of the cemetery was raised. After aerial survey and geophysical survey the conclusion was reached that the site is an important prehistoric survival, with the barrow being reinterpreted as a ring-cairn and is in close proximity to a henge-like monument. Also in the vicinity is a Roman Road, part of the Manchester to Ribchester Road.A small evaluation to the south of the prehistoric features revealed no prehistoric features.I hope that this information is what you were after. Copies of the reports are available for consultation at our office," Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of John Aikins "A Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles Round Manchester" I could peak at? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Central Library has a couple of facsimile copies. I have two pages ... Mr Stephen (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I want to put a population growth table into Worsley. Now I have figures for the ward of Worsley, but the figures at a Vision of Britain are obviously for a larger area with a population some 4 times larger. Does anyone know what geographical structure Worsley Ward falls into, so that I can somehow make sense of the population growth? For instance, Eccles, Greater Manchester is an administrative area called Eccles, comprised of 3 wards (of which Eccles ward is one). Is there a similar structure that covers Worsley? I think by the end of next week I may be able to put this article to GAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah I think I may have answered my own question by finding Worsley (UK Parliament constituency), but if I'm wrong could anyone please enlighten a poor Radcliffian. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Try User:Fingerpuppet, his knowledge about statistics is unparalleled (at least on WP!). I'm confident he can help you. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Very kind of you to say so, but that's a little excessive!

Worsley is an unusual place - the nearest appropriate historical data is for the Urban District, but unlike most others there is no Urban Subdivision for it! It seems to be because of Worsley's unusual situation of being an Urban District with a gap in the middle - and so Worsley itself is split between the Subdivisions of Eccles, Walkden, Swinton and Pendlebury, and a little of Tyldesley.

So, we need to look at ward-based data, and I believe that the wards of Worsley, Little Hulton, Boothstown & Ellenbrook, Walkden North and Walkden South are pretty much the old Worsley Urban District. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great - I'll add those up tomorrow and put some figures in the article. I'll also have to make a note of what you've said, but I'm unclear on what exactly you mean about 'gap in the middle'? It's all very confusing, sometimes I think life would be easier if we were still in the hundred of Salford, rather than GM! Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, WikiProject SELNEC! I meant that there's a gap in the urban area pretty much through the centre of the old urban district. Fingerpuppet (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page . Milestones could include the number of GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

--

18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

May as well sign up, not entirely sure what the benefits will be (more exposure maybe?) but I can't see any harm in it.

Nev1 (talk

) 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure the closely related

WP:FT is worth investigating too. --Jza84 |  Talk 

19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea, although our wide range of FAs and GAs may make it difficult to fit the criteria which state that all the articles in a Featured Topic have to be at least GA and you aren't allowed to omit an article if it's important just because it's not GA. For example, if we were to try and get Greater Manchester to FT, we'd have

Nev1 (talk

) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an example below of what I think would work. Whatever we choose, I think there'd be at least one article which isn't yet GA or FA.

Nev1 (talk

) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Or here are a couple (that I'm surprised I didn't think of earlier):

) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I like them! I think Trafford is a go-er! Oldham might need an extra GA or two in there to be accepted (perhaps the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham needs a push? I can work on Lees I think). Last night thinking about this in bed (sad I know!), I thought that "Boroughs of Greater Manchester" would be a fantastic FT to have - we have some FAs and GAs in there and I think we could easily replicate some of the details and styling in each of the remaining ones. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon with a bit of work you could get the Manchester Ship Canal into Trafford. It's presently C-class but mostly referenced. At a glance I don't think it would take very long to get to GAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We've got four out of ten boroughs at GA or above, but the rest vary in quality. Then again, they are some of our most important articles and need improving regardless of any featured topic issues. The borough of Oldham would be a good one to get to GA as it's potentially included in two topics.

Nev1 (talk

) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying hard to put my obvious biases away, it's got alot of good hooks in it, and given there's alot of GA/FA content in the settlement-class articles we could borrow from, as well some of the books I have, I think we make a really strong page of it. There's quite a bit that could go into it, including its unpopularity, riots, rebranding, its rural expanse. Since the riots there've been quite a few reports on the borough meaning we have adequate source material IMO. I'd love to do a bit of collaboration on it.

I think if we get 6 of the ten to GA or FA then we have a very strong featured topic, and as you say, these are top priority articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All the articles in a featured topic need to be at least GA (

Nev1 (talk

) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)