Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You need to ask an admin (like me) to do it for you. I'll take a look and see if I can work out what you were trying to do. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have redirected one to the other - is this what you were trying to do? If not, let me know. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for reversing that line.. I thought for a moment that the line was referring to the current stig (which we don't have any confirmed clues to who the identity is). Your edit made it more clear ;) 9cds 14:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. James Barlow 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or in Hungarian, we say köszönöm (thanks) and szívesen (you're welcome). :) I too am a huge Lisztomaniac, I think he's really terribly underappreciated and misunderstood--the man and his music both. I only wish I was a better pianist so I could play his music! :) Indeed, there is a lot of nonsense flying around about his nationality--some Austrians are trying to claim him, and the Slovaks just never seem to give up. That really p*sses me off, especially since Liszt himself was so clear about what nationality he really was. Now when arrogant people try to "correct" Liszt and tell him and us what he "really" was--it's so disrespectful, it makes me so mad! However, the soon-to-be-created WikiProject Hungarian Culture has Liszt on the, um, list of things to do, so stay tuned. :) Cheers! K. Lástocska 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Zoe7, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Matt 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Kalappal" is something like "hats off!", so yes, essentially "good luck." :) Can't wait till the auditions are over--actually, I need to get off the computer and finish practicing my Paganini. Once I return, I intend to spearhead a campaign to get our friend Liszt up to Featured Article status--care to join in? (I'll try to drag the rest of WikiProject Hungarian Culture along, but I think so far most of them are literature people.)
See you guys in March....K. Lásztocska 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS--I just nicked your "this user is a Lisztian" userbox, hope you don't mind... :) K. Lásztocska
please help in my war with Anonymous Scholar. I just don't see his logic and I'm getting tired of his condescending attitude. K. Lásztocska 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, his debating skills aren't even much to show off--a really good debater sticks to the points that his opponent presents and demolishes them systematically, clearly, and logically. A.S. has done none of that. He relies on inference, leaps of both faith and logic, assumptions, and his own biases, and he never takes my arguments straight on. Instead he goes off on some irrelevant tangent. It's impossible to argue productively with someone who keeps redefining the argument.
It really makes me angry, sad and disgusted when people try to "prove" that Liszt was wrong all along, he wasn't really Hungarian, he just thought he was. When people such as A.S. try to say that he didn't even really think he was Hungarian, then I just lose my roof. What arrogance! What presumptuousness! I can't help but wonder if the cold and condescending attitude with which these types of "scholars" regard Liszt as a man is related to the longstanding condescension toward him as a musician. You know, I'm sure, that until recent decades he was dismissed (by the general musical public at least) as simply a showy virtuoso, whowas very important for the development of the piano but, with a few exceptions, his music was second-rate at best. Personally, he was considered a one-dimensional man, little more than a self-obsessed, preening, womanizing, pompous charlatan. What A.S. will never admit is, Liszt suddenly got a second chance in popular esteem at around the time that evil man Alan Walker started writing his books. Suddenly everyone realized--hot damn, this is amazing music! This guy was a real genius! And then real Liszt scholarship took off.
Also I must admit that A.S. is not completely 100% wrong in saying I have an emotional involvement in the war over Liszt's nationality. I'm in a very similar situation to Liszt--I was born and I now live outside of Hungary (in my case, in the United States), I am of mixed ethnicity, I speak Hungarian quite poorly, but if anyone asks me my nationality, I reply "I am Hungarian!" without a moment's hesitation. In fact, I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to regard myself as being from birth to the grave Magyar in my heart and mind. :) I've been lucky enough to not have anyone (so far) tell me that I'm not "really Hungarian", but I can imagine how terrible it would feel. With Liszt, when he is not even here to defend himself, it is even worse, like they're spitting on his grave. And in the face of such piles of evidence that Liszt was and felt Hungarian, to contradict all of that! It's just absurd! The terrible disrespect they show that great man, it makes me choke on my own fury! I should point out that I challenged A.S. at least twice to produce one solid piece of evidence (i.e., in Liszt's own words) that he considered himself anything other than Magyar. He has not produced that evidence or anything close to it.
Oh, and as for the German article stating "Liszt war ein ungarischer Komponist"......errr, ah.....well, it said "Liszt war ein deutscher Komponist" until yours truly got her hands on it. :) I better go check the articles in other languages! K. Lásztocska 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. :) You know I'd defend my beloved Ferenc Franz to the ends of the earth, but what really sent me over the top was A.S.'s insinuation that Bartok's defence of Liszt-as-Hungarian was part and parcel of the rising stink of fascism sweeping Europe in those days. (And that he still can't spell "Rákóczi", lol) I really can't believe that someone with such a poor grasp of the principles of logic and argumentation could be a published scholar--we may have had a troll on our hands.
Anyhoo, I'm still laying low for a while, back soon. I have some harmless silliness planned for April Fools Day.... :) K. Lásztocska 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should stay a little bit closer to the truth. The German Wikipedia-Liszt is quite different from your description, and there are some further points being wrong in your postings. Wikipedia is not a place for insulting attacks against living persons by the way. Concerning the "Rácóczi-march" or the "Rákóczi-march" there are different spellings in use. (A.S.)84.61.27.11 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. You're still here? And you're stalking me now? Look, AS, if you have anything to say to me, say it on my talk page. I personally have never seen it spelled "Rácóczi". You're rather bold, though, telling me that Wiki is not the place for insulting attacks, when you have been insulting and dismissing and belittling me since the day you first showed up to show off your vast wealth of infallible knowledge. If you know as much about the Hungarians as you claim to, you will know that we do not and will not stand for being insulted, disrespected, kicked around, bossed about, or generally messed with....(see: March 1848, October 1956, even September 2006 if you like.) K. Lásztocska 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references - I was sure they were not bare-faced-lies, but I'm keen on seeing some of these articles start to improve a little. Do you have anymore material which may help?
I've uploaded a map to the infobox also. I wasn't happy with Saddleworth being indicated as being Uppermill specifically. Hope it helps. Jhamez84 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the contact. I'm glad the map is well received. Yes it would be nice to improve the Saddleworth articles. With enough published print material, and some quality photographs, I think getting Saddleworth up to WP:GA wouldn't be too difficult in all honesty.
I managed to get Shaw and Crompton upto this standard - if that's possible, then certainly any article written about this part of the world should be able to attain this. If you wish to collaborate on Saddleworth, feel free to lift ideas from the S&C article. Thanks again, Jhamez84 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Doborjan, the Austrian Empire would be best. I presumed Raiding was the correct name because, well... because it`s the German one :) Weird correlation, but it kind of makes sense. Anyway, I will change it back to Doborjan. Menuetto 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael- it seemed like a sensible compromise to me. There wasn't really a Hungarian state at the time (as also many other present day states did not exist) so questions of nationality are quite complicated. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Köszönöm nagyon szépen a jóságot. :) It's good to be back, though I am still treading rather gingerly to be sure I don't lose my head again or get mired in any more nasty fights or personal disputes. I've got a few things to work on before I can get back to Liszt (mainly, a massive revamp to Joseph Szigeti that's been stewing in my word-processor for a few months--I've finally almost finished it, might even get it onwiki later today) but I had an idea I wanted to run by you: I'm still planning to finish that series on Liszt's symphonic poems; once we've done that, what do you think of the idea of having one article, Symphonic Poems of Franz Liszt, for all of them? (We can make redirects to each section on each piece.) I thought that since they are such an important body of work, linked together by the very concept behind their creation, it would make most sense to treat them as a cohesive unit (also, then we wouldn't have twelve weird little stubs floating around.) I've got more detailed ideas, but let me know what you think before I go on and on and on. :) K. Lásztocska 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether 'Oldham' cats should be renamed to 'Metropoloitan Borough of Oldham' has been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. As far as I can tell, this renaming proposal would apply to Wigan, Stockport and all other metropolitan boroughs - UK-wide - that share a name with a town. Your contributions would be welcome. Mr Stephen 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The individual articles' names are T. E. No. 1 in C Major; T. E. No. 2 in A minor, but shouldn't they be something like T. E. No. 1 and T. E. No 2., especially since for (for example) Liszt's concerti we have Piano Concerto No. 1 (Liszt) and not Piano Concerto No. 1 in E flat (Liszt)? — $PЯINGrαgђ 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am horrible at expressing myself, so just ask me if something's not clear. :) 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been back for a while. Not so easy to leave the wiki. :-) Maybe I should edit articles about music and not take part in debates on history and geography. We'll see. Have a nice day. --Koppany 12:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I sort of meant k. Lasztochka lol, sorry about the confusion! Should've been mmore clear, but hey I'm glad you're back as well :) M A Mason 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. OK. --Koppany 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, I wish you the best 4th of July you have ever had, and that you enjoy living in your country as much as I love living in mine. — $PЯINGrαgђ
[2] - Thanks for picking up that one! ScarianTalk 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, my friend. Keep up the good work on the Nirvana articles! Always a struggle to improve them, what with so few reliable sources around! Take care. ScarianTalk 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the navigation template to the various Saddleworth settlement articles - much appreciated! I think it will aid in raising awareness of the article's existence, and hopefully attract some more contributors. Not sure if you've noticed too, but Shaw and Crompton is now a featured article! Jza84 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow WikiProject Greater Manchester participant! T=You may or may not be aware that our Manchester article has recently obtained official good article status! This is a great acheievement, but we don't want to stop there! We're hoping to spend the next few weeks as a team to raise the standard of this article to featured standard! It will only be possible if we work together, and hope you can take a moment to look both at the FA criteria, and the Manchester article and aid us in this feat! Any problems, feel free to raise them at Talk:Manchester! Good luck! Jza84 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May seem like old news now, but Manchester was recently listed as a good article, try and make as much effort as you can with trying to make it featured.
Manchester Airport has seen unprecedented vandalism from anonymous editors recently, on 24th September it was protected by MastCell for a period of 1 week. Make sure to visit the page (after that date) regularly so we can stamp out any "bad edits".
Try to invite more members to this project. As much as a streamlined team is good, the more editors we have the broader the range we can cover.
The project now has 28 members! 7 new participants enrolled this week, they can be viewed here. There was also change to the welcoming messages this month, by Jza84, which reinvigorated the style in response to the change of colours on the main and affiliated pages. See the welcome templates, here. Finally, a barnstar has been created for the project! See the final design on this page, and so far it has been awarded to one lucky participants, WebHamster. Well done.
Greater Manchester Article News
Well has this month been a hub of activity, or what? (See:Original diff) The new assessment scale has been welcomed by many here at WPGM and as of 4th November, 81.37% of all 650 articles have been assessed with both importance and class. Two articles have been passed good article criteria since last delivery, they are: Didsbury & Dunham Massey. Well done to all involved.
Current Debates
There was a lengthy debate over a certain number of related articles in Manchester City Centre this week, (See:the thread involved). Aytoun Street, Barton Square, Brazenoose Sqaure, Dover Street, Manchester and Police Street were all flagged by Pit-yacker as being deserved of deletion per lacking notablilty. The process took 5 days at articles for deletion and the result was, delete. Other sections that readied editors into scrambling over themselves this month were: should Greater Manchester boroughs get their own infobox? Such as with London boroughs. The debate continutes.
Monthly Challenges
Same as last month, we've have to get Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as A-Class (above GA and below FA) it may be easier than first thought. Try to fill all the current "to do" requirements. There has also been some talk of increased activity of bringing Greater Manchester to Good Article Standard. It would be ideal if all 650 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month. But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold.
Manchester Airport once again saw more vandal edits this month, and was protected for another consecutive month on 22nd October by Jmlk17. Some users have also realised the extreme coincidence in the first half of 65% of editing IPs, i.e. all begin with "79.72". Could it be the same editor? If you can keep visiting the page to revert vandalism in sight. The most freqeunt additions that are factually incorrect are the inclusions of: Chicago O'Hare and New York-JFK to Pakistan International Airlines (T2) and Newquay to Air Southwest (T3). MAN also has a peer review.
Although you may not have noticed that this WikiProject has a associated portal. The page named, Portal:North West England, is updated frequently, but it would be nice to get more editors. It too has recently undergone a peer review, and some criteria has been added to get the page to featured portal status. You could signify your involvement by adding {{User Portal NWE}} to your userpage.
The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim.
Greater Manchester Article News
Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo.
Current Debates
There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion.
Monthly Challenges
New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here.
Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza.
And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 05:12 25 December, 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work!
User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status!
Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others.
There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members.
Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%!
Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!).
Monthly Challenges
As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham.
Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these.
One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so!
We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!).
Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively.
Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition.
There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page.
Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed?
Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons:
Archtransit (talk·contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here.
Rudget (talk·contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion.
Thanks
This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Wikipedia's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit!
There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!).
The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team?
Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting.
Images
A picture's worth a thousand words
In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Wikipedia/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any!
www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers.
Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help.
Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion here.
The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with Buckton Castle and Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done!
WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (here) and is an important issue for WP:GM.
As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details.
Member News
There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March:
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
New Aims
The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in a discussion on WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are:
Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for Rochdale, Wigan, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer.
Don't Forget...
Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common.
Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out.
The Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, and Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article. Ddstretch and Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page.
Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in Saddleworth, Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over 19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included Jza84, Ddstretch, Malleus Fatuarum, Hassocks5489, Nev1 and Mike Peel.
Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page: Hulme Arch Bridge, Peterloo Massacre, Bolton and Leigh Railway, Barnes Hospital, Denshaw, and Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it here. It gets the project noticed!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
Member News
There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month:
Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself.
Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click here.
It's been three months since the last newsletter, but there's been a lot going on...
Promoted articles:
Greater Manchester is one of our project's top priority articles, the Greater Manchester article comprehensively covers everything to do with the county, from culture and history, to transport and demography.
Manchester United F.C. records and statistics is about the records of one of Greater Manchester's best know clubs, which feats like "the club currently holds the record for the most FA Cup triumphs with 11".
City of Salford is about the local government area and Greater Manchester's second city. Getting Salford to GA is one our the aim's of our project, so hopefully this may help.
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is about the history and modern restoration of the disused canal running through the county. (It's now at FAC, so please improve the article if you can!)
Manchester Mummy is about Hannah Beswick, whose macabre fear of being buried alive lead to her demanding that her body was kept above ground and checked periodically for signs of life.
Milnrow is a small town in Rochdale with a long history. The wool trade was important to the town and was the basis of much of its industry. (It's also the first GA for Rochdale!)
Ordsall Hall is an important Tudor hall in Salford with a reputation for being haunted!
Bert Trautmann is the German goalkeeper who broke his neck playing for Manchester City... and carried on playing!
The Peterloo Massacre appeared on the front page on 16 August! Well done to everyone who contributed to the article about a key moment of Greater Manchester's history and managed to get it showcased.
A new portal has been set up! The Greater Manchester portal showcases some of the best articles to do with the county. Thanks to Polishname for single-handedly getting it up and running.
There is a proposal to move members who haven't edited for a while to an inactive members list, so if you've not been edited recently but still want to be a member let us know!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 5 on Yorkshire and 11 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Although the project has had a lot of GAs and FAs recently, most of the articles covered by our short term aims haven't experienced much activity recently. Baby has undergone some change, but has a long way to go, and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester is very close to FL quality. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
There are 53 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Since 12 June, the project has gained 7 new members:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 1st September, we have had 99.5% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 157 of our 1662 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
As you were involved in the previous consensus in 2006, I think it would be appropriate for your input in a RfC on the matter. A local consensus was once again reached a few weeks ago but it now has now gone to a wider consensus.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
14:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
