Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

L.S. Lowry

Does any body have access to any (copies of...) paintings of Salford by Lowry? I know there is one which depicts Salford Cathedral which, I believe with careful and considerate rationale, could be a great addition to the Industrial Revolution section of the Salford article. That part of the article is lacking an image and I thought the inclusion of a Lowry could kill several birds with one stone. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some hereand here. I can't see the cathedral looking through them quickly but I may have missed it. I did see something that says he painted the church of St Philip and St Stephen just near the cathedral though. Richerman (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New source

Hello again team,

Just a note that I came across this PDF all about Manchester and Liverpool, Greater Manchester and Merseyside and the North West. It's very detailed, particularly in respect of population decline and the demography of Greater Manchester. It's also got stuff about the history of Manchester, and, from a cursory glance, at least a statement or two about each of the major settlements in the "Manchester-Liverpool" area. Just thought the team might want to know! -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hello team,

Just a note that I've written a March 2008 Project Newsletter. It's a little brief, and broadly about stuff we know about, but thought it had some useful content. I'm going to leave it there until late this afternoon so others can contribute to it (you are free to do so), then I'll try to deliver it this evening. I've included mentions of a roll call too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About writing the next one, I think we should have a team. A few users gathering info about the project, and compiling it up. Cheers, Basketball110 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Roll call

The following editors on the project's list of participants have not edited since 31st Dec 2007:

  1. BadBoyTC
  2. M A Mason
  3. MeanStreets
  4. Ricmitch

Also, the following have not edited since 31st Jan 2008:

  1. Ecco1983
  2. Faz2105

I don't suggest that these people should be removed from the list of participants since they may return at a later date, but maybe some indicator could be added to the table (or perhaps a new section added) to show that they have been inactive for a considerable time. Nev1 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New aims

Hello again team,

I just wondered how we felt about setting some new targets for the project, having completed all of our short term goals (bar one)? I have a few ideas in mind for new goals and wanted to share them for discussion. I think our new aims could include:

I'd personally like to see something about one of our major towns/former county boroughs, like improving Stockport, Rochdale, Wigan etc, but wasn't sure which we ought to go for or why. Having created several FAs as a team, I know we're a little top-heavy now too, and need a bit more representation on the GA front. What do people think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't really know what you mean by "top heavy" though. Surely the ultimate goal would be to have all our articles at FA status? - although it's never likely to happen. Incidentally there was an interesting discussion on Melvin Bragg's "in our time" on Radio 4 this morning about Ada Lovelace, "the allegedly hard drinking 19th century mathematician and daughter of Lord Byron. In her work with Charles Babbage on a steam driven calculating machine, Ada understood, perhaps before anyone else, what a computer might truly be". I only heard the beginning of it but intend to listen to it all on the BBC's "listen again" website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/ Richerman (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Only just promoted to GA but I'm going to request a peer review straight away so we all have something to think about. It is clear from the excellent unplanned collaboration that we all have a strong interest in the Greater Manchester article and it seems only right that our top article aims for FA status. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How about something more on metropolitan boroughs? They are arguable more important than even the largest towns in Greater Manchester yet their articles are mostly start class. We could aim for some to get GA, but they definitely need improving beyond start class. Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You've obviously got the knack of that, having pretty rapidly got Trafford through GA and now FA, for which congratulations on a job well done. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Wait, have I just been volunteered? :P I think it was easier for me to blitz the Trafford article because I'd had a lot of input on Trafford related articles. Therefore I'd encourage people to spend some time on the articles that are important to them - usually where they live, I know it is for me - a bit like a benevolent kind of article ownership. I'll help out where I can with other boroughs, but for some I'd only be able to do the generic number crunching stuff, I just don't have all the sources. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have amassed a small library of books on Oldham! The borough is set to be rebranded (but not renamed) by the end of the financial year, so there should be some interesting sources online by April. I'd be more than happy to mimic the style and formatting of Trafford for the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article.... oh.... and while I'm here, contratulations from me too! I believe the article is the first "district" of England (if not the UK) to be FA! Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So, going forwards with this, how about the following:
The final two, could we agree on specifics? I will work on Metropolitan Borough of Oldham regardless, but I don't want us to become too unbalanced with vast top-quality content for Oldham/Trafford, but little on the other areas. I'd like to see the Boltons, Stockports and Wigans start to develop (borough or towns).... but, what do others think? Do we even need these aims? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I see nothing wrong with having top quality content for Oldham/Trafford, and hopefully soon for Salford as well. :-) But I think it's important that someone local takes a lead with the Wigan, Stockport et al articles, and then maybe the rest of us will chip in where we can. I'm echoing Nev1's point above, about benevolent article ownership. That's what got the Oldham/Trafford articles where they are today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How about either Bolton or Stockport and the Metropolitan Borough of Bury? All have stuff to work with although are a way off GA, Jimet's put in some good effort into the Bury article and is clearly interested. Perhaps Bolton since there's been more recent activity on it? (since 1st Jan 08, 77 edits vs 64, so admittedly not much in it) Also Bolton and Stockport are the two largest towns in Greater Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if Mr Stephen was interested in taking Stockport to GA? Simillarly we could follow Jimet's lead on Bury like you say - sounds good! I would also like to add that List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford is still an outstanding FLC, though don't think it should necessarily be a top priority. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Mentioned in dispatches! I have had the occasional look at the Stockport article, but never added much to it. There is something of a shortage of source material; Arrowsmith is a good modern single-volume work, but that's about it. I've not looked much at the Victoria County History, mind. One thing that's alway put me off was defining boundaries (ah, again!). Do we work to the pre-1974 county borough? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The former (pre-74) districts seem to be the standard yes. Certainly the ONS produces statistics on this basis, whilst the former areas are still signposted in Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside boroughs. Articles about places beyond GM also seem to take this stance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Geology resources

I came across a couple of good geology resources yesterday which describe the geology of Stockport which is here and Oldham which is here. They are a little bit technical in places, so if anyone knows a bit about geology they could try extracting the information - otherwise I'll have a go myself when I get time. Richerman (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further investigation it seems that every local authority has to have a policy for it's Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy so a search for Bury's came up with this. They do contain all sorts of useful information that we can use like land use, housing types etc. Richerman (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right in what you say about each area, all LAs not just GMC, had to do a survey. I was involved on the petroleum/ex petrol station side, giving info to the LAs from my fire service records, as GMCFS(now GMCFRS) was the licensing authority for petroleum installations/storage under the old Petroleum Consolidation Act. The regulation of contaminated land is described in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 78, subsections A to YC (Inserted by virtue of section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) this initiated a new regime for dealing with the issues surrounding contaminated land. The new regime came into force on the 1st of April 2000 and imposed the duty of dealing with contaminated land on all local authorities. Geotek (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Tameside does a decent one, too. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester

Manchester is one of our best articles and it is a shame that it still has not featured on the main page. It is likely to take a long time if we don't nominate it for a date. I think maybe we could nominate it on the 12th anniversary of the bomb, June 15th. I also read this in the MEN today [1] and I think it would be great if we had it up on Manchester Day but this is going to be over a year away. Any thoughts on days significant to Manchester? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Day may be a long way off now, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to feature the 1996 Manchester bombing on the front page on 15th June? For anyone who doubts the worth of appearing on the front page take a look at the stats here for a page that recently featured in the DYK? section on the front page. Try and guess which day it was on. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate yes but we already want the Manchester Baby to get up to FA standard and I don't think we could get both up to FA in time. The Manchester article does have a section just about the bomb so I still think it is worth nominating. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
--It also seems to have had a knock on effect... [2] -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"It aims to celebrate the unique identity and spirit of Britain's second city." - what's Birmingham got to do with it?....... I'm joking before you decide to banish me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Traitor. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford

The Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford seems to be stalling at FLC due to being, well, not such a pretty list! Input welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand Scorpion0422's concerns, but you have presented a convincing counter argument. I'm not sure what more can be done. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for "Did you know"

I have nominated the following for the "did you know" section from the article I've created on Shambles Square.

Could you nice people have a look at the article and see if it needs any improvement to give it a better chance of inclusion - or maybe you think the wording for the "hook" could be better? Richerman (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good nomination; this stands an excellent chance of being featured. I have just done a copyedit and provided one extra ref which specifically references the 1999 move (in particular the 300m aspect and the new location). I'm always lurking round the DYK? pages, so I'll keep a lookout for any comments/clarifications from the assessors. Good luck! Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine, but I'd get the nomination in soon. DYK only really approves new-er articles. Rudget. 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's already listed under 10 March, so should be picked up by the assessors soon. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your the help, there are a number of conflicting references I've found, some say it was moved 100 metres and some say 300 metres. I could do with pacing it out really, if I can work out exactly where it was before the move. Also, I see that the article you referenced says it was raised 15 feet in 1974 when it was actually 4 ft 9 inches on the sign outside Sinclair's! Do you think it would be notable to say that this editor has been pissed there on draught Bass in the first two locations? Richerman (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Bass? Good stuff — at least you're not one of the "sunburnt young men, awash with lager, slump[ed] outside". I can accept sunburn and slumping, but not lager-drinking! :) I didn't actually notice the inconsistency about the distance raised on my first reading of that source; in case of quibbles, it may be best to reword to "several feet". Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sunburnt? - maybe, slumped, probably, young? - yes the first time but not now, lager - not a chance! 15 feet is definitely wrong from my admittedly "original research" - enjoyable though it was. Perhaps I should make reference to the 4ft 9in quoted on the sign outside, which is most likely correct, and just mention the 15 feet. Richerman (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it was the Greater Manchester County Records Office that said 4ft 9in and they should know! I should read my own references! I've amended the wording to say that. Richerman (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to add the image of Shambles Square to the nomination, it's a nice picture. I can't see why this wouldn't make it to the front page, good luck. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Done Richerman (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Ive got the bit between my teeth! I found an article on Egg rolling that made it almost sound like the tradition was invented in America. I've completely rewritten the article to globalise it and have put the following hook on the "did you know" page as I think it would make a great hook for Easter.

  • …that traditional Easter egg rolling games in the United Kingdom were known as pace-egging and in Lancashire the broken eggshells were carefully crushed after the event so as not to be used as boats by witches?

That'll teach them! Richerman (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know

...that Shambles Square is the first article mentioned today in the "did you know" section? Woohoo!!! Richerman (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah well, it was there this morning and then it went into the archive. Talk about 15 minutes of fame! Richerman (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you get only something like six hours in the DYK slot. If it happens overnight, you may miss it altogether (it's happened to me). But the prestige.........! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Make sure you have a look here to see how many people visited the article today compared to other days — you'll be impressed! (Stats for the last few days aren't available yet.) Incidentally, for some reason, DYK hooks with accompanying pictures tend to be looked at by a lot more people than those with text only (often several times as many). I had this article featured in DYK with a pic on 20 Jan: the hit rate really surprised me! Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. From 23 to nearly 1,000 is a pretty good increase - I'll await the stats with interest. There's only been 8 hits so far this month for mine and they were probably all from this project, so anything will be an improvement:-) Richerman (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You were right, I am impressed, 2,952 hits. I suppose those Americans must have seen it while we were in bed. I've sparked off a five-in-one collaberation DYK for Easter now (15 March nominations) so we'll see how that goes. Richerman (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Baptist Chapel

I've just started an article on the Welsh Baptist Chapel, which is a good subject to research if you want to get depressed about the Manchester City Council... Anyway, I'm not sure what the article should be named. The building's known variously as the Welsh Baptist Chapel and the Unitarian Chapel, and since 1974 as the Islamic Academy. I think that Unitarian Chapel might be its original name, but I'm not sure. Any suggestions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the article name is that all your suggestions are too generic: there are hundreds of Welsh Baptist chapels, and Unitarian chapels, and (I bet) a couple of Islamic academies. This one isn't the oldest, or largest, or most famous. So whatever name is chosen, it should be more specific, something like 'Unitarian Chapel, Manchester' (assuming there is only one in the city, which I doubt.....). Any alternative names could/should be just redirects.--Jotel (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it still used as an Islamic academy? - the last sentence doesn't make that clear. If so, I would say it should be called Upper Brook Street Islamic Academy as most articles take their name from the present title of the building e.g. the GMEX article is now Manchester Central (Conference Centre) with redirects.
No, the Islamic academy no longer occupy the building, although they still have a sign up outside it. I don't think that the building can be occupied until it's repaired. Mike Peel (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There also is a distinction between the institution (e.g Islamic Academy) and its premises (which may be only temporary). The building belongs to the city council, so the academy may or may not occupy it in the future, assuming the place is ever repaired. The only positive (sort of) suggestion is to call it Upper Brook Street Unitarian Chapel if this indeed was the original name.--Jotel (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A Google search turns up quite a few hits for "Upper Brook Street Chapel", including references made to that name in various books. I have written quite a few place of worship articles, and I always include a geographical qualifier (my area of expertise is Brighton and Hove), so I would be inclined to try "Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester" as the title. On other matters: definitely go for DYK?, as you have two decent facts in there (Charles Barry and the "first (neo)Gothic Nonconformist") which could probably be combined into one particularly good hook. I'd love to see an image in the infobox as well - the angle from which the pic in "Images of England" was taken looks quite sympathetic, although you may have to act quickly before the tree comes into leaf (I don't know how far advanced the trees are up in GM at the moment; my yardstick is the Sussex coast!). Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Trees are the least of our problems – the building hasn't got a roof! see here. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh...! Blimey, I thought some of Brighton and Hove's disused churches were in a bad way. The best you can say is a picture would show exactly how derelict it has become, I suppose... Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added a picture of the building that I took a few years ago. Unfortunately it was while the roof was being removed, and also I used my camera phone, so it isn't that good an image. I'll take some better photos of it in a couple of days. Mike Peel (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On a different note, the article (whatever it's eventually called)would probably make a good DYK? since it is "said to be the first Gothic Nonconformist chapel". Be good if a picture could be found too. Nev1 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the distinction between Gothic & Neogothic clear, this is WikiPedia after all :-) When Gothic style was in fashion, non-conformism had not yet been invented. I'll change the article accordingly. --Jotel (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Both Pevsner and Parkinson-Bailey call it Gothic. If it's good enough for them ... Mr Stephen (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would. :) I was planning on pointing out that it was designed by Barry, just before he did the Houses of Parliament, but your suggestion is also good... Once we've got the name sorted, I think I'll submit several for it, and let the DYK people decide. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to get this article up to Good Article status, although there doesn't seem to be too much information for it easily available... Any suggestions for books, or other sources, that might discuss it are most welcome. Mike Peel (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there an active Welsh Baptist church in Manchester? If so, they may have something in their archives. Just a thought....
Maybe Stewart's Stones of Mancheter? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article now has a new name, and is a DYK nominee:

Mike Peel (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; I'll keep an eye on the nomination at the DYK page, where I lurk quite often. The pic is better than many that I take with a "real" digital camera...! ;) Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I just wrote a lengthy peer review here, but the requesting user is no longer on Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 09:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Krator. I'll take a look at your suggestions, and I expect some of the other project members will help with making the necessary alterations. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Castles in Greater Manchester

I'm curious what the project thinks of this article. I started it as a way to bring together information on (obviously) the castles of greater Manchester, much like a list. As such I was wondering if it's worth putting it forwards at FLC? Are there many lists which are mainly prose? As an alternative I'd be reluctant to put it forward at GAC since there are some stubby sections. Just a thought. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly some FLs that are entirely prose, see List of Meerkat Manor meerkats. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There was an inconsistent mixture of linked and non-linked definitions of castles across the sections so I've linked them all. However, I'm not sure if they all need linking in a list, if not they need to be all unlinked. Also I've left a message on the talk page about the first couple of sentences which aren't at all clear. Richerman (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about the linking either, that partly why I screwed it up. I guess we'll find out, it'll be easy to fix. I've had a go at the first couple of sentances, I'm not sure if it works, the best way may be to split the second sentence into two or more as you suggested. Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The lead looks a lot better now and more understandable. I'm not sure about the punctuation as there seems to be a comma too many, but I'm sure Malleus will put us right on that one:-) Richerman (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen thiswebsite? You may find it useful. Richerman (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't get what you don't ask for

File:Worsley Man.jpg

Manchester Museum has kindly sent me a free picture of Worsley Man, Greater Manchester's own bog body. After I explained that it was for use on wikipedia they waived the £167 fee they'd initially asked for. How good is that? I only hope that the covering email is sufficient for the wiki image police. :-(

£167!! I have a sudden urge to take up photography. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_11&oldid=1140217105"