Talk:Cheshire inventions, innovations and firsts

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Multiple Issues Notices

I have added a short header and made external links to this page from other pages. I have, therefore, removed the issues notices for the time being (assuming good faith).

{{Multiple issues|{{Orphan}} {{lead missing}}}}

PennyDarling (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

County boundaries

I think we will have to confine this article to the present ceremonial county of Cheshire, in common with the other articles relating to the county. Therefore (with some sadness) I have deleted Birkenhead Park, as it is now in Merseyside. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to review. If we restrict it to the present ceremonial county of Cheshire then that would also mean the deletion of the "B irth of England" entry as this was in Bromborough PennyDarling (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Bromborough as suggested

Going forward

I am not sure how this article should develop and continue. I have been having a look at some comparable articles, and there does not seem to be a standard pattern; some do it by subjects and topics, others by dates. And I am not particularly keen on the present title. For a start, as it is developing into a list, the word "list" should IMO be in the title. And the word "firsts" is probably redundant, and not really different from "innovations". What do people think about "List of Cheshire inventions and innovations" as the title?

Then the format. On balance I prefer formatting it by dates; this gives a logical sequence, and allows flexibility for inserting new items. Also I think we should get rid of the emboldening of each item (I don't think this is standard MoS procedure), and that we should add bullet points to each item (which is). And then, following the example of List of Irish inventions and discoveries, it would look something like:

18th century

1772: John Whitehurst invented the "pulsation engine", a precursor of the Hydraulic ram, and installed the first one at Oulton Park.

20th century

1933: Polythene was discovered by scientists working for Imperial Chemical Industries at Northwich.

Thoughts please. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PennyDarling: What are your thoughts on my suggestions? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]