Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Article assessment

There has very recently been a huge addition of articles to the project which I do not believe are related to us at all. Mostly football related. It is going to mean a huge number of low importance article which will never recieve attention from the project. For example Arthur Gomez is from West Africa and once played for Manchester United. What does that have to do with us really?? A MUFC player from Manchester is fine by me as that seems to be related but most of those are just ridiculous. I mean 1915 British football betting scandal... come on... _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The huge addtions we added by a bot requested/developed at Wikipedia:Bot requests (not requested by me incidently!). It was inevitable that some unrelated material would be added, but I agree that articles about football players (blue/red/or any other team) are not going to be well served by the project as it currently stands. Personally I can't see much scope for most biography-class articles for us, but others may beg to differ.

Either we need a bot to somehow reverse some of the banner additions, or someone with AWB may have to spend half an hour wizzing through some of these. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there will be some biography-related articles of interest to the project, like Alan Turing, or John Rylands for instance. But in general I agree. The addition of all those minor footballers was quite alarming. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been brought to the attention of the bot creator here. I'm not sure he intends to reverse some of the additions. Apparently Category:Greater Manchester includes some false-positives. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to commonsense. :( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for this, fellow editors. I simply set my bot to go through the category and its child categories, and on the whole, it did a good job. I will of course reverse the bot's errors, if you can give me a list of articles to do. I don't think there were that many, but I can easily reverse an entire category added. Again, my sincere apologies, and I hope not a lot of inconvenience was caused. Kind regards, Redrocketboy 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's my firm impression that almost all of the articles tagged by your bot ought to be untagged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please name them then. Redrocketboy 01:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only a limited number of chronos particles in the world; life's too short. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm quickly writing some code to undo this, despite having to be up at 7am tomorrow morning. I'm slightly put out that you'd classify almost all the tags as mistakes, when they clearly aren't. I've received not one word of thanks (not that I'd expect it, but even so...), but of complaints. Now when the complaints are legit and fair, I'm fine with that. I'm amending the problem right now. But you've overexaggerated I think, and you can't say almost all the tags are wrong. Unless of course the majority of the articles in the Greater Manchester categories shouldn't be there? Redrocketboy 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

May I point out to you that if you don't have the time or ability to undo it, then you ought not to do it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the time and ability. I wonder if you have ever coded a bot? It takes time, and being rude about it isn't helping. I've already apologised. It's late, I'm tired, I'm working all day tomorrow. I'll try my best to fix it. At least there are decent editors like Jza84 who can at least be co operative and tell me what articles need fixing. So far you've simply insulted me without paying attention to the issue. Redrocketboy 02:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't fall into the trap of making assumptions. As it happens I have probably been a professional computer programmer for longer than you have been alive. So please try to forgive me if I sound as if I've heard it all before; I have. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Time out please guys! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are a programmer, then you will surely understand the predicament. I'll finish off the code tomorrow, and run the bot then. Nevertheless, you are falling into the trap too. You are assuming I can't fix it, when I most certainly can, and will. It doesn't mean you need to be rude to me about it. How about retracting your comment saying almost all of them need to be undone, as that is most certainly not true. Redrocketboy 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am done with this. Do whatever damage you like to whatever articles you like. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All I've done is helped your WikiProject out. All it's done is added categories to a few articles that are out of scope. The large majority are correct, despite your false assumption above. I've said I'll fix the "damage"; I've apologised; and all I've had is abuse thrown in my face about it. Next time, please manually tag the pages, or ask someone else. If there's one thing I can't stand it's rudeness, and you must be one of the most rudest editors I've come across. Good day. Redrocketboy 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But surely your own performance has been a little bit dodgey, to say the least. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Category:People from Greater Manchester might be a good start for banner removals. Gimme a few moments to check some more. Do you need categories or lists? Surely categories are suitable? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople from Manchester, Category:Bolton Wanderers F.C., Category:Oldham Athletic A.F.C., Category:Hyde United F.C., Category:Bury F.C., Category:Wigan Athletic F.C., Category:Wigan Warriors look like they are suitable for banner removal too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not go through that first category... the articles edited from there (e.g. People from Salford) are from other categories. Redrocketboy 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Don't be dispirited - I for one certainly understand you were acting upon a request, and acted in selfless good faith. I thank you for this. I can't see any problem, it wouldn't take long I imagine to undo some of the additions. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no articles to tag for any of those above. I did not go through any of those categories. I really think it was pretty much the Manchester United articles. Redrocketboy 01:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional categories may also include Category:Stockport County F.C., Category:Rochdale A.F.C., Category:Salford City Reds. I think this would crack this temporary glitch!

Other than that, yes, it appears to be Man Utd stuff for the most part. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this breifly, it seems that articles within the categories I provided yester-eve (such as Category:Hyde United F.C.) or their daughter categories have been tagged with WP:GM's assessment banner. Anthony Charles is an example of this. It is largely these sport/biography-class articles that need un-tagging. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have admin ST47 reverting all the mistaken taggings. If you come across anymore, please let me know. Thanks. Redrocketboy 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the above issue be related to the recent addition of the Greater Manchester Project's template to the talk page of Warrington Borough Transport? It wasn't done by anyone who has obviously been involved in the above actions, and we in the Cheshire Project would obviously be glad of any input to any Cheshire-related articles. However, I wonder whether the placing of this project template is entirely what your project would like to see? As far as I can tell, the first-sight reason for it being added was that Warrington Borough Transport has services that go into the GM area (as well as Merseyside area), but an extension of that inferred reason would see loads of articles which mention an abutting area having lots of geographical-area project banners on their talk pages for all the abutting areas, and I'm not too sure that would be entirely a good thing. Of course, this instance may be an exception that need not be consistently applied to other cases, but I thought I'd raise the issue here.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an issue unrelated to this one. Thanks Redrocketboy 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a user added it due to the article's categorisation. I would imagine its a good-faith mistake - certainly it's an article best served by the Cheshire project, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was all done in good faith and it seems that most of the damage was done because of the Category:Manchester United F.C. and all of its sub-categories which is in Category:Sport in Trafford, to suggest the categorisation of Greater Manchester is wrong is rather ludicrous. The addition of all the train stations in Greater Manchester is good and I did suggest it some time ago. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency between categories & project tags

Seems to me - as the person who requested the bot work & specified the search space - that either a) there is not a problem or b) there is a problem with our categorisation. I take the view that anything connected with Greater Manchester is within the remit of the project. That, for me, includes Manchester United related articles, and, come to that, Warrington transport if it serves the Greater Manchester area. Conversely, if these things are not to do with Greater Manchester, then they should not be categorised, or the categories should not be so nested, as to place the article within a Greater Manchester category.

I do not buy into an argument that, for instance, Warrington transport, or a football article, are "best served by" another project - WPP:Cheshire, or WPP:Football. Rather I think the article is best served by multiple projects. Whatever, for the record, User:Redrocketboy was acting on my request; please direct any fack in my direction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We're a project that is still very much developing. Granted, Manchester United and other football teams are related to Greater Manchester, but we certainly don't have the strength of numbers to take on circa 700 articles on (for the mostpart, minor) football players as a project which is a geography-class WikiProject. Simillary, these are clearly going to be better served by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that what is wrong here is asking a bot owner to do some work without discussing it on the project first. If you had asked here then maybe someone might have said "Go carefully". When I belatedly found original request I was astonished that I then couldn't find anything on this project about it. I even trawled through the archives searching. What a waste of my time. I think we should get a bot to run through all the articles of everyone that has ever read a book and tag them for WP:BOOKS. -MurphiaMan (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You can if you like. If you check out the bot requests page, and my bot request, you will see that the one says, with respect to subcategories, in effect "go carefully"; and that the other addressed the risks associated with subcategories. On this basis your injunction would be redundant. I note your astonishment, but am not much moved by it. We're talking about a notation on the talk pages, for heavens sake, of three or four hundred articles; which was made by bot and which could be removed by bot, both at little effort. More time by far has been spent, according to your post, agonising about the matter, than was spent in doing & undoing it. Meanwhile, I note your lack of interest in the other 600 or so articles which have been accepted by the project. And note the complete absence of constructive discussion as to what the scope of the project is.

There appears to be a simple disagreement as to whether MUFC footballers are or are not covered by WPP:GM, and a near absence of discussion or documentation of project scope. As it is, we now appear to be cherry-picking our footballers .. Beckam belongs to us, and a number of other footballers do not. That's not a sustainable or rational approach.

Good luck with your project. By my understanding, over the past few days, you're doing better at driving people away from it than anything else discernible. odd choice to make. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the assessment and template was added Redrockebot as shown here. A few threads above is a discussion about the bots actions. Rt. 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to reply; Our project's remit and aims are both on the main project page. We also have an assessment page outlining exactly where and how our project banner should be added. These could have been elaborated on or clarified if someone had cared to ask. This is a problem (storm in a tea cup) that has risen due to a fundamental lack of communication. But I wholly disagree it's on the part of this project. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Central station: suggestion for a new article

In case anybody else is interested: ...just a thought.... --Jotel (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chill Factore

Can I bring it to everyone's attention that Chill Factore was Speedy deleted on Friday by User:FisherQueen. Whilst, the old article may have been little more than a stub, I think at least a debate on the worthiness of having an article on this subject would have been in order. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's rather dumb deleting that, a trigger happy admin I expect. It really should have an article being the largest indoor ski-slope in the UK and having award winning advertising "The alps are coming to the North West" _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was little enough to it, so it shouldn't be hard to re-create the article whenever someone's ready to write something a little bit more extensive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already got a little bit on Chill Factor.... :) Rt. 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Foggy

Hello team,

Just wanted to raise awareness of User:P.hogg (contributions). He's doing some good work, but isn't a very chatty soul. It'd be great to get him (her?) on board. In the meantime, we might need to watch a few of their contributions as the formatting isn't quite spot on yet. Until they reply to their messages, it's the only thing we can do (I think) to support them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured list?

Would Grade I listed buildings in Manchester meet with FLC standards? I don't have much experience in the field, but I think it looks compliant. And, I'd like to thank Malleus for helping me. :) Rt. 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is just me but the Albert Memorial image covers over half the table. I'm on Firefox, maybe cross-browser problems? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most probably. I'm on IE. Change it on yours and I'll see what it looks like on mine. :) Rt. 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{clear}} template to it and it looks fine now in both Firefox and IE on my computer. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. I'm using Firefox too, and it looks fine to me. Maybe it's something to do with display resolution. I think the table probably ought to be reduced a bit in size anyway.

I don't have any more experience of FLC standards than you do - probably even less - but I don't think the article's quite ready yet. For instance, I just saw this: "There are fewer Grade I listed buildings in Manchester than other cities in the UK, due to Manchester's relatviely young history and emergence as a major city in the Victorian era.[1] It is through the Industrial Revolution that Manchester became world's first industrialised city,[3] with most of these mills recently becoming listed.[4]" What mills is this talking about? I'm not sure that history can be "young" either, and in fact Manchester has quite a long history, back to at least Roman times anyway. I also don't think that having a refs column works in this case, because not all of the information in each row comes from the ref, like the co-ordinates for instance.

Do you mind if I play with the table formatting a little bit anyway? I do think that tables look better when the text size is reduced slightly relative to the surrounding text. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well my display is set at 1280 x 800. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably it; mine's set to 1280 x 1024 and it looks fine in Firefox. Obviously the image/table sizes need to be adjusted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure I quite understand what's wrong with the referencing column? Could you clarify? And as for the prose, please change as per your thoughts. All ideas are welcome. Rt. 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The logic of the reference column in the List of churches in Greater Manchester was that putting the reference beside, say, the date of completion, was misleading, as the reference didn't just verify that date, but all of the information in the row. That isn't the case with this list, where the reference doesn't verify the OS co-ordinates. If I've misunderstood then I'm sure that Jza84 will point that out to me. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Briefly. That's "architecture", not "architechture". Is there a reason why two of the buildings don't have steets? Some of the buildings have references in the 'date of listing' column, some don't. (I think it's OK with a single ref to the 'What is a listed building?' page at the council web pages - the information can easily be retrieved from there.) Manchester2002 is not regarded as a reliable source. The Manchester Architecture Guide ref needs completing. The given ref doesn't support the assertion 'There are fewer Grade I listed buildings in Manchester than other cities in the UK, due to Manchester's relatively young history and emergence as a major city in the Victorian era'. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have been a little ahead of you there. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done all - Rt. 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought - what about having the images in the table itself, like say that at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/maps#Maps_done (for want of a better example!)? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has no obvious breaches of WP:WIAFL, but at 11 items it does seem a little brief. How big would the list be if the scope was expanded to Greater Manchester? I'll put further, more specific comments at the peer review. As an aside relating to the Main Page topic above, one of the buildings in this list would be likely to reach the Main Page quite quickly if taken to FA, as there are not many FAs about buildings and structures. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion, increasing the scope to Greater Manchester. To answer your question, there are 39 Grade 1 liosted buildings in GM. :) Images of England --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A list of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester sounds like a good idea to me, there'd be no issue about length and it would prevent very similar articles for each of the other 9 boroughs in Manchester. If it was to be done, can I recommend adding a 'District' column to the table. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Might it be better to have separate tables for each of the boroughs, like in the List of churches in Greater Manchester article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a participant in this project but have recently written a couple of articles on churches in Greater Manchester (which were formerly in Cheshire) and I came across Grade I listed buildings in Manchester. To the outside observer (just making comments) this looks a bit of a mess. It is cramped and not clear. The List of churches in Greater Manchester LOOKS much better and more accessible. All those references! How about:

• (1) giving the table a bit more space?
• (2) All the buildings have pages in Images of England. Why not have just one reference to the relevant page?

I also agree that expanding it to include all the Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester would give it more substance, and would be a useful resource. (And separate tables for the boroughs too.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd better ask

Is there anyone else on the project who would prefer me not to comment on, copy edit, or otherwise interfere with their articles? I'm not bothered either way, but it's always best to get these things out in the open I think. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else???.... A little cryptic! I would hope all our project's users are aware that no editor owns any articles to warrent them being "theirs". Your certainly welcome to edit freely by my account - even Oldham! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have hoped so too. But I have once again been reminded that isn't always the case. But as I say, I'm not bothered, I'm quite happy to leave those articles alone where the owner objects to my interference, just so long as I know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will finally add to that, that if the project is not going to be collegial, then it can count me out. I quote: "So far I have got: Manchester Featured article (featured article status, which I had previously got to GA and then A-class), Portal:North West England Featured article, Didsbury (good article status), 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack and also Manchester Airport (B class)."

The piss can only be taken so far. I can find other places to spend my time on wikipedia, with a lot less hassle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've obviously been asleep and missed something, but as far as I'm concerned if someone can see something that could do with improving, then as long as it's factually accurate then they should feel free. Don't get downhearted! Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. I clearly significantly contributed to Oldham and Shaw and Crompton to get them to FA; a spade is a spade as they say. But, these articles would not be FA without others, especially Malleus. Not a chance. This is even more true of Manchester, which was very much a communal effort. One of our greatest positives is our team-spirit, our different specialisms and bringing a different strength to a different aspect of writing and contribution.

I have some pride in that these articles being of high quality, particularly as Wikipedia becomes a, if not, the leading resourse on the web. But I certainly don't get any buzz out of point scoring. I don't think there is much to be gained by having a monopoly on a certain slice of Wikipedia's articles. I think the way Wikipedia works (for those who are heavily involved), tries to get users to do and acheieve as many things as possible, which often reduces the quality of their actions and contributions. I would urge anyone like that to go for quality, not quantity!

It's clear we have a core of users who put 110% into Wikipedia. I'm looking forwards to a Christmas break, and would hope others use their's too to reflect on how to move on with their aims, this project and Wikipedia. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'ts natural when you have spent a lot of time constructing an article to feel that it's "yours" and when somebody comes along and edits it to feel a bit miffed - especially if you don't agree with the edit. However, there's a bit on the edit page that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" and I think that sums it up really. I'm sure that you won't find any articles that have got up to FA status without a number of editors working on them. I've always found your contributions to be most helpful. Richerman (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether my userpage should be displayed and be subject to conversation. I disapprove of Malleus' actions there, but not before this. I am certainly not happy about this, and I would like to say that I meant it as "help" edits, and not therefore "ownership" edits. I don't particularly find the article I edit to be subject to this supposition, and no other editor seems to have issues with my editing so far with contributions to GM related articles. I'm ashamed that I have been made to feel as I have been such a "piss take". I have never once incinuated that Malleus should withdraw his editing from pages which I am dedicating my contributions too; apart from Didsbury, a while back. I am also slightly concerned about the over-exaggeration of the supposed "anyone else" in Malleus's opening statement, and I shalln't request his advice ever more. Rt. 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a case of crossed-wires and crossed-intentions? It seems to me that both are acting in good faith and have Wikipedia's best interests are heart. I don't think this warrents a feud, perhaps just some clarification and feedback? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this to be an issue for the project, but I did want to get it off my chest. There will be no feud as far as I'm concerned, that's not my style. But this not a misunderstanding that requires any clarification so far as I'm concerned. It's once bitten, twice shy. For Rudget to claim the credit for getting Didsbury up to GA after all of the hassle he caused was a step too far. It's not that I want the credit for anything at all, because I don't, but equally I don't like to see self-aggrandisement based on deception. I have tried to assume good faith over this matter, but I have signally failed, because I can see none. Almost every article that gets through GA/FA is a synthesis of the work of many editors, not just one. I will continue to edit wherever and whenever I choose, but in future I shall be more careful not to get involved in articles that have ownership issues, and to direct my efforts to where they are more likely to be appreciated. That's the end of this matter so far as I'm concerned, I have nothing more to say on it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're grossly over-exaggerating the matter. We all know that nobody owns an article and everybody appreciates the help. Some people may wish to "adopt" an article as a project to focus their attention on but they know they don't own it. As for "taking the credit" of a GA or FA, it is just a fact of life that the most significant contributor is going to receive credit for the status but we all know they would not move up with only one editor's input. Manchester is probably the best example of our teamwork as everybody contributed to it as everybody knows lots about our fair city. We all had a part to play in its FA status, I think I started the push after being disheartened from the second city debate bullies and felt it was my duty to ensure Manchester is well represented on Wikipedia. Your copyediting skills are vital to the success of this project, I just thought maybe you got bored of ce which is why I don't generally request your skills but if you like it there is a new article which you can work your magic on. I hope you stay faithful to the project as your skills are much appreciated and I'm sure most agree. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but I hope that you will understand that I do not agree with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't want to part of any feud, and as Jza84 rightly says, we should be bridging relations not breaking them. But grossly over-ABF as Malleus has done, is totally unacceptable. I quote from one of his statements.."There will be no feud as far as I'm concerned, that's not my style", yet Malleus seems to have started some unfounded criticism of my editing contributions on a project talkpage based on an assumption. I greatly appreciate And-rew's and Jza's comments, but this whole stunt is probably to be some sort of reassurance of Malleus's editing, which everyone else has shown that he is good. He's becoming unfair to most editors on this project and the Wiki in general, as shown in the post-RFA user talk page. This whole thing will probably be brought up at any RFA or what have you in the future, but for anyone wishing to understand this situation, is the editor who has not only assumed great misconduct, but also the frank and public humiliation of my user credentials. Regards, Rt. 10:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Be calm, everyone. It's really not worth all this. Quite clearly you're both valued editors, and quite clearly you both want to make articles the best that you possibly can. Perhaps a break over the Christmas period (and then come back refreshed!) might help this all calm down? Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

News feed

Just to let people know, I created a news feed template for people to use as an announcements board for GACs, FACs, GA & FA promotions, AFDs, PRODs etc. You can get it on your talk or userpage by simply pasting in {{GM News}}. I have not yet posted any news and I don't want it to compete with the newsletter, it is just a more prompt way to inform about things which require immediate attention. Hope people start using it! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the idea. It's now on my userpage. :) Rt. 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wigan

Some time ago there was considerable edit warring on the Wigan and assorted pages. The dispute ended some time ago, but it might be starting up again. I'm very busy at the moment in real life, so if some local knowledgeable editors can keep an eye on it, it might be helpful. Personally removing the lists of notable people and editing them into the paragraphs as part of the narrative, seems worthwhile. I simply don't have the time to do this at the moment. Regan123 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right to bring this to the attention of the project. Without meaning to point the finger, User:80.193.161.89 seemed to be a leading antagonist for distrupting Wigan related material earlier this year. I had the displeasure of arranging a permanent block for this gentleman (well he arranged it himself!), though it appears he has re-gained his editting capability and is making comparable, sweeping changes with weak rationale. I would urge alertness from our members as bad faith has been established once. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for information: there was never a permablock on 80.193.161.89 (talk · contribs · block log). His talk page was modified by a single-edit IP 81.155.113.87 (talk · contribs · block log). Mr Stephen (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And now it is spreading to the other articles again. Sigh... Regan123 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Manchester

Could someone add the grid references to the locations of the Grade I listed buildings article, listed in the header, please? Thanks. — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few, I can do the rest later if no one else has. On a slightly different note, I think tables often look better with a slight reduced text size. How do you feel about trying that? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...thanks for that. I'll try it out tomorrow, getting quite late now. :) — Rudget _{Contributions} 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester (under "See also") to this article. Richerman (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion?

Hello again team,

How do users feel about nominating Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture for deletion? I'm inclined to have this go. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Already been tried once and I voted to keep it as it is all true and is not disimilar to Harajuku, an area of Japan famous for its subculture. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This one is unreferenced. Having looked at the source material, the article is almost complete original research. I do not believe it to be notable enough an entry to exist on Wikipedia. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well my first thought on reading the article was that it was trivial and should be deleted but then I thought maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch. Interestingly, there are articles on Mods and Rockers but none on Goths or Moshers (whatever they are!) At what point do these subcultures and the places they meet become notable? The source material is a thesis and the person that wrote it is now has a PhD so the thesis must have been passed as ok by an external examiner. The research for the thesis was original research but surely quoting from it is no different from quoting a book, is it? Having said that, the article would need a complete rewrite to wikify it. Richerman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs some weeding and cleanup but it is notable in my opinion. I remember swarms of emos in high school arranging to spend their weekend in the "Urbis gardens" then me and my friends correcting them on the proper name of the area (school was 2.5 years ago for me). It is true they are banned from the Triangle and they now charge 20p in the toilets because of them! Also I think there is a focus in the article on the "crime" the youths bring to the gardens, it is pretty false as they are more a nuisance than a threat. Also my old french teacher claims her husband designed those gardens, she was pretty mad though. Anyway I think there is a notable subculture in that area, you just have to look on a Saturday and see a plague of youths littering the gardens and destroying the turf. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I could go through the article with a fine tooth comb and add a {{fact}} tag to every sentence, but I think discussion about this is more sensible. That said though, I do want to make the point that the article doesn't stand up to basic scruntinisation at a fundamental level. Certainly the sources provided do not reflect the content of the article.

I'm also concerned about the thesis paper - which is actually a summary of results from an original research paper. It does not seem to have been published, and is merely hosted by (URL REMOVED by owner - its' citing was irelevent and unjustified in conjunction with the rant which follows) , which appears to be... well.... a kind of adult advertising/community webspace. I have to be brutally honest here, but I believe it likely that there is a connection with article's original author - possibly that he's uploaded it to assert a rough verifiability claim. It is quite terrible to assume on my part, but I really have to say it having thought this through.

I'm also concerned about the title, which with its ordering and capitalisation, suggests this is more official and notable that it really is. I'm still convinced this should go. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to contact the original authoer. If there are no objections I'll take this to AfD. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had no input from these users (though admittedly they appear inactive). As such, I've nominated this article for deletion. The entry is found here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png

Hello again team (!),

I've been notified that Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is at risk of being deleted. Is there anyone with a sound knowledge of the licencing arrangements willing to take a look at this? We may also need folk to look at the deletion entry. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rationale that has been used for other local authority arms. Hopefully that will appease people! Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That stupid robot has made a right mess, it has posted a warning on everybody with the "User from GM" userbox on their page, all the GM stubs and probably loads of other articles which contain the GM Arms. Robots really can't be trusted anymore! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just done it again, posting to hundreds of articles. Do you think that I could change the licence to CC or PD because I drew it? I know its a copy of a real COA, but this is meant to be a free-to-use version. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the addition of the fair use rationale being added by Fingerpuppet, has not done anything, received several for deletion notices this morning for articles on my watchlist. I'll look into the legal bits as soon as Christmas Day is over and see if I can come up with a new rationale that will satisfy. Geotek (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be that the warnings are just follow-ons from the message about the original problem. I've had this problem in the past when I haven't clicked on the licence before uploading. If you re-upload the image with a new licence you still get deletion warnings until the original version gets deleted and replaced by the new one. Richerman (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK with that .... I'll still work out a new rationale that will satisfy both UK and US law (handy being over in the USA at the moment !) if it's needed later then it will be available. If not required then nothing lost, interesting to note that the images in some of my articles (not just GMC related) have been up for between 6 and 12 months and only now has the Bot picked up on the the licence notice and put the fair use rationale deletion on them. Geotek (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they have changed the criteria recently and updated the bot. The flaming thing drove me mad when I first started uploading pictures and couldn't work out how to do the licences properly. I'd re-upload the image then get another message and re-upload again. I eventually realised that the bot seems to send the original message at regular intervals whatever you do. All part of the joys of working with wikipedia! Richerman (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot's just doing its job. If the image is being displayed as fair use, a FUR is needed for each instance of the image's use, ie 50+ of them. We can't have FU images on user pages. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramsbottom and black pudding championships

While we're talking about articles for deletion what about Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships? Is this a joke?

I've also just removed some crap from the Ramsbottom page on the same subject i.e. "but it is said that the contest has its roots in an apocrphyal event in the War of the Roses, when the opposing forces from Lancashire and Yorkshire hurled black puddings and yorkshire puddings at each other after they had exhausted their ammunition" - very amusing I'm sure! There's also been some stuff about the town being called "Tups arse" on there as well. I think we need to keep an eye on the Ramsbottom page. Also, it says it's got a B rating from the project but it's full of unsourced statements and the Religion section is a long list of churches which needs moving to the List of churches in Greater Manchester article. Is this rating right or has it been changed by someone? Richerman (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships sure looks like blatent nonsense to me. Certainly, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, of which this material (including that on Ramsbottom) appears to have none. Almost certain candidate for deletion I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Talk:Ramsbottom page user Etf says he/she put the bit on about the Wars of the Roses to "inject some humour into the article" and that it would be changed slightly, but, if it was changed at all, it wasn't changed enough for me. It makes it look more like a school magazine article than something from an encyclopaedia. Someone else then goes on to say that the references seem to be ok now. Well, I've had to disabuse them of that notion I'm afraid. I've put some tags on to point them in the right direction but I will shortly put on an refimprove tag if no-one does anything about them Richerman (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a google search on "Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships" comes up with a number of hits including the website for the event and information-britain.co.uk so maybe I was a bit hasty on that one! Richerman (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to stand by your original view to be honest. This contest clearly exists but only around a sentence or two could be said about it. It looks like a minor annual cultural event in Ramsbottom, a bit like Haxey Hood in Haxey (though not as well referenced). All the exceptional claims should go until another user can supply a stronger source (a local history book or newspaper article would suffice). I'm not keen on using amature webspaces being used for verification. I think the main Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships should go (or redirect to Ramsbottom), the material being found on Ramsbottom anyway. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're probably right. There are 3 newspaper articles mentioned but someone would need to come up with dates etc. as I don't think they're on the web. Richerman (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Manchester again!

I don't see the relevance of List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester (under "See also") to this article. Richerman (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Great minds... -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. I meant to remove this the other day, thanks for reminding me about it. Rt. 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

I know most of you will not be on today, too busy playing with your new presents lol. Just wanted to say happy christmas to everybody on the project and many happy returns. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 12:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

Although I've being doing the newsletter for the past three months, I now feel it is the right time to hand the reigns over to someone else in the project. I'll leave it to the project to decide who does it, but I'll support anyone who is successful. I've had a great time writing it, and wish the best of luck whoever succeeds me. Best regards, Rt. 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job in getting the newsletter started, but it's too much to expect you or anyone else to write the whole thing each month. What we probably need is an overall editor, with project members contributing most of the material for each issue? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Or a rota from those who express interest? I know there's about four or five editors who won't really need the newsletter as such, I see it as more for the benefit of those who are on the project's participants list, but not regular contributors. Perhaps they should get some input too? I also agree however Rudget has done an excellent job on the letter. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A rota is probably not a bad idea, but why don't we think more seriously about Andrew's idea now, the GM news tag, to keep everyone up to date with what's happening in the project? Do we need both? I'm not sure that we do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh! Of course! Yes this might be a suitable sucessor, and one that's open to all. I'm wondering if the dis-engaged would have it on their userpage/talkpage though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, splendid, very good idea. I won't be too disappointed either way. :) Best regards, Rt. 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)