Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 3

Greater Manchester!
I think the time has come for us to start developing Greater Manchester and bring it up to WP:GA ASAP. I would love to start bashing something out for the Economy section as I am very interested in that and know a fair bit. If people would assign themselves sections or topics I think we could accelerate the article development and could tell each other any extra bits of information relating to their section. This needs to be a great collaboration between the editors here and the, hopefully, newbies joining soon. If we get activity going while the project is growing then it will put the article right into focus and it will look great in no time! Any thoughts on how we should go about doing it please add. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea! It is a really terrible article. I have alot of material about the evolution of Greater Manchester. And some stuff about the textile history of GM. There's a few books we could do with getting hold of - "Who's who in Greater Manchester" is one which would tell us about notable inhabitants at a county level. There's another series of books called "It Happened Around Greater Manchester" which may also help.


 * User:Fingerpuppet, though not a member of this project, is very knowledgable about Urban Area's and land use. I'd be happy to produce any maps for the article that people requested. Has anybody got access to the original Radcliffe-Maud report? Or anything about the SELNEC era?


 * Perhaps also we could look at other county articles, and try to find strengths in them for ideas? I'm conscious that we also need to agree on the headings, their order and what goes into them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The trick with such a large topic isn't so much what one puts in, it's choosing what gets left out that's gonna be the real bitch!  WebHamste r  01:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this proposal. Isn't Greater Manchester a ceremonial county? In what sense has it "evolved", or ever had a textile industry? I'm very much with Jza84 on this; let's agree on the structure of the article before diving in. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county, but also a metropolitan county, and prior to that a PTE area under SELNEC, and prior to that an area full of county boroughs, and prior to that Salfordshire (though I know you know this, so apologies for any patronisation!).


 * What I meant is the "term" Greater Manchester has been in use for various divisions of land centred on Manchester from 1914 (which I can produce maps of!), and that the textile history is anachronistic of the county, because it's pre-1974 history. I should've said GM has textile (and other industrial) "heritage". But I think you raise a valid point - we need to consider Greater Manchester very much as a modern, statistical, administrative unit, rather than a settlement or a historic county. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I'd disagree with that series of historical events as being any kind of an "evolution", although I'm not doubting that the term "Greater Manchester" may have been in use before 1974. But if it was, then I'd suggest that's a part of the Greater Manchester article's History section. Of course, as always, your mileage may vary. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 02:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * True. Having re-read it, I think the key elements of Greater Manchester's history are covered quite well in the article as it is. I think that section just needs strengthening and tightening a little. We perhaps need someone with access to and knowledge of the Local Government Act 1958, Local Government Commission for England (1958–1967), and Redcliffe-Maud Report. It's the other sections which are much weaker, in my view. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Partington, Greater Manchester
Can someone have a look at this article?? I'm not exactly sure how to fix it and all advice is appreciated! --Solumeiras talk 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate a little as to what you mean? Do you mean how would you go about furthering the contents of the article? If so, WP:UKCITIES is probably a good page to review. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a few inaccuracies in it, which I'll attempt to correct. Parrot of Doom 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Biographies
I was just looking at the article on Elkie Brooks that comes under the Greater Manchester remit and it's a well-presented Biography about a living person but has only one reference to a short newspaper article. It has been given a rating by the Biographies project but in common with other biographies I've looked at, had no comment about the lack of references until I added one myself. Am I missing something here or should I put a comment on their discussion page to say they should be tagging articles and removing them where necessary? There are dire warnings about unreferenced articles about living persons - aren't the Biographies team the people that should be watching for this? Richerman 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a geography related project, Elkie Brooks doesn't fall quite under the this project's normal remit, but we're always willing to help. Be mindful that as Mrs Brooks was born prior to 1 April 1974, it is convention to say she was born in Salford, Lancashire, rather than Salford, Greater Manchester.


 * In short, Wikipedia is very much work-in-progress; there are alot of gaps in chasing up reference material and maintaining quality articles. There are alot of weaknesses in articles, and they only flourish into quality entries with collaboration with other users. A member of WikiProject Biography has probably identified that article as part of it's family of to-do articles, but not acted upon it as he/she is unfamilliar with the subject matter..... You can help though! If you visit the standard welcome page, as well as the WikiProject Biography main page, you'd probably gain some insight as to how to take your ideas and concerns further. Does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jza,

I had read the two pages you mentioned and on the wikiproject Biographies page, one of the first things it say under "tips on writing Biographies" is "research the available literature to find reliable sources" then "cite your sources" and then "check your sources again". I would presume that the original contributor (I know they don't exist really!) probably didn't understand the principles of citing sources and just went ahead with the article. If someone had put on an "unreferenced" tag at an early stage they could at least have had the chance to go back and find them, if they were so inclined. However, with a reasonably large article like this it's impossible for another editor to add references at a later date without rewriting it completely as you don't know where the original information came from. To me, the whole point of having wikiprojects is that someone puts you straight, as politely as possible, at an early stage, so you can make changes. Although biographies aren't really within our remit I think there is a general point we can all learn from here. Just recently, you pointed out very politely, that I'd used a tertiary source in some of my contributions and because of this, I'm going to eliminate them as I find alternatives and will not use them again. However, if someone had mentioned it a year down the line I would be spending the rest of my life trying to find them all. What concerns me is that when someone googles a subject and a wikipedia article comes up they usually don't understand what wikipedia is all about and will take what they read at face value. If there is a tag saying that it's unreferenced it does at least flag up that it may be unreliable, although I think there should be something in the banner that comes up to make it clear that you shouldn't rely on unsourced material. I know it says something along these lines, but I think it could be a lot stronger. Ian Hislop was sniggering about the "reliability" of wikipedia on "Have I got news for you" only last week. Perhaps we should agree on a message to be sent to any new editors who come under the Greater Manchester project just reinforcing the right way to do things and pointing to pages such as what wikipedia is not etc. When I first joined the project I was a bit surpised that I wasn't contacted by someone to at least say "hello" - although when I've asked for help since it has always been forthcoming. I know some of this stuff isn't totally relevant to this project and should be taken up elsewhere but I'm just trying to get an idea about what others think, after all making wikipedia more reliable is what we're all here for. Rant over for now! Richerman 12:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Scale
Could we sort out an assessment scale for Greater Manchester related articles?, it came across my mind when seeing this. Thanks, Rudget Contributions 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and maybe a Collaboration of the Week? Rudget Contributions 17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both great ideas! I'll start the assessment scale now! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neat. :) Rudget Contributions 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone familliar with setting up an Assessment grid? I think it would compliment the scheme very nicely, and further the main project space! Also, has anybody ever come across WP:PROJGUIDE before??? I've just found it - might be of use.... I ought to read it though! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have set up the assessment scale now so get assessing! I will be setting up the bot which automatically checks how many articles are in each category and displays them into the grid. Also if anybody wants to add some information to assessment page please do! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See here for a list of all the unassessed article and see on here for details of how to assess if you don't know yet. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could I suggest that we rate articles fairly consistently for the sake of prioritising and organising the tasks in hand? I'm thinking:


 * In addition to the obvious articles (like Greater Manchester, and perhaps Greater Manchester Police), each of the 10 boroughs, and their largest settlement(s)/centres of administration are rated Top.
 * The main Manchester and Greater Manchester daughter articles (like History of Manchester, Geography of Greater Manchester) are rated High.
 * All other Towns in Greater Manchester are rated High.
 * Villages in Greater Manchester are rated Mid.
 * Districts of Greater Manchester are rated Low.
 * Landmarks and institutions of international acclaim (like University of Manchester) are rated High.
 * Civil Parishes of Greater Manchester are rated High (this over-rides if they are villagesrated "Mid").


 * Any other suggestions? How does that sound? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, I have also put Manchester Airport as top importance as it is very important to Greater Manchester and the North West region. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Levenshulme
I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the last few weeks, both on the screen and pounding the pavement getting pics, and I'd be grateful if anyone could have a nosey with a view to pointing me in directions I should be going in, as well as any directions I've gone in that I shouldn't.

I'm currently in the process of finding out, or at least attempting to, about the history of the baths and the library. I also intend sorting out a section on the local schools. I'm also continuing to get more images of the local churches and other notable buildings(I was out today but was stymied by some duff spare batteries!). What I lack is any knowledge on the night entertainment scene of Levenshulme so I don't really know what direction to go in there, or even if I should be doing anything on the pubs/clubs.

One problem I've been having is that the history of Levenshulme prior to the 1920s is exceptionally difficult to get at. Apparently there are only 2 books (that aren't just image collections) in the GM Library system that cover it in any depth and I've read both of them (being cheeky and having a duff memory, I now also have them in PDF form . I plan on making a trip to Central Library soon to see what I can come up with, but until then I'm struggling with a titbit here and there. For example I just found out yesterday that we had a cross channel swimmer from the area, Sunny Lowry, who was linked to Levy. She didn't have an article so I put that to rights :).

So any takers to point an obsessive-compulsive in the right direction? Cheers  WebHamste r  20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very big improvement from what I saw recently, nice job. I've got three immediate comments. First of all the lead is obviously way too short. Second, get rid of that list of Notable people, convert it into prose now, before it gets out of hand. And third, those tags really do need to be dealt with. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Malleus too. Not sure if you've taken a look at WP:UKCITIES for some prompts? Useful sources for this article might include:
 * Victoria County History
 * Vision of Britain through time
 * SALFORD HUNDRED: ANCESTRY, ANNALS AND HISTORY (their caps not mine!)
 * A Topographical Dictionary of England
 * I've even linked this to Levenshulme directly! Hope they help! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It sounds like you may have to delve a bit.  There's half a dozen pages in .  (The whole set of Chethams 'Remains' is in the central library, just ask one of the staff.)  There's a book called something like "The history of local government in Manchester" circa 1940 by Arthur Redford:  that may help; I expect it's in the library.  The turnpike was quite important in its day (it was the London road). I think the A6/Stockport Road was the first in the North-West and it seems to be assumed that it followed the Roman road.  Try G H Tupling, "The turnpike trusts of Lancashire", vol 94 of the proc Lit & Phil (ask in the library) 1962.  The lane currently called Nelstrop Road has a bit of history, we are on shakier ground now but have a look at  and  (I forget which one of the two).  Have a browse of .  The brooks are mentioned in Geoffrey Ashworth, The Lost Rivers of Manchester, Willow Publishing, Altrincham, 1987, ISBN 0-946361-12-6.  That should see off your lunchhour, and if you find anything modern about Reddish, let me know.  I have some vague memory that the tripe factory was famous, too ... Regards, Mr Stephen 22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the Nico Ditch. I really must get back to that.  Mr Stephen 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter Icon
I see the recent creation of and I am going to use this instead of the writing on the white background for the Newsletter starting November 2007. Just thought I should tell you! Regards, Rudget Contributions 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me!... But I'm biased! -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hub of activity!
I realise this page is a hub of activity at the moment, with no less than thirteen headings posted here since the 19th October (!), but I wanted to raise two things:


 * 1) I'm pleased to announce that we now have an official project Barnstar of Merit found at Template:Greater Manchester Award! More details found at WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Templates.
 * 2) I wondered if we could make it a formal consensus that though WP:UKCITIES states we include the modern county in lead sections for settlements, for places within the City of Manchester, we instead use the North West England region. The rationale being that not only does Manchester stand up on its own, "City of Manchester, Greater Manchester" doesn't really work. We seem to have already adopted this approach on Manchester's districts, but wanted to make sure what we're doing going forwards.

Hope these two points help us more! Once all (or most) of our content is assessed and rated, I'm curious to know how the project is doing in terms of quality vs. quantity of articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to get a handle on how we're doing quality/quantity wise. BTW, we've just got another GA, Didsbury. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent news about Didsbury!.... I've been rating as many unassessed articles as I can in the last 24 hours.... but the most worrying thing is the lack of Project banners we actually have posted to Greater Manchester related content. My guess is we've only tagged about quarter of all content, which not only reduces our grip (for want of another word!) on things and review how we're doing, but also reduces the likelyhood of capturing quality editors to join us here.


 * Although we've now got most of the major town/district/city articles tagged, I'd urge editors to check through some of the lesser known content (like local landmarks, small stubs about suburbs etc) that they're familliar with and tag and assess it.


 * Incidently, editor my be interested to know that from my findings at least, we seem to have an overwhelming abundance of "start" class articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance scale
I'm getting confused now, but that's not unusual! Most places started off as villages, some grew into towns, then districts and so on. Now most of them are part of the general urban sprawl with no real defined boundaries. However, they become less important on the scale as they get bigger i.e. districts are low importance and villages are medium. How does that come about? Also some places are classed as towns e.g. Prestwich and some are districts e.g. Broughton. What makes one a town and the other a district? Prestwich, for instance, once had a town council and town hall but no longer has either and is now administered by The Metropolitan Borough of Bury. Also the centre of Prestwich is known as Prestwich "village" as is the centre of Didsbury. And why is say, Norden, still a village when it just seems to be an area on the edge of Rochdale? I feel a geography lesson coming on! Richerman 10:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You raise some valid points for discussion. There is no formal definition of a town in England or the UK. I.e. there is official City status in the United Kingdom, and Borough status in the United Kingdom, but no Town status in the United Kingdom.


 * I agree that leads to a problem with POV editting, and descrepencies between areas and articles. I believe the approach has gernerally been based on local convention crossed with what its former local government district status prior to the Local Government Act 1972. Personally, I think using citation is best (as always - so if a published source says it's a town/village, then that's what we use). Where there is a conflict, or perhaps some uncertainty, one could use the article's talk page to work it out, or look for other simillarly sized settlements and see if there is a comparable approach. This problem appeared on the Chadderton article sometime ago (with someone saying it is a district of Oldham), however source material was found, as well as a photograph produced of a road sign pointing to Chadderton Town Centre!


 * Personally, on a simillar note, I've always asserted that "large towns" are only those that appear on the List of towns and cities in England by population article - but that's just my preference and its never been codified. There is also a rather ill-sourced List of towns in England. There is also another problem in that "Districts" are officially only areas that have boundaries for use with governmental business - so in Greater Manchester, that's just the 10 metropolitan districts and its electoral wards - not well known areas or suburbs! Confused??? I think I am too now! But does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well as there are 114 districts that will get a "low" rating for importance and "officially" there should only be 10, it makes the importance rating seem rather uninformative. Richerman 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is surely more logical and constructive though to give priority to the metropolitan districts and large town articles first, then filter down to smaller areas is it not? I can't see Hollinwood being of more significance to Greater Manchester than say Salford. Is there a particular article you're concerned about? The importance scale is "hidden" in the main article and is purely for reviewing the progress of this project.


 * That said, I propose we move the Category:Districts of Greater Manchester to Category:Localities of Greater Manchester to make clearer what is included in the category. Would that alleviate some problems/concerns? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, that a smaller area should not have more importance than a larger one. The one I know about is Broughton. In the article it says it covers Higher Broughton, Lower Broughton, Broughton Village and Broughton Park, which is a pretty large area, but it's categorised as a district. Then Lower Broughton is also listed as a district. I'm sure there will be more examples in there but I don't know the areas well enough. Do you ever feel like you've opened a can of worms? I do think changing it to "localities" may be better as it's a word with a less specific meaning. Richerman 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to more or less importance, this is the approach taken by every other major WikiProject, and though I agree these places are no less in worth, it would be unfeasible to have every settled area in the county (say 500-1k articles) at Top priorty, with 0 at Low priority.


 * On Broughton, I would be very tempted to merge all those articles (though perhaps not the Broughton Park one) into a one-stop, higher quality Broughton, Greater Manchester page. The demarcation of Lower and Higher Broughton (which are little more than stubs), and Broughton Village (which doesn't have an entry) could be adequately covered, I believe, in a "Divisions and suburbs" sub-section. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree there's got to be a ranking, it's just a case of getting them in the right order. I really don't have any axe to grind about any particular place, I just think a larger area should naturally be higher up the scale. I do think merging the Broughton articles together would be sensible as the article would come together better. The main Broughton article needs a lot of work and I intend to do some on it's history as soon as I get time. Richerman 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cold hearted people...
I think we need to make a proper welcome message for new members! As somebody stated above we do not greet our new members and although sending a copy of the newsletter is great I think we need a proper welcome. I think the EU Welcome Message is very nice and it would not be hard for us to make one. I am posting here first to get ideas of what we want it to say/what images to use etc. to save the embarrassment of the Wikipedia ad! Thanks in advance for your comments. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I too like that welcome banner (I'd seen it elsewhere), and like the idea of encouraging our userbase to grow (to think we were all editting solo prior to this project is quite amazing looking back!). As part of this banner idea, I'd been considering (re)drawing a Greater Manchester WikiProject logo which could form part of this and a whole host of other Project related material. We're currently using a poor quality low res copy of the Greater Manchester County Council coat of arms. The new logo I have in mind would take elements from this, but also some of the official Wikipedia graphics. What does anybody think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea! We really need a logo, probably make the project more memorable and seem much more professional. Maybe the more artistic of members should make proposals for a logo? └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll come clean.... I have a BA in.... Art and Design. I'm thinking of a splice between the shield part of the GMC arms (the ten united golden castles), and the Wikipedia jigsaw design you see in the very top left hand corner. Just my idea though.... I wouldn't really want to see the GMPTE double M logo or just a map of Greater Manchester though!!!! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! Can't wait to see it if you're willing to produce it. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me too. I won't be able to help with the logo though, my degree is in psychology. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project imagery
OK, I've lost several hours sleep for this, but I just had to draw these! The following are images which we could use as part of our ever developing WikiProject:

Positive, negative, constructive or other forms of feedback or further ideas are very welcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I applaud you. Fantastic work! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I already changed the article banner to use your logo and personally I think it looks great! This project is really coming a long way! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK! Well, that's that then! If we need any other graphics, or these need a tweak! Gimmie a shout! I'm going to try to find a use for the 2-lions icon somewhere. Perhaps just as a unique icon for the mainspace? Glad they are well recieved! -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A very nice job, and done so quickly too! --Malleus Fatuarum 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Incidently, does any body know where I might find a nice high quality version of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service crest? The best I've found seems to be this one. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow to your new county COA! Some great work there! Very well done! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Without meaning to go OTT, I've added two additional images we could use. The first is the barnstar (use is obvious), whilst the second currently has to obvious use but could form part of our material at some point down the line. That's it for now, but if any other material is needed, please feel free to give me a shout! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we still need a borough map of Manchester! I know it is probably more boring that making all those great images but I think it would be a great addition to the Manc article. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Boroughs of Greater Manchester
After I created the assessment project on here I went thorough all the boroughs of Greater Manchester and was appalled! For a start none, except the cities, had the GM Project banner on the talk pages and the infoboxes which are being used look harsh (apart from possibly Oldham's). I propose that we create out own Greater Manchester boroughs infobox like they have for London. Anybody got any suggestions on how to implement this? I wouldn't think ours would be too dissimilar from the London one so should not be too hard. Also am I right in thinking that City of Salford should have the same infobox as Manchester and Salford should have the same as Manchester city centre or is there some problems with Salford's arrangement? I know City of Salford is the borough but Manchester is a borough and city article. I am really confused now! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Manchester and City of Salford, as metropolitan boroughs, and thus local government districts, don't have a specific infobox developed for them. It looks likely they'll use the infobox as used on Manchester as it is. All other settlements, or settled areas in the UK (and Isle of Man) should use Template:Infobox UK place. That make sense? -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should've also said that I have asked for a Template:Infobox England district in the past (the syntax is beyond me), but it never gathered much pace or support. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not making sense still. Should there really be a Salford and City of Salford? They are the same thing aren't they? Is Salford not a city and metropolitan borough, properly known as the City of Salford the same way Manchester is a city and borough properly known as the City of Manchester? With Salford city centre as the actual City zone the same way as Manchester city centre is the city zone of Manchester? What I am trying to say is I think Salford as an article should refer to the whole city borough which is the City of Salford and Salford is really Salford city centre which is just the city and doesn't include places like Eccles? Don't blame you if you can't understand what I'm trying to say :). └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 12:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, I understand your point well. This was actually a very topical debate in the earlier years of Wikipedia, but the consenus was that on the whole local government districts with city status should be seperated from city articles that form just the urban core. Examples include Bradford & City of Bradford, Canterbury & City of Canterbury, Sunderland & City of Sunderland, and Lancaster & City of Lancaster.


 * Many people object to their settlement being called the name of their district - Saddleworth traditionally very much against being called Oldham, and Morecambe being called Lancaster (which both clearly are not)! Furthermore, where a neutral name is applied, the system doesn't work, so Huddersfield town centre is not the "town/city zone" of a settlement called Kirklees.


 * Where people feel that the settlement and district are virtually or clearly coterminate, a consensus should be formed for a merge of the two articles (this was done for Manchester and City of Manchester, just like Birmingham and City of Birmingham). I should imagine that the peoples of Swinton (which previously formed part of it's own borough) Worsley and Irlam as seperate towns would object to a merge with the Salford article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand a little more now but I am not suggesting that Worsley and Irlam should be merged into it. They are towns the same way Fallowfield and Didsbury are towns in Manchester/City Of. I am saying that Salford should be a city and borough combined as it is not the same as say Oldham which is the main town in the Oldham borough. Salford isn't the main town/city of the City of Salford borough but is the borough isn't it? So how come there are no population figures for the city of Manchester on its article but instead uses the entire borough's figure and why can't Salford be treated the same? Are they not equal as city/boroughs? └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm sounding argumentative! I just want to make sure we establish the basics of Greater Manchester for the project's sake. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's quite alright! I understand your point about Salford, but merging it with the City of Salford would loose alot of scope. AFAICT Salford is considered to be what it was prior to the LGA1972. In truth it doesn't stand up in law and land registry purposes. The only legal demarcation of England is at ceremonial county and district level, or consituency level (which still takes its boundaries from county and district boundaries). The land registry doesn't regulate place names though either, so really Oldham is the Borough of Oldham, Rochdale is the Borough of Rochdale and Salford is the City of Salford.


 * I also understand that with the LGA1972, Salford and Manchester, like every other city, automatically lost their city status and had to have new charters set up prior to 1 April 1974. In this respect, Salford probably doesn't have city status, but the City of Salford does. I'm just postulating though. Interstingly Salford isn't even the seat of the City Council - Swinton is!


 * On a slightly more anecdotal level, I was lucky/unlucky enough to work in Swinton and Worsley for a time no too long ago. Locals used the term "proper Salford" when referring to Salford, which I thought was interesting. Of course it's unverifiable.


 * I think there is enough scope to keep both articles seperated. However, as both newly designated "Top" priority articles, they need massive overhalls! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Salford does have its own particular problems as it doesn't have a city centre. These disputes about where towns belong go back a long way. When it was proposed that Broughton become a part of Salford in the 1840's the people of Broughton said they didn't want to "assimilate the cotton of Manchester or the filth of Salford" as they felt they were superior to both places and would soon be big enough to have their own corporation. Of course the well-to-do residents there had all made their money in Salford and Manchester factories and mills anyway. Richerman 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Main page decorating
At the expense on working on articles, I've been trying all this week, like others, to get this WikiProject upto a world-class project, I've made some graphics and templates etc, but I still don't think our page is striking enough.

Now, I may have gone totally mental, but I've produced this mock up of how exactly I'd like to see our main page. It's very bold, but to my tastes and sensibilities at least, it really works. The theme of course being, a continuation of use the GMC coat of arms as part of our corporate identity here. I think it's striking, memorable and adds an element of identity and proffessionalism that other projects just don't have. If it makes people have seizures, or think this is OTT, please just say. I won't be that offended! -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it, it has a nice warm look to it. The blue writing is quite a contrast with the rust background which some may find a problem but it looks fine to me. Mind you, I do have a red-green colour deficiency (a mild form of colour blindness) which means I see the colours a bit differently anyway, so I'm no expert. Still, you can say it's been tested on the full spectrum of the population (pun intended) Richerman 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, certainly hits you between the eyes, no ignoring that. But I think there's a colour problem with the blue against red background though. I can't recall what the real term for it is, but I call it eye-pumping. Because the colours are at the opposite ends of the visible spectrum it can be difficult to focus on both of them simultaneously, so there can be some strange 3-d effects.

I like the general idea, but I'd be happier with a toned down background. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think it might be possible to change the colour of the linked text as an alternative? Failing that, could we agree on a paler tone of red? I can't seem to find any page listing colours (WP:COLOUR isn't particularly helpful!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems the paler versions look strange because they appear as pink. It that capacity, from experimentation, darker reds seem to work better. The following are suggestions (placed against the "Golden Poppy" colour for comparison:
 * Medium Carmine
 * Rust
 * Carmine


 * I've applied the first one to my sandbox. But if I'm going in the wrong direct, please say! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've applied the first one to my sandbox. But if I'm going in the wrong direct, please say! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't like it, but then I have a natural aversion to dark webpages. To enable easy reading one needs contrast and there is none on your mock-up, and I find it almost impossible to read the text on the page. I also think that amount of colour is overkill. The maroon and gold should be accents rather than the main colour, which should perhaps be a light grey. Whilst I'm having a whinge (sorry), I think the gold you are using on the tables and banner is too deep to contain text, IMHO it needs to be lighter for the above-mentioned text contrast, perhaps a light grey that will also offset the gold of the CoA? As regards the tables I think the name column should be a different colour/shade. So as a suggestion how about retaining the deep gold for the name column and a paler shade for the info columns. E.g.:


 * Maroon (#990000)
 * Gold (#FCC200)
 * Light Gold (#FCE487)
 * Light Grey (#E4E4E4)


 * I realise this is all subjective, and although I'm not that good at graphic arts (my forte being layout and web design) I am used to creating user interfaces that are easy on the eye. Anyway, I hope I haven't been too negative, because I do agree that we do need a colour change to make us stand out. I just don't think we need the equivalent of being slapped in the face with a moist kipper :) Less is more is always my mantra WebHamste r  21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is with the blue text against a red background. What about yellow/gold text? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gold text sounds great!... but... it's how to code it. Any ideas? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you got any gold tippex? Richerman 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was aiming more for a gold leaf type of standard really! I think User:WebHamster might have the technical know-how to do it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it's easy to change text colours etc in tables it's not so easy to change page layouts as that is dictated by the user style settings in whatever style set the User has set in his/her preferences. So pages are going to be a no-no for customisation unless you put the whole page into a one celled table.  WebHamste r  21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I'm writing you a message, you've appeared!!!.... Guys I'm happy for you to experiment in my sandbox, if you think you can improve upon my version! Go for it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick stab at changing the mock up, let me know what you think. I haven't changed the template for the participant's table yet, but I'll probably do so in the next 20 mins or so  WebHamste r  21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly a vast improvement! I love it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I've amended the participants template as well now, so it should match the rest of the page.  WebHamste r  22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it looks great, well done guys. It's a good job a hamster has fur, he must be really blushing now! Richerman 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that version looks great. Classy, professional, world-class, the lot. Nice job WebHamster. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, actually no. The kudos should go toJza84 as it was his artwork that was the blueprint. I just added to it. Wish I could get my head round Illustrator but alas I'm a Photoshop only sorta guy :)  WebHamste r  22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give the kudos where I think it's due. I've already given Jza84 enough for tonight. You should have some as well. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Next we've got to ensure we've got substance as well as a clear sense of style! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's me out then... My sense of style only runs to Nike joggers and a Cotton Traders polo shirt :)  WebHamste r  23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I just clicked on my own link for Cotton Traders and it gave me an idea. Who's up for a new category? "Businesses from Greater Manchester"?  WebHamste r  23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! I'm sure I've seen an article with a simillar title... ... -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Scrub that, it seems there's already with a couple of subcategories   WebHamste r  23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction of my brain fart, and thanks for the new bauble that I'm tempted to pin and wear on my Cotton Traders polo shirt heheheh.  WebHamste r  23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! You guys really have been busy! I have only been away for a day and lots has changed. I simply went to the launch event of Mac OS X Leopard at the Arndale for a free t-shirt (oversized of course, I certainly am not large size thank you) and a bottle of free Aldi water to ease dehydration from queueing for so long and I come back to see how much has been done! Great work to all those who have been assessing the articles, it certainly has been done quickly! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter Delivery
Hello fellow WPGM members! I'll have to break the bad news first, unfortunately. So, here goes. I won't be able to deliver the newsletter for November because of the extreme amount of work I have got and an unfortunate case of the flu. My ETA is around 10th Novemeber. However, the good news is, that this project is moving at rocket speed pace and so I'll be able to comment on many new characteristics of the project and so will hopefully be able to distribute a well-informed newsletter. Thanks everyone for the support on the last edition (which was a bit uninformative!) and I look forward to working with you in the future. And one last thing, I've set up a new archiving system here, I'll let the archive bot add 15 sections to each archive, as any more would be mind-boringly long and arbitary breaks are a must do!, and then after that I'll set up a new archive. Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Participants
I have made a new template for the participants list hoping to make it easier to join but I may have made it more complicated? I strongly believe that the current system of including interests and location is great as we know who to direct specific questions at and it is a system some projects do not use. Any thoughts on how easy/hard I have made things for new members? I also think the table looks better now and with the new logo I though fitting the colour scheme should be red and yellow :) └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice and very stylish, but may I make a suggestion or two? Although the headings need to be centralised, the code needs altering to have the contents of the data cells be left aligned, it doesn't look very neat with centre alignment. Also your instructions on how to add people to the table is incorrect. They can't add themselves that way as you've substed the template into the page. They have to edit the template directly to add themselves, and currently they have to know where to look, i.e. Template:WPGM Participants and then how to edit the table. IUt could be very confusing for a novice. It may be simpler and less confusing just to use the table directly on the relevant page without using a template.  WebHamste r  13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does say "Add yourself to our list of participants here." on the mainspace which takes you to the Participants page and say there "Please simply paste this section of code:__giving the details requested to the bottom of this page." so it does tell you to add yourself to the template page. I see your point though, I only put it in a template to make the page load quicker and if I moved the table to WikiProject Greater Manchester/Participants it would mean that we could not have a copy of the list on the mainspace and if it was moved to mainspace it would mean all the code to be added to the bottom of the table would be there cluttering it up. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, my bad, sorry. Actually I missed the link of "this page" and took it literally and just hit edit. That's AS for you :). Regardless anyone wishing to add their name now has to visit 3 separate pages to do so. I've also taken the liberty of left-aligning the body text whilst keeping the header text centred. Personally I prefer HTML to wiki-code for tables as its implementation is a little buggy to say the least. For example the username column is centre-aligned but there is no code telling it to do so even though left-align is the default. Likewise I've tried to get the cellpadding to 4 to give some space around the text but the table rendering is spectacularly ignoring the code (in Firefox v2 anyway). The change I made is only minor so it's only a matter of seconds to change the alignment back if it's unacceptable. I'm very tempted to convert the whole thing to HTML so we have more control, but as that's something major I'll hold off to hear what folks say.  WebHamste r  15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel it will improve the look of the table and you have the time to spare then by all means go for it! Please try and keep the red and yellow colour scheme though as it is working very nicely so far!
 * I wouldn't dream of changing the colours, they look far better than the previous version and work very well. It would just be an invisible change that would make the coding easier for any later changes. Wiki-table code sucks IMHO :)  WebHamste r  15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well go for it! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All done, but please be aware that it will look slightly different depending what browser is being used due to the way differetn browsers handle CSS. I've also amended the participant page to reflect the new code. I've also added hidden comments at the bottom of the template describing how to do the edit. If it's deemed too complicated then I won't be offended if you wish to revert it back to how it was :)  WebHamste r  19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * --How about adding something like "If you're (still?) unsure how to add yourself to this list, please feel free to contact one of the existing members who will gladly help."? Is it also possible to change the unlinked text to black or something other than blue? In my browser it looks as if everything in that table has an article/webpage on WP. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is possible but would mean changing all the HTML colour codes, the reason I picked blue was because loads of it was wikilinked and it really didn't look good with just a few words in black and you can't change the wikilink colours I don't think. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine then - it's a fair rationale you've provided! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice, good choice of colours. I don't think you've made things any more difficult than before, new members already had to edit themselves into the table anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As part of the revamp of the mainspace, could it be possible we do something about the Needing attention section? It looks like I started this off in the early days of the project, but it seems to be sprawling a little. I think the newsletter will take on the function of raising awareness about needy articles, and perhaps this section could be replaced by the assement grid that also has a simillar role. But, yes the new look participants list is great! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with both statements roused by Jza84 there. Removal of Pages needing Attention, seems to be receiving not that much attention. Irony eh?. Rudget Contributions 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree, if not removing it then at least cutting it down as quite a few on the attention list are already done. Also some of the nominations are not so important and if nominating those we could nominate half the project e.g. stubs etc. Maybe we limit it to a list of say 5 of the most important articles which require attention? └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hello :) Thanks for inviting me.  Parrot of Doom 10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wecome template
I would like to propose that we add some text to the welcome template to say something along the lines of;

“all editing should be done within the wikipedia editing policies. A list of some useful policies can be found on the WikiProject Greater Manchester page under the heading “useful Tools”. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced from the start, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about British settlements is the UK Cities guideline document".  Richerman 15:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds pretty good to me! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)