Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 4

Size of GM logo
I've reduced the size on the banner because for some reason the text keeps jumping behind the image and so it is harder to read. Does anyone else find this difficulty? Simply south 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd seen this myself yes, but wasn't sure if it was due to my personal settings. Thanks for fixing this; much appreciated! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it has stopped it but it has possibly reduced the problem. I wonder if it can be fixed further. Simply south 17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only way to stop it totally is to have the logo above the text. The problem arises due to the window size of the user's browser (and to a degree which browser is being used). The other alternative is to have the banner in a complicated table arrangement whereby the logo is in a separate cell.  WebHamste r  17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this problem occur in other project banners? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Until it was brought up I wasn't aware of a problem with this one, but then I'm running a dual monitor setup with a 22" CRT (@1600x1200) and a 17" flat panel (@1280x1024) so screen area isn't a problem. I could see that smaller screen sizes might demonstrate problems. It's not totally about the logo size though. It also depends on how big the message box is, how much text it contains along with the logo. So it's not a straight forward comparison with other banners that is needed. The trick is to find the smallest size the banner can go to without the overlap occurring. So someone with an 800x600 display and using a windowed browser (rather than full screen) will get overlap regardless of what we do. These days the mean average is a 1024x768 display using a windowed browser so I'd aim for that as a design criteria.  WebHamste r  21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GM Boroughs
I recently noted that we do not have an infobox for the boroughs of Manchester and I really feel that we need one as we are using different ones on some of the articles, most of which are very poor quality. Is there anybody on the project who knows how to make them? I was thinking of one similar to the London one: Template:Infobox London Borough. If there is nobody who knows how to do it then I am willing to have a go with trusty old copy and paste! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever is used for Greater Manchester's districts should be used for the rest of England. London has it's own because it has a unique tier of governance. Perhaps a copy and paste to Template:Infobox England district to start with and then we can begin making alterations??


 * Also, I'm not entirely sure of the ammended GM logo. To my tastes, it has a desktop publishing quality to it, which is never a good thing in my eyes! I'm also not sure why the text is needed when the banner has it. What do others think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the text is superfluous, and it looks unbalanced as it's not centred properly anyway! Richerman 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The text I added was not word art if that was what you were thinking! I just thought a logo with text is needed as most developed projects have one. I also didn't make the text centred or straight as this project seems to be looking much more liberal than conservative (a common trait of the GM county). └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced. I'd rather revert to the previous version for the time being. Rationale being that that version is a double lion icon (rather than single) and the size didn't make the text warp in the banner. I think I have an idea of how to incorporate the text in a slightly different way. Also, are we agreed with creating a (provisional?) district infobox? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess so but what other article would be using the infobox other than just the boroughs of Greater Manchester? Is the fact that it is not just unique to GM going to mean it will take longer to create and therefore slow down the progress of our projct? If so I would rather we created one just for GM use and allow someone else to create a standard one to be used elsewhere outside the project. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Greater Manchester's borough's aren't sui generis  (sorry I just learnt that term myself!); it's system of demarcation and administration are the same to that of the districts of England. I envisage that if we create our own infobox, we run the risk of being superceded by another infobox, then possibly have edit wars with other county-projects as to who's is better etc. I wouldn't be pleased to see each county of England have it's own localised district infobox either; I think that could be messy for readers if Cheshire has Welsh name translations, and county icons, whilst GM has other localisations. Also, I don't think it would be of any further technical depth creating an England-wide one than a Greater Manchester only one... would it?


 * Also, we've got to consider how the district infobox would work with Manchester. It's a metropolitan borough, and a city, and a settlement, so would it use this proposed infobox? If so/not, does the City of Salford? What material is relevant to a local government district in an infobox? Do we want the appearance and layout simillar to Template:Infobox London Borough, Template:Infobox UK place or Template:Infobox settlement? What works well in the current systems of "pink" tables? How much automation are we expecting to code into the syntax? I've asked User:Warofdreams (a rather technical administrator) to pass comment about setting up a basic code to work from. All these points just being my personal concerns, of course. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should change the Manchester infobox and with regards to City of Salford I still believe in a merge, the city status applies to the entire borough no just the centre of administration, the same as Manchester and I still don't see what advantage having an article for the borough and an article for the town gives. Also it will take a long time to create an infobox which can be used on all boroughs and districts across England as all of the maps for each one will be included in the code and that will take a long time to find. I would have been happy to create one for GM but I think if you isist on one for the entire country we need to bring in someone else to make one. Also I think the pink tables look horrific IMHO. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The question I ask myself is how is the current standard infobox not working? It does the job and I honestly can't see any reason to change it, certainly not just for changes sake. I understand the desire to make GM stand-out but given that WP is all about standardisation and a relatively homogeneous look I think it's counter productive. WebHamste r 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there is no standard infobox for English districts or metropolitan boroughs. Articles are using tables which are poorly formatted and require alot of time to create whereas an infobox would allow for automation and would speed everything up. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem that And-Rew is asserting is that there is no standard infobox for local government districts. See Manchester, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and Metropolitan Borough of Tameside - all completely different. The settlements have a fantastic infobox for them, but the districts do not. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't clearer, I meant the Infobox templates here: Infobox templates being the standard ones.  WebHamste r  23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of Jza84's idea of developing an infobox. It would at least make the GM articles look consistent, and other districts/borough would be likely to want to use it as well. And I agree with And-rew about the current pretty horrible looking pink tables. Lets set the standard, not follow it. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I went away (and missed a bit of the direction of the discussion), but I've made a Template:Infobox England district. It's a little messy, and has bits pasted together from different infoboxes and thus needs a lot of further work. An example is at User:Jza84/Sandbox1. I really struggle with technical syntax so if you think you can improve upon my poor coding... please go for it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just having a re-think about this issue, having looked at creating a new infobox, I think Template:Infobox settlement might just be suitable. I've created a version of the infobox at Metropolitan Borough of Oldham using this template. What do people think??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not ideal but I guess it does work ok and looks much better than the pink ones. Also it does provide all the information needed. I think the COA and Map need to have an invisible background though as the white box looks a bit untidy, other than that it's fine! Good work thinking of it. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I make the suggestion is that as I was constructing the infobox syntax for Template:Infobox England district, I was essencially re-inventing the Template:Infobox settlement. Using this one would also avoid the "Manchester" problem, altogether.


 * I can't see any problem with the COA myself, but that may be my browser settings. I could eliminate the white background of the COA for each borough though if necessary?? I've also converted Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale to demonstrate a simillar outcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you could remove the white backgrounds from the COAs and the maps as it looks untidy on my screen and on other computers/browsers I have used. Let me know which ones I can begin converting so we don't clash as I have nothing else to do at the mo. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I get on with converting the maps and COA, I won't touch any other infoboxes for now. I think that's 7 in total to do. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I will start with Trafford, Tameside and Salford for now incase anybody else is watching and wants something to do. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think seen as though we get the option of a skyline image, we should have an image at the top of each borough infobox. I believe all of the images should be the centre of administration e.g. town hall, civic centre etc and we already have a few of them so most won't be a problem, this of course excludes Manchester. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! I really like that. I'll take a look through geograph.org.uk and see if we have the town halls/civic centres. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made this change to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article (sorry it's my bias!), but I'm unsure about some of the others. I know Tameside's HQ is at Ashton (I'm struggling finding a suitable image), but doesn't Rochdale have the modern "Municipal Offices" as HQ rather than the old town hall? Salford City Council's Civic Centre at Swinton has this, dark and grainy image, which I'd be reluctant to add. Stretford doesn't have an image of Trafford's HQ, nor does Wigan or Bury. Geograph.org.uk has some images, but I'm unsure of their quality and if they are the correct buildings. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Stretford article really ought to have a picture of its old town hall, now Trafford Town Hall of course. I'll sort something out for Trafford's infobox. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! I'm loving the image on the Oldham article, never thought the civic centre could look good! I can try and get one of the Tameside Council offices' soon but it is pretty hard to find a good angle to take a pic of, it being a weird hexagonal shape, also it has a Wikos shoved near the entrace which just looks ugly! Yes unfortunatly Rochdale does have a "modern" office over the bus station and it is the most horrific 60s/70s brown glass building ever to disgrace the GM skyline. They should be building a new one soon though as the whole area is being demolished. I think the administration is shared by the town hall and the municipial offices' and I would rather an image of the town hall but that is my opinion! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way about the good old Civic Centre too! Though it is (luckily) a nice photo..... I know of the Municipal Offices building at Rochdale, but wasn't sure how exactly it fit into the Governance of the borough. I think with a good photograph it wouldn't look so bad. Geograph.org.uk doesn't seem to have anything. flickr probably has something, but most (not necessarily all) are forbidden on Wiki because of licencing incompatibilities. If suitable images are found, it is possible I can contact the owners and ask them to change the terms of use of the images from the automatically applied "Copyright" to PD or CC. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a photo of the Rochdale Municipial Offices here, it isn't a free to use image and is one someone submitted to a competition, just to give you and idea of how awful it really looks. Is that angle a good one or not? It needs to show the higher up parts and try to cut off the bottom as the entrace is cladd with brown tiles, probably more horrific than the yellow arndale tiles. I guess I could get the bus into R'dl and take one, I need to get some batteries for my camera though first. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And another one from accross the road only very grainy . └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of shots of the Town Hall on the Rochdale article (if we're really keen to go down that route), though they are comparably grainy. There are lots of gorgeous shots here at flickr, (this being my personal favourite) but again, they're not free-to-use. I think if one of us could get to Rochdale (and indeed the other HQs) to take some pro-shots, we'd be in business. Furthermore I've found lots of simillarly gorgeous shots on flickr from the SELNEC and GM buses age which I think would be fantastic to add to our Greater Manchester and Transport in Manchester articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Online sources
Hi again team!... I've another point of communication for the project to mull over (!); online sources. Could we consider collecting and posting some Project-relevant online sources somewhere in the project mainspace? I'm not sure if we're all familliar with the same sources. For example, we're probably all aware of A select gazetteer of local government areas, Greater Manchester County, but I came across gmroads.co.uk today, though have never seen it used as a source. I'm thinking if we had a small 3 columned table (SOURCE; CONTENT; COMMENTS) of any online sources we find to pool together, we'd be helping each other along even moreso (which is what we're all about!). I can't see this being a bad thing, but what do others thing? Any preferences as to how to go about this? Anybody got interesting sources to share or other ideas? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've implimented this. But it's provisional. If there are any objections or mistakes, please feel free to take the appropriate action. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Faults
Not with any articles :) Just wondered if the Manchester article might benefit from a small mention of this peculiarity: ?  Its mentioned in other articles on Wiki, just search for Manchester fault and you'll find a long article on Alderley Edge geology.  The Pendleton Fault is mentioned in a few articles, one or two of which I've contributed to, but doesn't have its own article. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a very good addition to the Geography section. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:North West England
I've had quite a tedious time updating this frequently since May 2007 and to be honest I am becoming rather tired of the job. I recently requested a peer review for the portal, and it came up with quite a good few pointers that would definitely improve it but to me it seem that the portal doesn't seem to be used or edited by anyone, so would it be wrong of me to propose deletion? Rudget Contributions 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty wrong as it is a very nice and well laid out portal with some great information. A portal for Manchester would make me happy tho but maybe that is too specialised. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't nominate it for deletion. It looks fine just as it is, and it surely doesn't need to be updated all that frequently does it? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. That's why I asked here first. It doesn't seem to be used much. But I suppose it is important for articles such as North West England and the former WP:GM template. But by-gones are by-gones. Rudget Contributions 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can put the link back on the Template:WPGM if you think that will help it? └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit I'm not all too familliar with the portal thing, but I do think it'd be a shame to delete it. I think And-Rew's suggestion to raise awareness is a good one. Perhaps also WikiProject Cheshire could get involved??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the portal link back onto the Template:WPGM now and I think we should definatly get the Cheshire project involved. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Streets of Manchester
Can I highlight a number of articles on various streets in Manchester. As far as I can tell none of these streets are notable on their own and some contain little of note on the street (Police Street even states that in its article. I'm thinking the following articles may be best being nominated for deletion:
 * Aytoun Street
 * Barton Square - street of St Ann's Square - street is much less notable than the latter which doesnt have its own article.  Whilst I dont think the street deserves an article, Barton Arcade (Grade II* Listed) may well be of merit for an article.  Perhaps this article should be moved there?
 * Brazennose Street - Street off Albert Square, perhaps the most notable of the list.
 * Dover Street, Manchester - side street on the University campus
 * Police Street - even notes in article lack of notability

What do others think? Pit-yacker 12:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction was yeah, nominate for deletion. But on reflection I'm not so sure. Something interesting could probably be written about anything, including a self-confessed non-notable street. I accept that it hasn't been written yet, though, and what little there is there could easily be re-created if and when there's a will to flesh it out.


 * So on balance (can you tell that I'm dithering here?), I'd support nominating all of them for deletion. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that these street articles were all created after someone saw the article List of streets in Manchester and had heard of some of the streets so decided to create stubs for them. They were created by User:Cheshire Set and if you look at their talk page they don't have the greatest article creation history. I don't think there is much to add to any of these articles as some are just side streets. I would support nomination for deletion. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to also add support for a whole-sale deletion, however, I'm also aware that Deansgate, and perhaps Oxford/Wilmslow Road may just be notable enough. Are there any GA/FA street type articles which we could perhaps aspire to edit towards???? Or perhaps we need a one-stop article on the major A roads in Manchester/Greater Manchester (Oldham Road, Stockport Road, Bury New Road etc etc)???? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are already articles on the major A roads; here's the A56 road as an example. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are articles for almost all streets in Manhattan. See Template:Streets of Manhattan, although Manchester is not really as well-known as New York I still think it should be noted when looking to vote on deletion and I am feeling that a more complex list of streets in Manchester City Centre could be of benefit to readers if they are descriptive enough and not just "[...] is a street in Manchester. It has many shops and café bars." └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't rule out the idea of having an article on every street in Manchester. I just don't see the point in stubbing them until someone's ready to write them. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the streets I mentioned earlier for deletion. If you would like to comment, please feel free to do so.  I have left off Deansgate and Oxford Street/Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road, together with a few other streets (such as Market Street - see Category:Streets in Manchester and Category:Squares in Manchester) as I feel they probably have at least some notability. Pit-yacker 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that Curry mile is removed from this category as it isn't a street at all, it's a short stretch of Wilmslow road. It shouldn't it be in Shopping Streets of England either. It may stand up on it's own under the other categories though, although it needs referencing. I've put some comments on the talk page for the article. could I also suggest that Deansgate should have "Manchester" added to its title as there are other streets in the UK with the same name. There's certainly one in Bolton for a start. Richerman 00:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, the Curry Mile! I remember it well, on nights, nipping into Rusholme Chippy for a Kobedee kebab at 4am... and having to queue behind the long line of Bobbies. Ah memories, my damn mouth is watering now :)  WebHamste r  00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

well, it's certainly notable, especially to students of Manchester Uni (toilet rolls in the fridge etc.), but it's still not a street! Richerman 00:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well pedantically speaking it is a street, well to be super-pedantic it's a road, just not one called "Curry Mile" :)  WebHamste r  01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * now if your going to argue it must be time for your nightly hibernation hammy Richerman 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically it is, but I've got a Jones for a smoothie so I may have to give in to temptation instead. I blame you of course, talking of the Curry Mile got me all hungry. I don't even know if Rusholme Chippy does those kebabs any more, the last time I was there was sometime in the 90s. These days I avoid the place like the plague, especially during the day. Traffic is horrendous!  WebHamste r  01:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mr Stephen —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldham
Hello project participants!

Just a note that Oldham is up for Peer review as part of its drive towards WP:GA. There are currently two statements requiring citation (re: coal mining), but I'm on to sorting those within the next few days! Any other feedback on how to improve the article would be very much welcomed! Hopefully we can get another Green "plus" medal for the project soon with this one! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed how much work you were putting into the Oldham article yesterday with constant edits, very good work and I am sure we will have another GA article for the project very very soon. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a fantastic job you've done on that article. Once those tags are sorted out it will sail through a GA review. And with a bit of a copyedit I don't see it having much trouble at its FA review either. Well, no more than the usual amount of trouble anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
See Talk:Manchester and please comment, thanks! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 08:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter delivery
Will be tomorrow, earlier than planned, because it's the weekend. Happy reading. Rudget Contributions 21:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rudget Contributions 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Kersal
I have just completed a full expansion and rewrite of the Kersal article and would be grateful if someone could re-assess it. Please leave any comments if you feel it needs inprovement Richerman 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some comments on that article's talk page that I hope will help you in getting it to the next level. Feel free to ignore them if you don't agree with any of them. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, all constructive criticism gratefully received - and there was me thinking it was up to FA status! ;-) Richerman 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flat Earther
Just when I thought we were safe, we've got a traditional counties advocate with User:81.153.33.97; unfortunately he's (it's always a bloke) picked Oldham of all articles (just when it's up for peer review)!

I'll try to revert any nonsense myself, but just wanted to make others aware of this IP. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We're being stolen...
Take a look here... User:Bluegoblin7/WP:Derbyshire, the cheek of it!! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think its necessarily a bad thing! It's a testament to our strength!!... the edit history prooves we were 1st anyway!... Let's keep our eyes open for ideas from elsewhere too! -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You do know that a while ago it already went live. Simply south 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it first. But I got an apology so it's alright. :) Rudget Contributions 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit strong to call it stealing I think, although when I copy something like that - we all do it sometimes - I do always try to remember to give credit where it's due. Anyway, as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! --Malleus Fatuarum 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was only joking with the stealing part lol. I did have to laugh out loud when I saw the page just now, they have copied the newsletter and just added their own text, copied the barnstar of merit and added a rather crude image to it and probably other stuff I have not yet noticed. It is sweet that he/she is doing so much for their project of course but just seems like they are trying to take credit for our massive hard work, it's not hard to copy and paste really. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 07:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment scale
I'm not sure why this didn't occur to me before, but anyway ...

I've just been looking at the importance scale again, and I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it. Without really having looked it too closely, I'd automatically assumed that the importance scale was there to reflect the importance of the subject, not the importance of the article. I'm particularly thinking about the distinction between the low and mid classes. The criteria implies that an article ranked as low could be promoted to mid class if more work was done on it. But surely if a subject is inherently of low importance (which is not the same thing as being uninteresting of course) then no amount of work on an article will change that. Isn't this slightly confusing the distinction between the importance and the class of the article? I don't see any prima facie reason why there couldn't be an article ranked as low importance but also classed as an FA. What I don't understand is why an FA ranking ought to have any effect on the importance. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already been some discussion about this if you go further up this page to "importance scale" and JKA's contention was that it's only a way of ranking the importance to the project anyway, which I assume means that we look at the more important ones and try and get those right first. Having said that, I've since discovered another anomaly in that "Drinkwater Park" is ranked as mid importance when it's only a medium sized park, which to my mind should rank below a settlement. Heaton Park is also mid importance but as it constitutes 25% of the green space in Manchester I can sort of agree with the ranking Richerman 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already seen that, but it's not quite what I'm getting at. Whatever importance is attached to, let's say your example of Drinkwater Park won't change as that article is expanded. Drinkwater Park won't become any more or less important as its article is developed. BTW, I hope that you were bold, and downgraded Drinkwater Park to "low". :) --Malleus Fatuarum 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I've kept out of the assessment up to now as I don't think I have enough experience to do it yet. Anyway, as I wrote the article originally I would give it high importance and FA status at least! Richerman 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing a rewrite of the importance scale. If so, I won't contest. I only did the first as a basis to be expanded upon later. Please reply. Rudget Contributions 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am, or at least a difference of emphasis. The present importance scale talks about the article being important, notable or whatever, and suggests that an article may move through that ranking as it's developed. I'm suggesting that however developed an article is doesn't have any impact on the importance of its subject, so I'd propose as a start to change the base criteria to refer to the subject, not the article, and to remove the suggestion that adding detail to, say, an article ranked as low importance could potentially move it up to mid importance. It may that as more is understood about the subject, views may change on its importance, but that only means that it was mis-assessed in the first place. That's if there are no objections, of course. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I never thought that the assessment criteria suggests that an article's importance can change with development? It certainly can't and the only way the importance can change is if a subject's importance changes as a whole and we changed the scope of the whole project which I doubt will happen. I think it is fine to suggest a little re-wording of the assessment criteria as it does seem a little vague. I have tended to assess importance on heard-of-ness so the more popular landmarks have a higher importance than the less well known. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also changed Drinkwater Park to low importance as you were totally right it should have been low, I think I was just rushing. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * depends on how you interpret statements like this I suppose:
 * Article isn't that notable. Determination of the importance of the article may change as the subject is progressed. Typically includes small localities.
 * Minor details added, article could be Mid-class but needs more work.


 * The present assessment criteria clearly, to me at least, are strongly suggesting that it's the article that's being assessed in importance, not its subject. On a slightly different note, I think it would be helpful as well to give some examples on non-geographic articles in terms of importance. For instance, I came across this article earlier, on Jerome Caminada. I assessed it as being of mid importance, since it is discussing one of the founding fathers of Manchester CID. Would everyone else agree with that assessment? --Malleus Fatuarum 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a very slight change to the wording of the assessment criteria, as a start. I think And-Rew's "heard-of-ness" criteria is maybe a good one to generalise from for landmarks, buildings, parks and so on.
 * Top, internationally recognised
 * High, nationally recognised
 * Mid, recognised with Greater Manchester
 * Low, recognised within their own area

What about something like that? And something similar for people from GM, as in my example of Jerome Caminada? I'm beginning to feel that I'm at last nudging up against what I wasn't really clear about when I started this thread. Is this importance scale supposed to reflect the importance of the subject to this project, or to Greater Manchester? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem may be that the scope of this project is not totally defined. Originally the project seemed to focus solely on geography and that seems to be what the assessment criteria is for. We now include landmarks, people, even bus stations. I am not suggesting we only focus on geography as I am happy with us having a large scope but I think the assessment criteria should be changed to fit the fact that the project stretches so far. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's the nail hit firmly on the head. I too am happy with the project having a wider scope than geography; is everyone else? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To take ideas from similar Wikiprojects, the West Midlands one struggled with exactly the same issue. Taking their importance scale and converting the ideas to a GM environment gives something like:

The idea is to give vague enough categories to fit the non-geographical articles in, whilst still giving a sensible framework and preventing an overload at the top end of the scale. It could be applied to all manner of items, so say, Manchester United might well be Top, whilst, say, Oldham Athletic might be Mid. Fingerpuppet 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. If you look at the aims on the project page it says "Improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester, including its history, geography, people, constructions and buildings, etc etc." That doesn't sound like just geography to me. Richerman 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that table seems to be more about importance in the world rather than importance to the project especially the boroughs and main towns not being top importance. Mostly I can agree though but the importance scale is how important the subject is to the project. I also noticed you said small stations and metro stops, most of the train stations and metrolink stations have not even been tagged with the banner yet, is this something we need to do? └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, it is. It's just that the lines need drawing somewhere, and that's where they ended up on that project - it doesn't necessarily need to be in the same place here. I would suggest that yes, stations and Metrolink articles are examples of articles that should be tagged. Fingerpuppet 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that assessment scheme; it puts a stake in the ground and reduces some of the current vagueness at least. I'd probably suggest expanding it just a bit to include things like people and historical events, but it's definitely much more along the lines of what I was thinking of. I'm particularly in favour of it because it would put Man U in the top category (Hooray), along with Man City (Boo), but to be serious that's probably a fair reflection of how Manchester is perceived from the outside anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. I like it, unreservedly. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My only reservation is that all of the boroughs of GM and their main towns should be top priority as they already are but it does not include that in your table. Other than that I am happy for the table to be changed. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I share And-Rew's sentiments on that one. Could we also copyedit the prose in the assessment guide? - "significant contributions to the Greater Manchester area" doesn't really hit the spot! Surely it should be "of high/medium significance to the coverage of Greater Manchester" or such? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What about something like this?

--Malleus Fatuarum 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That hits the spot! I like this version, -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great that looks much better! No table could ever cover everything so we sometimes will need to use our discretion. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a wee bit to the Mid class; I hope you still think it hits the spot. And I hope that everyone else does as well. It makes sense to me, but then it would, wouldn't it. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Can I just check that you do mean "boroughs" not "County Boroughs" in the top section? County Boroughs were considered to be more important than Municipal Boroughs - think Unitary Authorities for CB, or modern two-tier Districts for Municipal Boroughs. Fingerpuppet 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant municipal boroughs, I've changed the table to make that clear. I suppose the county borough is covered by Manchester? --Malleus Fatuarum 12:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused - Oldham, Bolton, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan were all former County boroughs (County Borough of Wigan article for example). -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Do you think it's better now? --Malleus Fatuarum 15:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As there seemed to be a broad consensus(?) I've been bold and updated the importance scale on the project page with my suggested version. If anyone feels that it still isn't "right", then please feel free to either correct it or revert it. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

M.E.N. archive
For a short period I have access to a great many editions of the Manchester Evening News. Don't ask where they are because I'm not telling, but in a few weeks they'll either end up in a skip somewhere, or in somebody's barn. There are thousands of them, they're all huge (bin lid sized and weighing easily 20lb each), and they're mostly in excellent condition. Now I'm back there later this week, and I will be able to get some more. Each one covers half a month or more, so you can imagine how many there are when you also consider that each volume contains every edition on every day - thats as many as 6 full newspapers, all broadsheet size, per day. Here are just a few samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soundman/sets/72157602938473225/

If anybody has some very specific requests for Manchester related news stories, please do add it here and I'll do my best to accommodate you. Bear in mind this place is vast, dusty, dark, smelly, and slightly damp, and almost entirely disorganised, so its hard to find things. It took me nearly an hour to find 2 volumes from July 1936, and Aug 37 and Sept 38. Please note that due to their size and condition, I can only get one or two volumes for the group - so decide amongst yourself if you want any! Parrot of Doom 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you're having fun in that secret store. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds very interesting!... I'm personally curious if you have access to the 1 April 1974 and 31 March 1986 editions of the MEN; the former for material about the new county of Greater Manchester and its districts, and the latter regarding Greater Manchester County Council's abolition?? I think these would be of huge benefit the project. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those years are there, I can't say for certain if the exact month you need is also there but I can always look. I'm not getting both though, so decide :) Parrot of Doom 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I really must (!), I'd have to go for the 74 one. What do others think though? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I hope you are not doing anything illegal though and no trespassing! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have permission to be there, if I don't get these things they may well end up on a bonfire somewhere. The local libraries have already had their fill and taken loads away, so its a case of grabbing what I can. Parrot of Doom 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2002 Commonwealth Games
Anyone else appalled by the state of this top importance article? Proposing a article drive. Anyone want to help if it does go ahead? Rudget  16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually worked behind the scenes during the games, for an Australian company, basically we were gathering footage and information so the Aussies could see what we did right, and what we did wrong, so they'd be better prepared. Beyond that though I can't really help out.  A mate of mine might have some photographs of the stadium, during the opening ceremony. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)