Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Archive 1

Suggestions
Hello WP:LANCS!

To keep this new project fruitful, inclusive and active, I want to make a radical suggestion that would be too big an issue to raise once the project is truly up and running....

I want to suggest that this WikiProject be rebranded to the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria". The reason for this is that both Lancashire and Cumbria (especially poor Cumbria) are rural counties with quite small populations, and thus, very small amounts of editors when compared to Liverpool and Manchester. A merger of the two would allow for greater participation and would help steer the project clear of inactivity and redundancy (as has been the case for the Dorset, Lincolnshire, Cheshire and other projects). The Yorkshire WikiProject is effectively a merger of North, South, West and East Yorkshire and would still cover a larger area than the combined Lancs and Cumbrian project.

What do we think? --Jza84 | Talk  21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! Let us in! I'm in Furness, which was Lancaster until a few years ago anyway, so it makes sense to merge the two. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea to combine the two; there's often quite a bit of overlap and there's a risk that Cumbria will otherwise be left project-less. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A merge seems sensible to me too. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea I was thinking the other day why there wasnt a Cumbria project but it does make sense to make it a joint one with Lancashire Penrithguy (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

'''The public has spoken and I will merge the WikiProjects of Lancashire and Cumbria. I will do it as soon as I can.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

HELP!
To make this project work we need to have a box to be put on every article that relates to Lancashire/Cumbria and to show that the article is under the WikiProject:Lancashire and Cumbria scope. Just like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lancashire (I'm talking about the boxes that are in the scope of WikiProject:England and UK geography. WE NEED ONE FOR WIKIPROJECT:LANCASHIRE AND CUMBRIA. Please could someone give me a link to make one of these boxes so this WikiProject can finally move along. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've set up Template:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. To add it to talk pages, all you have to do is copy and paste or . To assess an article, add "|class=stub/start/C/B/list" (use as appropriate, not all of them). To add importance, add "|importance=low/mid/high/top" (again, use as appropriate, not all of them at once). There could be a couple of thousand articles out there relating to Lancashire and Cumbria, so it might be best to fill out a bot request rather than tag articles by hand. We'll still have to assess for importance and class ourselves, however it would make the job a bit easier. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, I will add a pic and do the quilty scale and importntance scale now.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can not add a picture that works so could someone put the Lancashire red rose image on it please (the image can be found on the projectpage. I will continue tommorow and hopefully the lancashire ans cumbria project page will be up and running. For now I need to go to bed.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of it. After a bit of playing around using the preview button, it turned out you only needed to specify the name of the file to be used. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try and put together a project logo for us. :) --Jza84 | Talk  22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Project logos
I made the following logos for this project:

I have tested one of them on the main page (for all to see), but I don't insist we use either of them - they're just ideas. We could use maps or some kind of faux-coat of arms, or anything anyone thinks of. :) --Jza84 | Talk  00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like No. 1 (on the left) - eye-catching and effective. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the one on the left too. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the one of the left is much more striking at the size we have to use for the project banners. Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That pic is great... now start adding them to talk pages related to Lancashire and Cumbria. WE ARE NOW UP AND RUNNING. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Userbox?
We need a userbox for this WikiProject so people who are part of this WikiProject can add it to their userpages. Can anyone make one please. Thanks. I know I should do things like this myself (since I am the creator of this WikiProject) but I am new to Wikipedia and I am just learning. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. See User WP Lancashire Cumbria. Just add " " to your userpage to display. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
Nice to see a WikiProject for Lancashire finally! :) I've already added my name to the participants list and subscribed the project for a cleanup listing. Other things that might come in useful would be a new articles listing generated by User:AlexNewArtBot, and a popular pages list. I can contribute photos from the West Lancs area and also know how to code templates, so if there's anything I can help with then please give me a shout. Small-town hero (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Importance scale
We've not yet got an importance scale, and it's not the most important thing to address, but I was wondering where boroughs such as West Lancashire and South Ribble fit in? I was just about to tag all the boroughs in Lancashire and Cumbria for the project but wasn't sure how important they are. They're a lot of them, so "top" seems like overkill, but "mid" feels like it undervalues their importance. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts
It's good to see this project and I've signed up to it.

However I do have some concerns that we may be trying to run before we've learned to walk.

I am particularly concerned about assessment of articles. Yes, we should start adding the project banner to article talk pages, but we shouldn't be assessing articles until we have decided, as a project, how to do it. Importance is something we need to decide upon collectively, relative to our project. Other projects have importance scales. I'd suggest we look at some of our neighbouring county projects, copy their importance scale and then adapt it for our own use. I'm no expert on this, but I understand that standards of quality apply across the whole of Wikipedia and it's not down to individual projects to impose their own scales (although they may be able to tweak a bit). The quality assessment criteria are at WP:ASSESS.

I'd suggest that inexperienced assessors should begin by just copying a quality assessment from any other project that has assessed the same article and not to quality-assess themselves, yet. After you've seen a number of other assessments you'll gain the experience to do it yourself. In my own case, even though I've been editing for several years now, I feel qualified only to issue "stub" and "start" assessments. I feel I haven't yet studied the assessment criteria closely enough to issue higher assessments.

As this project is still only a few days old, the main benefit of tagging articles at this early stage will be to advertise our presence and attract new members (regardless of assessment), so it would be a good idea to concentrate at first on tagging the most popular articles, e.g. about the cities, largest towns and major tourist attractions in the two counties.

I'd prefer it if the project userbox omitted the word "proud". I simply want to state my membership without expressing an opinion on any pride or lack of pride!

As for, you shouldn't normally be linking to commons:Category:Lancashire or commons:Category:Cumbria (except for articles about a whole county) but rather to some other category that is directly relevant to the article in question.

I'm not sure the value of listing stub articles on the project page (unless the idea is to single out a handful of articles for special attention). If we list them all, there will be hundreds of them (exactly 899 as I write this). We might as well just paste in the links Category:Lancashire geography stubs and Category:Cumbria geography stubs.

At some point we'll need to discuss the thorny issue of historic county boundaries, to decide what is within the scope of our project. This is really an issue for Lancashire rather than Cumbria. In other words, how to deal with places that were inside Lancashire before 1974, but outside both Lancashire and Cumbria today. In line with Wikipedia policy, such places ought, as a general rule, to be outside the scope of our project (they come under neighbouring county projects instead), but we might want to discuss limited exceptions for historical articles specifically about places, buildings, organisations or people that ceased to exist before 1974. I'm not expressing any view on this at the moment, but at some point in the future we'll need to grasp this nettle.

Sorry if my first post here sounds all negative. I hope to make lots of positive contributions in the future! I have lots of other things to do outside Wikipedia so my contributions may be limited. --  Dr Greg   talk  19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These are valid points. I think I agree with most if not all. Regarding the issue of pre-74 counties, I see no reason why editors can't help out on say, history of Manchester, but certainly any edits have to be within the bounds of WP:UCC. I wouldn't expect say, editors removing WP:GM, WP:CHESHIRE or WP:YORKSHIRE templates from talk pages and replacing them with WP:LANCS templates-that would be distruptive. Certainly something like history of Lancashire should be within the scope of this project, and I think it would be quite proper for things like Cumberland and Westmoreland to be under it too, if that helps.


 * This project shouldn't become a kind of Afghan mountain cave where plots to strike at modern units are planned. The whole point should be to raise the standard of Lancashire's and Cumbria's content out of the dark ages of Wikipedia, because presently they are pretty bad. --Jza84 | Talk  20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I agree with most things you are saying.

We have discussed where we should put the articles in our importance scale. We have mostly agreed to these:

Villges/Hamlets should be low

Small towns should be mid

Large towns/cities should be high

The counties of Lancashire and Cumbria should be top

B/A roads should be low

Motoways should be mid (except M6 should be high

We have not yet discussed other things eg. buildings, but we shall do it the future.

I have been thinking weather or not to incorporate historic lancashire in in, but if you think of it, the article count would be HUGE. So personally we should discuss this matter with WikiProject Greater Manchester and Merseyside to see if we can put the cities of Liverpool and Manchseter ONLY within our scope.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagging places that have been historically in Lancashire would get a resounding "No" from me. The point of tagging is to encourage editors with some interest in an area to improve articles about that area. Who in this project would be interested in helping with Stretford, or Trafford Park, for instance, both of which were once in Lancashire? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely do not think we should adopt Liverpool, Manchester or any other article (outside the current ceremonial counties) about current geography. That would just go against established Wikipedia policy. I was referring only to the possibility of historical-only articles. We might decide to reject that too. But there's no hurry yet, let's concentrate on other things for now. --  Dr Greg   talk  20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And that thing you said about the stubs. I 100% agree, I did not see that. But imptove it straight away.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC):✅.

As for the commons link. I DID NOT DO THAT. I made sure to put no links to commons on it, but some idiot reversed it. I will get on to it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk) :✅.

Biographies
While we're discussing what is and isn't within the scope of this project, what about biography articles of Lancashire and Cumbria people? Small-town hero (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A question that has been pondered by more than one project recently. The consensus that emerged (although it hasn't been codified) is that projects can tag biographies of people born within their boundaries (eg: Andrew Flintoff) or people strongly associated with the area (eg: Edmund Crouchback was the first Earl of Lancaster, although he was born in London). The second criteria leaves a lot to editor discretion. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Preston's assessment
Earlier today Preston was assessed as a GA, but it has now been down ranked to B; on investigation it appears that the article was never reviewed at GAN and was therefore never listed as a GA.

Are we all agreed that the GA and FA assessments are only to be the result of an article passing either GAN or FAC respectively? I certainly bloody well hope so. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Definately-it's not within our remit to assess our own articles after B-class. For those who don't know, it's only an independent assessment that can rank an article at GA or FA level. It's an easy mistake, I guess, if one doesn't know.


 * Incidently, Blackburn almost got to GA level once. That article may therefore be a suitable project aim for it's first GA since formation? --Jza84 | Talk  20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not blaming anyone, just putting a stake in the ground. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blackburn is defintely a piece of low-hanging fruit that I think ought to be prioritised. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Lostock Hall
To whom it may concern, This message was originally posted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography, and with helpful advice from User:Jza84 I have now posted a copy to here.

As a resident of the village of Lostock Hall, Preston for the past 30 years, and also access to many historical facts on the village; I have extended the information on the original article with more facts, history of the village, and useful information. I hope that this is OK with members of the WikiProject UK geography group. I would like it if I would be permitted to continue my work on this page, and work to make the page more detailed to provide a more in-depth article on Lostock Hall. Does anyone have objections to this? If so, please let me know in due course via my talk page. Also I have noticed that the article has yet to receive a quality scale rating, as per WikiProject article quality grading scheme. With the information that was in the original article (prior to my extensive clean up operation), I would have said it was a Category:Start-Class articles. However, since all the extensive new material that I've added to the article (with some help from a fellow wikipedia friend of mine), I would like to nominate the Lostock Hall article to either a Category:B-Class articles or a Category:C-Class articles. Kindest regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only glanced at the article, but it looks like you've got the right idea with structure, content, formatting etc. I'd like to see a few more inline citations (such as in the industry section), but it's a good start. It's perhaps unnecessary to mention public houses, but you can get ideas for what else to add from WP:UKCITIES (I think the main stuff missing is demography, economy, and geography). You don't need our permission to work on the article, and since you're doing a good job, please continue :-) I've assessed the article as C-class as it's decently referenced and has a good structure. To be a B-class it would need the sections I mentioned earlier, but it's not far off. Working with the statistics to create economy and demography sections can be a bit of a drag, so I can sort those out for you if you want; they would be fairly generic stuff (take a look at Partington, Greater Manchester for what to expect). Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nev1, thanks for getting back to me, and the praise and recognition too ;-). As I live in Lostock Hall, i was having a nosey on wikipedia to see what it had on the village, and to my shock the original article was very "slim-line" so to speak.  So I took liberty and pride to add more detailed information so that other people could see the "real" Lostock Hall in the article.  The references on public houses where in the original context, I just cleaned it up a little.  Most of the public houses in Lostock Hall have a lot of historical background.  I could contact local residents and publicans for those establishments on more information, and historical facts if you like.  Would be good for users to learn more about these buildings too.  The village itself now has more take-away places than ever before - but I'm not sure whether to reference this in the article.  I will continue to work on the other sections that you noted, and will include them in due course.  Again, thanks for the praise, help, and advice.  Kindest regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Lostock Hall isn't listed in the spreadsheets from ONS I usually use as sources (as in the Partington, Greater Manchester, article). The link in the article used as a reference for the 2001 population should have more info on the economy and demography of the ward, but the website seems to be having problems at the moment. The take-aways probably aren't worth mentioning, unless the increase was mentioned in the local news. This link is a PDF (2mb) of all the listed buildings in South Ribble; I can't see any explicit mention of Lostock Hall but it might be worth checking since you'll recognise local names I won't. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supplying that PDF link. I have taken a look at it, and 5 buildings on Todd Lane (2 on page 13, and 3 on page 14) are  buildings in Lostock Hall.  Todd Lane North and Todd Lane South are both parts of Lostock Hall, and also have Lostock Hall in the address codes.  I live around the corner from Todd Hall (Todd Lane North) and can ask the owners if up-to-date photos can be taken for this Wikipedia project.  As for the Population census, I use to work for local government, and have contacts who should be able to obtain for updated figure for the article in question.  I have made a personal list of things to do, to help me with what could become a major, but enjoyable project.  (Pr3st0n (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I've now added even more extensive details on the Lostock Hall article, including a table of listed buildings in Lostock Hall, a geography section, demography, and a population chart. I can take photos of the listed buildings if required (with permission of the owners of course), and also the population table needs some more work on it, as I'm having problems tracking down populations stats online.  I will be visiting my local museum to view their hard copy of these records, so that they can be added. (Pr3st0n (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Lostock Hall is clearly a labour of love,and who knows, it may hook you into writing about other places or things as well. I started out with the intention of improving an article on a local park, but now here I am, seriously considering the possibility of helping to get Blackburn, a place I can't remember ever visiting, listed as a GA. :-)


 * To be a little bit more serious though, I'd strongly suggest that you take a look at wikipedia articles on similarly sized English villages, especially if they've been listed as GA/FA, if you haven't already. It's important as well to keep your personal voice out of the article; I was quite struck by seeing this in the lead, for instance: "Similarly, to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham, this boundary being similarly vague - most locals could not point out the dividing line." I don't doubt that you're right about what most locals might or might not recognise, but you've got got to be careful that what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article doesn't end up as a personal essay incorporating your own original research. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wormshill is a featured article about a rural English village that may help inspire. --Jza84 | Talk  21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jza84, this article is most definitely a labour of love for me. However, the reference about "Similarly, to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham, this boundary being similarly vague - most locals could not point out the dividing line." was not part of my work.  That context was in the original article.  In fact the first 2 opening paragraphs are the original work.  The rest of it however is my work.  I always avoid using personal voice in an article.  I'm currently working on a complete rewording of the opening paragraphs, which will therefore mean I have basically re-written the article from scratch. (Pr3st0n (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I posted my reply above thinking it was in response to a question Jza84 posted, hadn't noticed that the original question came from Malleus, I apologise for that Malleus. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Now that I've taken advice, and read the article on Wormshill, which has certainly inspired me to extend this Lostock Hall article into greater detail. I'm now wondering is this article getting closer to becoming a GA-class grade? I've increase the details of this article, by adding more in-depth information, including images of churches, and a Grade II listed building, along with full population records between 1891 - 2001. Would love to know if my hard work has paid off, and this article is growing ever closer to the magical GA, and better still, FA grades. (Pr3st0n (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Scrapped that last idea, as I've read GA. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Importance scale
Why don't we just use the same assessment scale as the Greater Manchester project? Why reinvent the wheel? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A good idea I think, WP:YORKS also uses it and cross-project standardisation would be nice. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of copying the above scale to our project page and propose that we adopt it. If we agree, then all the articles that we have already assessed will need reassessing for importance, as I think many of them were assessed by different criteria. Do others agree? --  Dr Greg   talk  18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lostock Hall article for GA status.
Hi everyone, just a quick question for you all. I've been working real hard on the Lostock Hall artcile of the last couple of days (with a little help from a couple of users on here), and what was once just an opening lead of 2 paragraphs, has now turned into a full article, with detailed information on the suburbia village. However, before I put this article forward to GAN for GA approval, I was wondering if other members could take a look, and see if anything else could be added needs to be done before GA submission, or better still provide a review, via this thread, with you comments about the article content, structure, etc. I much appreciate all you help and valued responses. Regards Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lostock Hall now up for GA nomination.
I've just submitted the Lostock Hall article up for GA nomination... fingers-crossed it gets it. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire dialect and accent
Although I'm not a member of this wikiproject (I am a member of The Greater Manchester one however) I have added a project header to the above article and given it a C rating for quality and High for importance. I've done some work on it, such as rearrangement of sections, and added some references but it really could do with some more work and it's obviously of importance to this wikiproject. Richerman (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackpool!
I'm disappointed at the state the Blackpool article is in. This town is one of England's most interesting, best known and culturally important, let alone NW England, or even Lancashire! Surely this has got to be a Top priority for this project? Not only is it a major sea-side town, but also a local government district, of course. --Jza84 | Talk  00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * JZA84, I can add this to my list of things to work on if you like?! I'm already working on improving the Preston article, so I don't mind adding Blackpool too.  It's not that far, and I have heard from people in Preston, as well as Lostock Hall, that plans had been suggested to rename Blackpool's airport to "Blackpool-Preston Airport", now that Preston is a city - something similar to Leeds Bradford International Airport.  I can do some background checks on this, and see if it is true, which if it is, would help both Preston and Blackpool's articles.  Let me know! (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

It could be very well true, as RockFm have adverts that say about Preston and Blcakpool and all the things they are famous for so maybe it could be the start or tying them together!?Bankhallbretherton (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire's Architecture??
Just a note to say that architecturally Lancashire has alot of stunning buildings! I have already created this page called Listed buildings in Lancashire but this could be changed to an architecture page unless it is just kept under this name and we redirect Lancashire Architecture (which doesnt exist yet) to it!? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The redirect is fine, but there's no reason why it couldn't become a seperate article in the future. An article about the architecture of Lancashire is not necessarily the same thing as a list of listed buildings. Small-town hero (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much so agree, I shall make it my project to make a new page for it all! just a plan to see how it should be set out. Will discuss that on the page talk its self though, will start it later today hopefully! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging and assessment
Congratulations on the new WP. One of the biggest tasks to begin with is tagging and assessing articles so that they become part of the WikiProject. I recently got WP:MILLS up and running so have experience of this. I've just tagged List of windmills in Lancashire for this WP. I was wondering why you haven't got an assessment section on your project page. Anyway, good luck with the project. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes, or jumping the gun, but to help us get a handle on this tagging and assessment and to see just how the project's progressing I've added a new Assessment and progress of articles section to the main page, based on the one used by the GM project. It already makes interesting reading; of the 101 articles tagged so far there are two FAs and one GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a question but I see from the assessment classes that this project doesn't seem to be going to aim for any A class articles WP:A?. Is there a reason for this? NtheP (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
I'm subscribing this project to the popular pages listings. It might be of use to know which of our articles get the most page hits! The request key is la88096 in case anyone else wants to edit the request. Small-town hero (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire weavers' riots
This has recently appeared as a redlink. Does anybody know or plan to tackle this? The Lancashire Cotton Famine is also another interesting topic for this project to consider. --Jza84 | Talk  23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

→ I have put the Lancashire Cotton Famine in our scope. But what importance should it be? Greater Manchester's WikiProject has put it to high, should we do the same? 93gregsonl2 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Food
What's the project line on Lancastrian or Cumbrian food products? Things like Lancashire cheese and it's derivatives, Eccles cakes, Cumberland sausage etc? NtheP (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes. Lancashire hotpot and Kendal Mint Cake are two others I can think of off the top of my head. I'm surprised we don't have or . If we can pull together enough articles, perhapse these are categories we should create? Small-town hero (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

List of castles in Greater Manchester
This list has been tagged as coming under the interest of this project, presumably because one of the categories it is in is category:Castles in Lancashire. While this might have been the case before Greater Manchester was created I'm not so sure that it is now anything to do with Lancs & Cumbria. Should it stay or should it go? NtheP (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This list should be removed from our scope as it is to do with something from about Greater Manchester and nothing about Lancashire/Cumbria. This WikiProject does not deal with historical Lancashire but modern Lancashire. I have removed it fromn our scope. Thanks for bringing this matter up. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the list can go. What about the castles on the list, though? I'm inclined to think that they should be categorised as (and likewise for castles in Merseyside), though I'm not sure how that would apply to, say, Liverpool Castle, which had long ceased to exist before the creation of Merseyside. It all begs the larger question of whether or not our scope is limited to the current county boundaries. Small-town hero (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Buckton Castle is a good example of what I was saying above. Do we include castles that are currently located withing Greater Manchester or not? Small-town hero (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we omit it. Otherwise we end up with everything that has ever been in Lancashire in scope.  While reviewing all the bot tsgged articles there were quite a few I removed this project banner from because they aren't in modern Lancs. NtheP (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles on local elections
What "Importance" rating are we giving articles on elections in local areas (e.g. Blackpool local elections; Chorley Council election, 1999; and Blackpool North by-election, 1962)? Personally, I would say either High or Mid; especially with elections always on-going, and many people out there (and I bet there are tonnes of them) who do political research. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree on this. The constituencies and wards themselves should be rated high/mid as originally agreed but not the results of individual elections in them.  Unless they were of specific interest e.g. lost a government a majority, made a local coucil change leadership then local elections especially they are of low importance.  That's not to say the articles shouldn't be accurate about the numbers involved e.g. votes %capture etc, but apart from that what can you say, for example, about a local by election in Rossendale when the turnour was <20% and the incumbent party held the seat.  There's more than enough to do with what we have already without raising more things to mid/high/top priority. NtheP (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging
It would be advisable to submit a request for a bot to tag articles for this project. To that end I have created a list of Lancashire-related categories at WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Categories/Lancashire. All articles in these categories should fall under our scope (assuming we want to include Lancashire people, otherwise I'll remove those ones), though there's a few at the end of the list which I've marked as "not sure". It would be good if someone could cast an eye over this and give it the thumbs up, then of course I'll have to create another list for Cumbria-related categories. Small-town hero (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance, on the whole, the list looks good to me, and it's probably correct to exclude the categories you marked as "not sure". (Best for a human to look inside those categories instead of a bot.)


 * I would also exclude Category:Forest of Bowland on the grounds that it includes a small number of places in North Yorkshire. I'd hope all the Lancashire articles in that category would also be in some other Lancashire category.


 * I'd suggest excluding Category:History of Lancashire as that includes many articles outside the modern-day boundaries and I think it's better for a human to decide than a bot. In this early stage of the project it might be better to defer a decision on historical articles until later.


 * I'm not sure about all the People from..., that could be a large number of articles where in some cases the connection with Lancashire is minimal. What do others think?


 * For bot tagging we ought to err on the side of caution and tag too few rather than too many. We can always tag more later. --  Dr Greg   talk  23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call, I've removed the two categories you mention from the list. I'll leave the people categories for now pending further comment. Small-town hero (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "people from" categories from the list for now; as you say, best to err on the side of caution. If there are no more comments, I'll submit a bot request tommorrow. Small-town hero (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I weeded out a few more categories that may contain undesirable articles. Bot request has now been made here. Small-town hero (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the bot has now started. At the time I write this, it has already tagged nearly 500 articles and it's only got as far as "Gr..." (in alphabetical order). I understand that a second pass by the bot will later auto-assess as "stub" class any article with a stub template, but that hasn't started yet. I assume that a similar exercise for Cumbria will follow, otherwise the project will look biased! :) Perhaps we can start assembling a Cumbria category list now, so we can submit it later once the Lancs bot has finished and we have reviewed how successful it was. (I'll be on a wiki-break for at least the next week, so I'm making this comment now instead of waiting for the bot to finish.) --  Dr Greg   talk  21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll make a start on the Cumbria list as soon as I can. :) Small-town hero (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there guys. The Lancashire articles should now be marked. And the ones with stub templates should be classed as such (note that not all the stubs may have been got, since I had to write my own RegEx to look for the stub tags). If you want me to run KingpinBot again for the Cumbria articles, I'd be more than happy to do so, if not, then you can request at WP:BOTR again, or ask another bot in this category. Also, a thank you goes to you as this task has helped me improve the way in which I'll run the bot in future; I won't need to do two passes in the future. And during it I've been having a look at the stub templates, to perfect the RegEx. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging for Cumbria articles
The category list for Cumbria is now done: see WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Categories/Cumbria. Again, it would be good if someone else could review the list before I put in a request to have articles in these categories tagged for the project. Small-town hero (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the bot be asked to add the words "|importance=" when inserting the template? Having done 300+ initial assessments over the last couple of days I've got a bit fed up with having to add this every time :)  NtheP (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. Nice work with the assessments! :) Small-town hero (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Request has been made. Small-town hero (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This task has been completed with KingpinBot again. By the way, a big thanks to those of you who are going around after the bot manually assessing the article. If you have AWB, then I believe that Kingboyk plugin can help with manual assessing, just a suggestion in-case any of you want to try it out :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter
Some WikiProjects (eg. Greater Manchester) have monthly newsletters. Shoud we have one as I belive they keep all they members informed about what's going on and helps the WikiProject becomeing dead like WikiProject Cheshire has recently become semi-dead. Should we have a monttly newsletter? Who will volenteer to start one? I sadly do not have time to do one on my own but I would be glad to help in small ways. Shall we try to get one ready for the end of October issue?

Please comment on what you think.93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm not a member of this project, so I wouldn't be suitable to write a newsletter, but just letting you know that if someone does do a newsletter for the project, I'd be happy to deliver it to the members with User:KingpinBot. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing
This project now has a cleanup listing at WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Cleanup listing, which highlights the various issues and problems with articles under this project. Small-town hero (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

New articles listing
We also have a new articles listing at User:AlexNewArtBot/LancashireCumbriaSearchResult. This is a bot generated list which is updated reguarly and should not be edited manually. It may still need some improvement, but it should help us keep track of any newly created articles. Small-town hero (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we mark these that they have been considered and assigned or otherwise? At least two of the articles don't come within our remit.  Even once the project template has been added to the others then they'll still be on this list, won't they? NtheP (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really necessary. It's not like there's a huge influx of new articles (seems to be about one or two a day) and the list is never going to be foolproof with regards to what's included; it's more of a guide for finding new articles than an exhaustive list per se. You could perhaps strike entries on the list or tag them with done or whatever, I don't know if the bot would overwrite such changes or not. But it wouldn't really be constructive to add entries manually. The listing is a tool more than anything else. Small-town hero (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairy snuff. We'll come up with something, strike is probably the best bet. NtheP (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unrated Articles
It has come to my attention that there are loads of artciles under our scope that have not yet been rated for their importance. This needs to be delt with. We need to insure that all articles under our scope are rated in importance.

You can help by having a look at this link: Link

As discused eariler we said that all: villages are medium. Hamlets are low Schools are low

We have not yet discused other topics, but I think you can take an educated guess for the others.

If anyone has a problem or needs help rating an article please don't be affraid to write it here and the WP comminuty will help you. Thanks. I am looking forward to our contribtions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other examples in the Importance Scale on the front page. Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a big start for you, and managed to rate loads - will add this to my "things to do list" and will rate/grade everything that is left in that list. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, just got it from approx 800 down to 621. Not bad for a couple of hours work :-)  Should hopefully have the entire unrated list vanished by the end of the week, and everything will have a rating of some sorts. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good. There may be a Banistar coming your way soon... 93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Between us we have Unrated by class is down to 152, unrated by importance is 574 (most of which will be stubs). So overall we have 89.4% of articles assessed. But this is only Lancs articles, the bot to identify Cumbria articles has yet to be run! Having rated 450+ articles in the last week I can categorically (forgive the pun) state we have some really good stuff out there and some real dross!  NtheP (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I had noticed a lot of dull articles, many of which were just one-liners; but hey, it all helps towards the greater project I suppose. You say the bot hasn't even started on the Cumbria stuff yet? I had noticed the bot put some "Yorkshire" articles into the Lancs stuff, I wasn't sure whether to remove those or not, but I have made a list (stored on my PC) if you want them vamooshed. 93gregson12, I'd be delighted to gain a barnstar, if you're offering ;-). Ooh, I feel the whip cracking again, back to rating the unrated.  Pr3st0n (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it until Wednesday before I put in a bot request to have Cumbria articles tagged -- I'd feel better if someone else could review the category list first so we can keep false posititives to a minimum. There are still decisioons to be made about the scope of this project, particuarly regarding historical boundaries and biographies... Small-town hero (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's sounds fine to me, I'll try and get the current unrated list completed by then, so then it won't be as heart-wrenching and mundane when the Cumbrian articles are added to it. What about football players though?  I've noticed a few of those who are currently playing for teams in Lancashire, and yet they are from other parts of the UK and world.  Are we still including those in the project, the bot seems to think so.  Pr3st0n (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be getting tagged. :S Can you give me a few examples? Small-town hero (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't remember of the names now, will have to check through my contributions for them, there were a couple of dozen that I came across. Want me to track them down again, and remove the "Lancs & Cumbria" project tag from them? Pr3st0n (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one of them was a player for Preston North End F.C., who use to play for Celtic too. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could find a few and let me know what they are, that would be great. It would be useful to know why they've been tagged; could be that the article has been miscategorised, or something. The only footballer I've seen tagged myself is Scott Carson, but that was by a user, not a bot. Small-town hero (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Article on Ross Wallace was one - I've removed the project tag from it a minute ago. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was tagged by you ??? Small-town hero (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Got me confused as that now.  I know I did the importance rating on it, but then came across a few others players too, hence why I asked above! Pr3st0n (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that Scott Carson one too, when I was going through the list that needed doing. Ross Wallace was on the same list page at the time.  Are we removing project tags of football players then?  Just so I know if I come across any more along the way.  Pr3st0n (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know. :) I'm not so sure that biographies are something this project should be focusing on, but that's just my own opinion. We shouldn't be tagging articles like Ross Wallace, though; he's just a footballer who's played for Preston the last year or so. If we tagged every person who has ever played for a Lancashire/Cumbria sports team then they'd probably account for 95% or so of our articles! Small-town hero (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the sports personality part. Its not just those biographies that I come across either; some for other people in there area are also tagged up.  I came across one about an Earl who was born in London, but it had a brief menetion that he stopped in Lancashire for a month, and yet that got tagged, it even has a "bot" thing on it.  I just gave it a low importance, and left the thing.  Are we keeping those too? Pr3st0n (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These are some of the other biographies that I've come across with the Lancs & Cumbria project tag attached to them by the bot.

Pr3st0n (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Fleetwood-Hesketh
 * John Egerton, 2nd Earl of Bridgewater
 * Matthew Talbot Baines
 * Jimmy Armfield
 * Frederick Maddison
 * Osbert Molyneux, 6th Earl of Sefton.

lol Pr3st0n (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As promised, I've completed the task at hand, and on schedule too. What's the next task?  Pr3st0n (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regaring the above, articles in, and  were tagged for the project. This may or may not have been ideal; if not, I'll exclude the corresponding categories for Cumbria. Frederick Maddison is categorised in , which is why that article was tagged. Small-town hero (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd leave those categories (or their Cumbrian equivalents in) as they will tag some people whose connection with the county is good. Any rogue ones we can manually remove and record as being out of scope.  For example if we had omitted  we would possibly have missed several members of the Stanley family (the Earls of Derby ) who are very involved in the history of Lancashire. I quite agree about missing sportsmen/women out though. NtheP (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Pr3st0n and NtheP (and anyone else I haven't noticed) for the huge amount of assessment you've done. You could help the rest of us, from your experience, by adding more examples of article types (e.g. "schools", "hamlets") to the importance scale on the project page, and clarifying any ambiguities in the wording. --  Dr Greg   talk  18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything perhaps some of the geographical features need importance ratings e.g. National Parks should be high, AONB/NNRs Mid. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok people the Cumbria tagging bot has run and there are now 374 457 unassessed articles by quality and 1047 1147 (the bot was tagging faster than I could assess) unassessed by importance (thats a lot of stubs out there) so can we get cracking on these. NtheP (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No new Featured Articles or Lists unfortunately, but we do have an additional five Good Articles. :) Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Down to 262 unrated by quality (now I've sussed out AWB - it's quicker to assess) and 954 by importance. As these are Cumbrian articles not surprisingly lots of the articles assessed are mountains/fells in the Lake District! We lost one GA as it had been hoaxed to that level by an anonymous editor. NtheP (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles now assessed for quality and about 620 to do for importance (any help appreciated hint, hint). NtheP (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great work you've done, NtheP. If you have any experience to share with the rest of us over how to assess importance, that would be appreciated. E.g. how to assess the importance of hills, mountains, lakes and rivers, which is particularly relevant to Cumbria. As I'm also a member of WP:WikiProject UK Railways, I've made a start assessing Cumbrian railway stations, killing two birds with one stone, as some of these have never been assessed for the other project and many stub-class articles, in my view, are now ready to promote to start-class. But my time is limited and it may take me awhile. So anyone else who is assessing can leave railway articles for me to do. (Let's not leave it all for NtheP to do; he/she's done enough already!) --  Dr Greg   talk  16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All the geographical features I assessed as low unless they are exceptional for some reason e.g. Scafell Pike as highest peak in England, or are NNR, SSSIs. Personally I think it's best to underrate rather than overrate.  To me the purpose of improtance grading is to set priorities for the project and too many high/mid rated articles to start off with is diffcult to deal with.  Dealing with those that are definitely top/high first and then re-review all the mids to see if any are more high than mid ans should take priority over the other mids.
 * The same goes for quality. To me the assessment criteria are pretty specific and I haven't necessarily followed what other projects have done.  Most notably BIHills who seem to have assessed all the Lakeland hills as B classs when to me the articles are mostly C or start because in most cases they lack references or contain weasel words.  NtheP (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) PS It's he :-)

Portal:Cumbria
Just to let you know that there is a Wikipedia portal for Cumbria. I just found it. It looks like no one is looking after it, so maybe someone should either look after it or it could be deleted. I don't think anybody wants to maintain a portal but if you wish to be my guest. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's something that needs to be deleted. There are portals for Greater Manchester and Cheshire, so it would be nice if this could be improved and perhaps eventually we could have a Lancashire portal as well. It's not something I'm interested in at the moment, though. Small-town hero (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Idea for the future
Maybe we could make a combined portal for Lancs and Cumbria like this WP. It would be much easier to maintain and manage. What does everyone think about that? Please comment. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Portals are a good concept, but I think the reality is that they're not actually very useful. Their purpose is to help someone interested in the topic navigate it, but I for one didn't know about portals until I'd been signed up for about a year. I doubt the casual user comes across them much and in August 2009 the Greater Manchester portal got only about 400 views, and the portal for North West England fared little better with about 550 views in the same month. I wonder how many of those views came from the casual users of Wikipedia who make up most of the traffic to the site. I suppose a few hundred a month isn't something to be ignored altogether, but perhaps it shouldn't be too high a priority. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I don't think I am interessed on working on portals to be honest neither do I belive it should be a high priority. But if anyone wants to spend time building a portal then please feel free to. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Infomation on Blocked User
It ocured to me today that User:Pr3st0n has been blocked indefitely and I am a little confused on why. Could anyone tell me? He was a good contributor to our WikiProject. If he has gone then his name should be removed from the list of participants. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * see here Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570 basically repeated copyright violations and refusal to admit it. NtheP (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...particularly the repeated refusal to admit it despite overwhelming evidence. --  Dr Greg   talk  22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It also looks like Nev1 has gone too (but not blocked). Both of those people were fantastic contributors to our WikiProject. They will be missed. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think Nev1 has gone. He might not have done anything related to this project for a while, but he's been editing Wikipedia today (see Special:Contributions/Nev1). --  Dr Greg   talk  22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, I'm still here but as my time is limited I decided to focus on the castle article. It's quite possible it will lead me to take a look at some of Lancashire and Cumbria's castles once the main article is done. I'm still here, and I'll make an effort to check this talk page more often. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I just needed to know. Thanks. But it's sad to see Preston go as he was a good contributor to the lostock hall article. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured Pictures on Wikipedia
Our WikiProject currently has no featured pictures. And I was wondering how you can put pictures up for featured picture status. Could anybody help me? I would like the picture on the left to be nominated. Could someone do that for me and show me how I can do it myself? Thanks. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to Featured picture candidates - this tells you how to do it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The following are all Quality Images on Wikimedia Commons: The ones in bold text are also Featured Pictures here on the English Wikipedia. Small-town hero (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Ascent_of_Helvellyn,_Lake_District_-_June_09.jpg
 * File:Catbells_360_panorama,_Lake_District_-_June_2009.jpg
 * File:Catbells_Northern_Ascent,_Lake_District_-_June_2009.jpg
 * File:Derwent_Water,_Keswick_-_June_2009.jpg
 * File:Derwent_Water,_Lake_District,_Cumbria_-_June_2009.jpg
 * File:Derwent_Water_Panorama,_Lake_District_-_June_2009.jpg
 * File:Glenridding,_Cumbria,_England_-_June_2009.jpg
 * File:Hadrian's_Wall_west_of_Housesteads_3.jpg
 * File:Helvellyn_Striding_Edge_360_Panorama,_Lake_District_-_June_09.jpg
 * File:Keswick,_Cumbria_Panorama_1_-_June_2009.jpg

Premiership Football Teams in Lancashire
Personally, I think all of the premiership football teams should be hih importance (I know it is only Blackburn and Burnly). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure; Premier League status comes and goes, and it doesn't take into account a club's history. If this were the Greater Manchester project, would you consider Manchester United and Wigan to be of equal importance? Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But they are now nationaly know football clubs and I think for the time being at least that they should be of a high importance as I would think such articles may get a big 'hit count' as many football supporters will have a look at Burnely FC and Blackburn FC articles, whilst they are in the Premier League and we should try to get those articles up to GA.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hows about learning how to spell Burnley for a start and what exactly do you mean by only Blackburn and Burnley - two clubs who were founder members of the Football League...its B U R N L E Y by the way and Blackburn Rovers not Blackburn FC.(Ralphtheclaret (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC));


 * Ok carm down. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That comment was unnecessary and uncalled for, and based on your above usage of grammar and punctuation you're hardly one to be criticising others. If you can't be civil or constructive when posting here, then kindly don't bother. Small-town hero (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an absolutely priceless comment here are some gems from above "hih importamnce" "only Blackburn and Burnly" "if this were" "nationaly" for heavens sake football existed before the Premier League you know...your comment is unbelievable - the main problem with wikipedia is that half the football content is factually incorrect added to pages by people with an axe to grind. (Ralphtheclaret (talk)); —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Stop making a big deal of this and if you think Wikipedia articles are factually incorrect then you can either edit them, plus include references or you can leave Wikipedia. Simple. Also please remember to remain civil or you may find yourself being blocked from editing Wikipedia.93gregsonl2 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ralphtheclaret, if you have nothing constructive to say and would rather make snarky comments on other people's grammar kindly bugger off. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a constructive comment for you, have a look at Rawtenstall Athletic F.C. - clue the entire content is fictionalised if wikipedia is to be taken seriously someone somewhere ought to be monitoring the sources (Ralphtheclaret (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC));


 * You probably know more about this football club than anyone here, so feel free to take the initiative. I see you've made some edits to the article and that's a good start. If you still believe the article to be a fabrication, you could tag it with hoax and/or nominate it for deletion. Small-town hero (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article as it now stands is correct, although I've had trouble adding the FCHD link at the bottom.I can't see the mistake I've made with it ? (Ralphtheclaret (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC));
 * It was a dead small amendment, the FCHD id is RAWTENST not Rawtenstall. One question you'll probably be able to answer, but the article as you've amended it and the FCHD refer to Rawtenstall FC but the article is called Rawtenstall Athletic F.C.  Was there ever a Rawtenstall Athletic F.C.? If not we need to move the article to the correct name. NtheP (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)