Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Manchester

Hello team,

There have been some shuffles on the Manchester page involving an editor gaming a false consensus about infoboxes ([1]). I think a glance through the contribution history of this user will be more telling of the situation better than I can state here myself. Input welcome (required!) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles must comply to the WP:UKCITIES established consensus which states cities in the United Kingdom must use the "UK place" infobox and not the "Infobox settlement" one. If you wish to change consensus, then I suggest you try to on WP:UKCITIES. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement.

— WP:UKCITIES

--Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like things have got bad on Manchester. Does it now need full protection, or are the parties involved willing to stop until consensus is determined? Rudget. 13:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The WP:UKCITIES guidelines seem quite clear on this, it should be "Template:Infobox UK place" as the boundaries of Manchester are the same as the City of Manchester. An editor falsely claiming consensus is quite serious, could this be a misunderstanding on their part or deliberate vandalism? Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the guidelines is that the UK settlement template would be the advised template to use, as Manchester is coterminous with a local government district which is not Greater Manchester, but which is the metropolitan borough of Manchester. This it corresponds to the cases of Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol in the situations described above. But may be the guidelines need to be clarified a little: I was on the point of asking for this to happen before this particular round of problems erupted (which began by action which prompted a message on WP:UKGEO's talk page for assistance, and then transferred to this article when Jza84 offered his assistance.) I'd like a set of example situations people might be faced with, together with a clear description of what infobox to use, and, if complicated, it could be done as a kind of flowchart.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is there is no article exclusively for the City of Manchester, the Manchester article deals with both the city and the borough. Therefore, I don't think "Infobox settlement" cuts the mustard as it leaves out a lot of fields relating to the borough. Nev1 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been getting my templates confused, I think "Infobox settlement" should be used rather than "Infobox UK place" for the reasons I provided before. Sorry for the confusion guys. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken some time away and agree with DDStretch that we might want a set of examples, if not a matrix of where UK place is appropriate and where Infobox Settlement is appropriate. I'd be willing to sandbox something together. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant here (as it doesn't apply to anywhere in Greater Manchester), but I've wondered which box should be used where a settlement is larger than the like-named local authority, such as Reading. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Manchester radicalism

I was idly looking through the Peterloo Massacre article earlier today - wondering about it as a possible front page FA candidate on its anniversary in August - when I was struck not only by how poor that article is, but also how poor our coverage of Manchester's radicalism is in general. I've started doing a bit of work on Peterloo, and obviously any help with that is welcome, as it takes some time to get from where it is to FA status. But I was wondering whether there's any general motivation to beef up our coverage. Or will have to write the article on Manchester's Plug Riots on my own? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Snap. I realised today how poor our coverage of the History of Manchester in general has been. I've just been making some amendments at the main Manchester page that are not too dis-simillar to yours (it didn't mention why the Roman fort was built or have anything about the negative aspects of the Industrial Revolution!).

Seeing as we won't now get the April 1 slot for Greater Manchester (!), I would love to see the Peterloo Massacre page improved for August. It's about time we had a page there, me thinks. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Given what we've managed to do with other articles, I can't see any reason why we can't get the Peterloo Massacre up to FA in time to be nominated. Maybe even the Plug Riots too. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough I bought one of those thin A4 sized booklets on Manchester Radicalism from the Salford History Library last week but haven't had much time to look at it yet. It was only about a fiver so if anyone else wants to get a copy I'll put the details on here later. Also I found out recently that user:MichaelW works at The Working Class Movement Library in Salford and wrote the article Working Class Movement Library, so he may be worth contacting for help, although he says he's too busy on other areas of wikipedia to join the project (see my talk page). On a different subject I've also just been told that my friend Joe Martin, who is the listed buildings officer for Salford is giving a talk at 7.30pm tonight at the Salford Museum and Art Gallery, which should be interesting. Richerman (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's enough interest then for us to have a real push at the Peterloo Massacre for starters, at least. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that Kersal Moor was the site of the biggest Chartist meeting, of course :-) Richerman (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Better and better. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Joseph Rayner Stephens which could do with some improvement and a GM category. Richerman (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We've got a mountain of radicals and movements here in GM that all deserve their proper recognition. Hey, I think I may have found my niche; writing about people and events that upset the established authority. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No comment on that one! I just wondered if anybody had any feedback on how to improve the map that is pegged right. It doesn't "feel" very FA to me, but it does the job. Anybody have any suggestions on how to make it more interesting? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Anybody know where we can get a higher quality version of Image:Peterloo carlile.JPG? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The map looks fine to me but I know what you mean about it not feeling FA. Are there any figures that could be added? Even if it's just to the caption, Nev1 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks great. One suggestion though. Can you make the text just a fraction bigger so that the names of the towns can be seen in the thumbnail? Perhaps with the numbers that marched underneath? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(<-) These sound like great ideas. I'm thinking more of a table format now! However, the source I have only gives the localities the contingents came from, not numbers I'm afraid. Perhaps this is written elsewhere, even if just estimates? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the map, maybe with a supporting table as well. But the map gives an impression of how far people travelled, and from where. I wouldn't like to lose it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Converting it to an SVG shouldn't be too hard. I can do it if there's a will. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(To Malleus... well everyone actually) I was thinking something like the formatting at List of people from London, where we can have the map centrally (and large - to avoid readability problems) and list the localities and size of the contingents. I've just read that each contingent had a "commitee", therefore I imagine some of the more detailed sources will provide the sizes of each group.

SVG sounds good to me also Mr Stephen! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be keen on central and large, I'd prefer it maybe a bit bigger still on the left (or with bigger text), but that's just my personal preference. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I had made the text larger than it appears in my original source. I could make it a little larger, but it got a little tricky around Oldham/Tameside. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I know where you're coming from. Oldham's always been tricky in my experience. I had a nightmare driving into Oldham last week. Silly traffic restrictions, crappy signposting ... but at least those walking from Oldham to Manchester in 1819 didn't have to put up with that. But to be serious, those walks in themselves are worth an article I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on I'm being dim here. I thought we were afetr a better version of the map on this page ... Mr Stephen (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As in this page we're writing on? To clarify, the map is intended for the Peterloo Massacre article! Is that what you meant?

I must apologise Malleus; although we here in Oldham (borough) pay some of the highest council taxes in Northern England, we have some of the worst infrastructure in the region. The deadline for our borough's "rebranding" is only 5 days away, so at least we're going to have pretty border markers :). I agree that the walks are great, just look at this landscape. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was just me being silly. I wasn't really asking for an up-to-date map of Oldham's roadworks. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the map looks fine but it could do with a scale to really mean anything to someone who's not from around here - and it would look more professional. I also wholeheartedly agree with comment about the crappy signposting in Oldham - I've got lost and cursed Oldham council a few times following signs that peter out when you get to a junction. And what's with the old username on the image description Jza? Richerman (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As a non-Mancunian, I agree with a scale being provided: I've got a general idea of how far the larger places in GM are from the centre, but it's not always easy to remember them. PS. Jza, I spotted a small typo on Ashton-under-Lyne: the "L" is in lower-case. Not sure if that's easy to correct. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good feedback guys. Hassocks I'll fix the typo (that's not a problem as I have a master copy to make such changes). Richerman (and Hassocks too), I'll see what I can do about scale. Do you think we need a national map, or perhaps a scale bar? Richerman, the old user name is because I never changed over my Commons account :). --Jza84 |  Talk  23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to suggest a scale bar with miles and km. It would fit nicely in the SW corner (floating over the Cheshire Plain, I suppose!). Hassocks5489 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The hard part is finding one! Anybody have a map of GM with a scale bar on it which I could work from?

Also, coming back to the matter originally raised, Peterloo Massacre has padded out a bit, but I've tagged several statements that require citation. Anybody want to help? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, can't be bothered. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a scale bar would be best too but I don't think it has to be all that accurate. Couldn't you use the one from http://www.multimap.com and just zoom out to the right level? Richerman (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now but there's an excellent website on Peterloo here with maps from 1819 that we should be able to use and eyewitness accounts etc. enjoy! Richerman (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! Although it highlights how far we've got to go to make our page the most comprehensive source about the massacre online. I was wondering, is there not a list of those who died as part of the massacre somewhere? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo contingents and deaths

I've put together two tables in User:Jza84/Sandbox2 (which is open to all for editting). The first is intended to be a comprehensive list of the deceased of Peterloo. The second, rather poor and confusing entry, is the kind of thing that I envisage for a table/list of the contingents sent to Peterloo and their estimated size.

My point? I'm not so good with tables, and don't think my work does justice to those who died. Is anybody willing to make these two into something really special and befitting for the Peterloo Massacre article? If anybody has any thoughts or bites of info to add, again, feel free to dive in. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It says Wiiliam Bradshaw of Lily-Hill, Bury in the table. Lily Hill is now a small area in Whitefield, centred on Lily Hill Street and I don't think it would ever have been described as being in Bury in those days. It was near to the village of Whitefield then, and possibly part of Pilkington before Whitefield became a town in 1866. Richerman (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Lily-Hill was within the township or parish of Bury (certainly the latter) in 1819. I don't know anything about the place to be honest though, I just copied the source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'll have to go with what the source says. Richerman (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's still a way forwards though. We could find out where it is and redirect it to the "right town". Also, we could add something like <ref>Lily-Hill now forms part of X</ref>?? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in Whitefield now (assuming it's the same place) but I think it was probably a hamlet or village in those days. There are a few references to it being one of the places subsumed into Whitefield in 1866. see here. Anyway I'm off to bed, see you tomorrow no doubt. Richerman (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff! I'm off to bed too, so hopefully we can tackle this tomorrow. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary Representation

My apologies for a long post, but the argument does need space to be made.

I have silently looked on as you've done really good work at writing this much needed article and getting it into shape, but there's a niggling doubt I have about one aspect that always strikes me when I pass my eyes over it: In the Background section (most obviously, but possibly by implication in other places) the article states "The major urban centres of Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Blackburn, Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyme, Oldham, and Stockport with a combined population of almost one million did not have a single M.P. to represent them" Now, I know that Stockport did not (and presumably the others didn't either) have MPs representing just those settlements at the time, but I thought they did have some limited representation by means of the existing county constituencies at the time. I know this for Stockport and the areas of Greater Manchester which were in Cheshire at the time, and I am guessing that it may also have applied to the areas which used to be Lancashire (and Yorkshire) as well. Of course, the matter of who had the right to vote must be thrown into the mix here, and I'm not denying that at the time the situation was of gross under-representation, lack of franchise, and corruption of the election process which needed campaigning against. In Phillips and Phillips (2002) pages 100–103, we read the following "Before the Great Reform Act of 1832, Cheshire comprised [sic] two parliamentary constituencies, each represented by two members."(p.100); and "The county franchise was confined to men who possessed freehold property within its boundaries to the value of 40s."(p.100). It later goes on to state that the terms of being a freeholder were vague and could include many different kinds of people who could conceivably be said to possess a freehold at or above the required value. It also goes on the state that the elections were held in Chester, which required long journeys for those from distant parts of the county. On page 102 it states: "The Great Reform Act of 1832 gave separate [my emphasis] representation to the boroughs of Stockport and Macclesfield in addition to Chester (which had elected its own M.P.s since the sixteenth century.)" This strongly suggests that there were some in Stockport and all over Cheshire, including those areas now within Greater Manchester, who had the vote before 1832. This is further backed up by the series of maps which give voting patterns for various elections, including 1701, 1715, and 1734 (which includes a map that gives numbers of votes cast as well) by township (on page 101). These clearly show Stockport's townships as having votes cast (over 200 in 1734), along with other areas now in Greater Manchester who had votes registered as coming from them too. This may also be the case for areas which used to be in Lancashire (and Yorkshire.) So, I know what the text is currently trying to say, but I think at the moment it is a bit misleading. I suggest it is amended a bit in Background and a look over of the other relevant places (e.g., in the lead) to see if the text can be tweaked a little there as well. Sorry.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Phillips, A. D. M. (2002). A new historical atlas of Cheshire. Chester, UK: Cheshire County Council and Cheshire Community Council Publications Trust. ISBN 0904532461. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This looks interesting, and inline with something that another (possibly Malleus) raised last week. I think you're absolutely right though, there were overaching meta-constituencies that these places lay within. Can you think of a suitable rephrase? If not, I'll try to have a blast myself, --Jza84 |  Talk  16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a think. The additional fact quoted from Reid's book (that only 154 people elected M.P.s) seems somewhat incredible, though knowing the corruption and rotten borough situations at the time, perhaps not impossibly so, and I wonder whether that is the total number over all of the UK, or what. I'm going to go off and see if I can get actual voting figures for Cheshire which gives numbers of people rather than numbers of votes cast. As for re-wording, as a starter, which needs pruning down probably, where it says "The major urban centres of Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Blackburn, Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, Oldham, and Stockport did not have a single MP to represent them" how about working from something like "The major urban centres of Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Blackburn, Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, Oldham, and Stockport only had a property-based limited franchise to the appropriate county constituencies in which they were at the time. This meant that those comparative few people who had the franchise had to travel to sometimes distant places to cast their vote. The effect of this was that most did not have the means or opportunity to vote."?

It's certainly true that Lancashire was represented by two MPs, as was Liverpool, so that probably needs to be clarified, I agree. I don't know what the qualification for being given the vote was though. What Reid says is that the majority of MPs were elected by 154 voters, which given the rotten boroughs I don't find especially hard to swallow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to say, I think I may see where this statement is ambiguous now. My interpretation is that if there were, for the sake of argument, 500 MPs in 1819, then more than 250 of them had been voted into power by a combined electorate of 154 voters. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that interpretation is much more credible, and hardly surprising at all, given the situation at that time.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it is straying a little, it would be most interesting to see how much more specific those figures could be made for numbers of M.P.s and combined electorate. The problem is that, as Philips and Philips state for Cheshire (as well as other sources dealing with Cheshire's history I've looked at) the numbers eligible to vote were always a bit on the vague side anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The numbers of voters in the rotten boroughs are easy to tot up though. I wonder how closely they match to 154 voters? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to hopefully clarify what Manchester's political representation was in 1819. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alterations which makes it read better. However, I think it is still misleading, because the text now states that the two MPs for Lancashire represented all of the surrounding towns, when they did not: the two MPs for Cheshire represented the town of Stockport. The problem is present both in the lead and in the first paragraph of the Background section. I've made an attempt to correct this, but perhaps the text can be improved without removing the information?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, in the "Aftermath" section, the coverage of the new parliamentary representation may be a bit unbalanced. The Great Reform Act of 1832 also led to Ashton-under-Lyne being raised to a county borough, though I don't know how many MPs it had. The same goes for Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, and Stockport (which was given 2 MPs) which were all created by the same act, which are all now located within Greater Manchester, and many of which have been mentioned in the text before now. (Additionally, as a more distant aftermath, one could argue that Stalybridge's creation with 1 MP in 1868 followed directly on from Peterloo, though it is getting a bit too distant by then). Perhaps this discussion should move to the actual article page? I'll duplicate it there.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cine City Revisited

Hi, a few weeks ago I enquired about the fate of Cine City as an article. The article was tagged with a merge proposal and there doesn't seem to be any objections. My only concern is that it will disrupt the flow of the current Withington article. Is there grounds for a subsection in the Landmarks section? I have seen the building for some time, does anybody know that its been definitely demolished? This story leads me to believe it has and they are going to destroy the village with a very ugly new building. Kind regards Leibovits (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest that the article stays, and is preferably expanded. Surely a (nearly) 100 year old building will have been through enough to write an article about? Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I called around at Cine City on my way out of Manchester this morning; it is still there. I also took some photos, which I'll upload to the Commons this evening. Mike Peel (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos at commons:Category:Cine City, Withington. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was originally in favour of the merger - I may even have proposed it - but I'm changing my mind. I'd now be in favour of doing a little bit of work on the article to make sure that it doesn't fall victim to an AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started a rewrite of the article (so far offline; I plan on uploading it in a few days). However, I'm having a hard time finding out anything historical about the building online. Anything after circa 1997 is documented in news articles online; anything older than that will mostly be in old newspapers articles, or books. All of the early history that I've found is:

The cinema opened in 1912 as The Scala. It was the third cinema to open in Britain, and was the third longest running cinema at the time of its closure. It had 675 seats in three cinema screens. Repairs had to be made to both the cinema and the road outside after they were hit by a small bomb on the night of 1 October 1940, during World War II.

Can anyone provide any more information than this, and if possible, some old (i.e. pre 2004) photographs of the cinema? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a series of books called Cinemas of ... and I seem to remember seeing a copy of Cinemas of Manchester in a library recently. I've certainly found the Cinemas of Trafford useful in the past. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

Congratulation to user:Mike Peel on the inclusion of Hulme Arch Bridge on the DYK page today. I'm sure the Peterloo Massacre article must qualify as a new article by now. Anyone want to suggest a good "hook"? Richerman (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion: The Guardian newspaper was founded 189 years ago in Manchester, England, as a direct response to the Peterloo Massacre in which cavalry charged into a crowd peacefully demonstrating for parliamentary reform, resulting in 15 deaths and over 600 injuries. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I should have said, it should be less than 200 characters and contain a cited fact from the article (I imagine that one probably is cited). The rules are at Wikipedia:Did you know. Richerman (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never taken much interest in DYK, as must now be obvious. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it is worth it. The day Shambles Square was on it got 2,800 hits. Richerman (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, just looked out the window and it's snowing! Richerman (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Snowing here too; I though we'd seen the last of winter. ;-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Woop! Dianne got the weather right for once. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wigan

A bit of TLC from us for some of the Wigan related material wouldn't go amiss. The Wigan Borough has some of the least, or under-developed articles for the project.

What's really concerning me is the content of Talk:Wigan too though, and I think a bit of communal intervention would help there emmensely! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wigan? Where's Wigan? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently next to the town of Pemberton! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Museums in Greater Manchester

Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in Greater Manchester. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod ^talk 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this include heritage centres, art galleries, private-commercial exhibition spaces? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes all of those are within the scope although we are still clarifying exactly what the limits of this are - however it does not include aquaria, herbaria, zoos and other non-museum 'collections' because these are well-covered in other projects.— Rod ^talk 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter VI

Delivered on April 9th, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Hi everyone. Just finished the April newsletter. I'll post out to everyone tomorrow afternoon/evening but thought I'd post it here first for proofreading. Enjoy! —PolishName 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job, one question though, what's meant by "Please remember the and the are in permanent need of attention"? Nev1 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This was caused by using [[Category rather than [[:Category to link to the categories; it is now fixed.

By the way, I have a fairly decent camera (a Canon EOS 400D), and am willing to take photos of things around Manchester if anyone wants specific images. I'm based at the University, so there and the city centre are the easiest places for me to get to to take photos, but I have transport so can make the occasional trip further afield. The photos I've taken so far for Wikipedia (or rather, for myself, but then uploaded to Wikipedia) are at commons:User:Mike Peel. Mike Peel (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured contect goes" - I think that should be featured content. Richerman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I'll send it out now. (Really liked your pictures by the way Mike Peel) —PolishName 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Need some input from the team

The Peterloo Massacre is up for FA, and is doing OK so far, but it really needs some input from the rest of the team. For instance, it's been suggested that the Eye witness accounts section be merged into the rest of the article. Do we agree? There are no big deals, and if we just address the minor issues being raised at the FA review this article will be passed, I'm quite sure.

I nominated this article on behalf of the project, and I'd like to see the project get involved in it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I look at some of the comments and shake my head, but hold fast my fingers. I thought you (MF) were going to add a contrarian eyewitness account? One noting that some of the protestors were armed, for instance? I think I can find 'reliable' sources if you like. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever help you can offer will be gratefully received. But I think the objection to the 'Eye witness accounts' section is that it is basically just a list of quotes, and that it ought to be integrated into the rest of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody be willing and able to travel to Middleton Library and photograph the surviving Peterloo Banner they have on display there? No rush, but it would be great! Certainly a barnstar up for grabs (for what it's worth!) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be really great if someone could do that. I think we can get this FA, if we just keep on top of it. We wrote a great article on an event that's not been given the recognition that it deserves, either locally or nationally, and it's being improved and polished in the FA review. Come on, we can do this! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find 'more reliable' sources than Farrer & Brownbill (for ref 6). The Prentice quote can be taken back to the source, a couple are in a MRHR paper, but "Nevertheless the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, on 27 August conveyed to the magistrates the thanks of The Prince Regent for their action in the "preservation of the public peace"." and "When some demonstrators tried to stop them by linking arms, the militia began to strike at them with their sabres." don't seem to fit the ref. Where should I be looking? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Victoria County History book is as reliable as you can get!? It even cites its own sources! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought so too. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not clear. I think it's reliable, a FA reviewer does not. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... --Jza84 |  Talk  00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FA reviewers aren't infallible, just point out that it's a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Next newsletter

I'm nominating myself, pretty much (for writing the next newsletter). Basketball110 _{pick away...} 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to reading it! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started soon. Basketball110 _{pick away...} 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

I've nominated the Peterloo Massacre at FAC on behalf of the whole project. If we keep on top of the comments I can see no reason why by this time next week it won't be a well-deserved FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also put a nomination on the Did you know submission page for 2008-04-05 with the hook

"Did you know that The Guardian newspaper was founded 189 years ago in Manchester, England, as a direct response to the Peterloo Massacre (pictured)?" Richerman (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that is nice. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better than my feeble effort. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Did we achieve this? I'm not too hot on DYK either! :-( --Jza84 |  Talk  22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Message of admiration

One was left for me (!?) for Peterloo making the main page as a DYK hook today. However, I feel this belongs more to Richerman, Malleus, Mr Stephen and the rest of WP:GM. Here it is:

"Nice work! I added this T:DYK hook into rotation at Portal:Journalism and Portal:Criminal justice. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

So there you have it, it's on those portals now too! Great work guys! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which also gives us the first tick on the project's list of "Aims"  :-) Richerman (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FA/GAs

Nice to see in the latest GM newsletter that we're one of the leading local geography projects in terms of FA/GAs, but distressing to see that the London project still has more GAs than we do. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, once Peterloo is sorted (and it will be!), I'm willing to get Salford to GA. It's not far off. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have many GA's because because we don't mess about with GA but go straight for FA, unless it's a small subject like Kersal Moor :-) Richerman (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You had a whole moor to write about, I only had a peat bog. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but a 27.5 Km bog as opposed to an 8 hectare moor, so I reckon I've got more refs per square metre, Ha! take that varlet!!! Richerman (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, Salford is still quite some way off. It starts off really well, then kind of tails off at the end of Geography. :-( --Jza84 |  Talk  13:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo massacre

Thanks to a great collaboratorive effort, the Peterloo massacre article achieved the front page with the did you know section and Featured Article status all in one week. On thing asked for in the FA review was a photograph of the only known surviving banner, that was said to be kept in Middleton library. I called in today and they do have a replica of the banner on display (It's a sort of cream coloured writing on a dark blue background) but they don't allow photographs to be taken in the library without the permission of the Local Studies officer, Julian Jefferson, based at Touchstones in Rochdale. The original banner has deteriorated badly and was repaired some time ago but is no longer on display. They do have monochrome photographs of the original but they are for personal use only - although although the librarian at Middleton thought that permission to use them in wikipedia would robably be given if asked for. She did say that someone else had been asking about this recently - one of our editors I suspect. Richerman (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I'm waiting for a reply to an email. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, good man that man. Richerman (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When I've approached Flickr contributors for permission to use their photos they usually grant it once they realise that they will be creditted on one of the internets most visited sites. I imagine that we will give Middleton/Rochdale Library Services a mention if we're successful?? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They have a poster on the wall telling the story of Peterloo - sponsored by the co-op bank. Most of it was stuff we'd used with a fair bit about Samuel Bamford - well he was a son of Middleton after all. There is an interesting map of St Peters Field on the day too. Perhaps they'll put some copies of the article in the library. Richerman (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Withington Cotton House

... is at AfD. All input welcome, no doubt. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete . Mr Stephen (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Didsbury, East & West

I'm thinking of tagging West Didsbury and East Didsbury to be merged with Didsbury. So far as I'm aware they're just wards, and I can't really see either of them developing beyond where they're at today.

Any thoughts? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. lol ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom too! --Jza84 |  Talk  10:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge East Didsbury into Didsbury certainly. West Didsbury could be seen as being a distinct area, though. If there were more to the article I'd be keen to keep it separate. At the moment perhaps consider merging it with the potential of one day developing West Didsbury out again? -- Fursday 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are a little more than wards, and are (in my opinion) two distinct areas from Didsbury. They have different cultures etc. and are notable enough to have their own pages. I can help develop them, if that is necessary. Rudget 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to offer an opinion on the merge proposal here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

Congratulations on getting Peterloo Massacre featured! It's a great article: thorough and well-written. I had never heard of the incident, and the article did a great job of introducing and explaining the importance. All of you who worked on it should be proud of yourselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.202.248 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 April 2008

Thanks; I know we all are. On a simillar note, I've made a graphic improvement request here, feedback welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Platt Fields Park DYK nomination

I feel a bit spoilt for choice for a DYK nomination for Platt Fields Park, as there's several fairly juicy facts... I'm leaning towards:

• ... that Platt Fields Park in Manchester, England, was used as a country park for over 400 years before being converted for public use in 1908-1910?

... but it's maybe a little dry. Does anyone have any suggestions for a better one / alternates? Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what caught my eye:

• ... that there are over 43 languages spoken round Platt Fields Park in Manchester, England. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Ramsbottom page

special:contributions/86.1.137.54 insists on putting references to ""world champion tosser" on the Ramsbottom page with reference to the black pudding throwing competition. I suppose that's the problem with having articles including silly competitions in the first place. It's getting tedious as they've reverted the changes to this six times up to now but never too often in a twenty four hour period. I've created a talk page and left a warning but I'd be grateful if others could keep an eye on the Ramsbottom page. Richerman (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that and reverted it a few times as well. I don't have a problem with mentioning the competition in the article, but I do think there's too much on it, which is encouraging the vandalism. I'n not especially happy about including the Rammy mile either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. I think most places have their own local "mile" pub crawl, It's hardly notable. Richerman (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you imagine Britannica or Encarta reporting on these?? I think not! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it. I've also removed the Didsbury Dozen from that article. On a related note, did anyone else notice that Dunham Town was returned to Cheshire again this afternoon, as was Dunham Massey this evening? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The used to fight wars over that sort of thing - is that what you call a bloodless coup? Richerman (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)