Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A bit of help please...

I am currently thinking about improving the Transport in Manchester article as it already has a very good base to start with and I need a little advice. I have created a table with all the stations within the City of Manchester on my sandbox page (not totally finished yet) and I don't know whether to put it on the Transport page or put it on a new page called "List of stations in Manchester" or something to that effect with a link at the top of the rail section. Also if anybody knows the opening years of the stations which have question marks please feel free to add them on my page. Thanks people. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 07:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to put disused stations in the article as well, such as Manchester Mayfield railway station? Fingerpuppet 10:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was put in a list article then yes definatly but if it goes to the Transport article I don't think it would be totally relevant. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say make it a list of. It seems odd to have the passenger numbers in thousands with three decimal places, they might as well be given as absolute numbers. Oldelpaso 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

True, I was going to do it in millions at first which is what mainline stations are all in but the quickly realised that some of the stations are barely used. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the metrolink lines at Victoria and Picadilly get a mention or is it railways only? Richerman 15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure on that one as the list of lines at Piccadilly is going to be huge when I finish typing it so maybe I will just stick to railway lines. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot of the material in that article pertains to Greater Manchester rather than Manchester (GMPTE, Metrolink, M60, etc). Would this article not be better titled Transport in Greater Manchester? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think another article could be created for Greater Manchester but I think this one should stay as Transport in Manchester as all the other large cities have a "Transport in [...]" article. I will make sure that one of the first things I do when working on the article is switch the focus solely onto Manchester. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Anyone interested in the Manchester Airport article?, some it's sub-pages have been put up for deletion review after closing of AFD. See here for the appropirate thread. I thought it'd be a good idea to put it here since the article is rated as top importance, on the WPGM importance scale. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and regarding my closure of the first two AFDs, see here. Rudget _zŋ

Aims

I think we need to re-outline the aims of the project. Here are my suggestions:

1. Bring Manchester up to featured article status. (*)
2. Bring Greater Manchester up to good article status.
3. Change the remaining infoboxes on the borough's article to the same ones as Trafford and Tameside.
4. Make sure each of the borough articles have a photo in the infobox of the centre of administration. (May require some editors to take photos)
5. Bring Oldham up to good article status.
6. Possibly bring in some form of incentive competition to bring some of the many stub and start class articles up to a better standard. I recently found this Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Jumpaclass which allows users to sort of adopt and article and receive points for bringing an article up one class. The points are then added up and I would guess the winner(s) get a barnstar or something. It would be extremely simple to implement and I think it would really encourage the participants to start being more Bold in their editing to push up the general standard of the project. I think the timescales on the LGBT project are maybe a little too short as if some proper research is done and editors have a life it can take more than a week for some good quality editing.

Key: (*) = top priority aim

Any additions to the list are welcome and any comments on the "Jumpaclass" idea would be great! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for any comments! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "re-outling" is needed. The borough articles are coming along, Oldham is well on its way to FA, other articles are progressing towards GA, and to be honest I'm not at all happy about the "points mean prizes" idea behind Jumpaclass. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we still need some way of organising a way for participants to always be involved. At the moment articles are being developed at random when some of the top class articles are very very poor and desperatly need some TLC. Maybe just collab of the month will have to do then? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. Just look at the help I've been given with the Chat Moss article this evening, and what's been done with the Salford article over the last few days. Maybe that's a possible way forwards? When an editor has done as much as (s)he thinks (s)he can with a particular article, then call for support to raise it to the next level? I'm not sure that we all need to pile in on any particular article. My feeling is that each of us should perhaps be encouraged to adopt one of these unloved top articles. But the bottom line of course is that few editors will be willing to work on articles that don't interest them in some way. I certainly wouldn't be for one, no matter how important to any project. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But that is the whole point of a project... That's why we have article assessments to tell us which articles need the most attention in order to 'expand Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester'. It isn't just a place to ask for help, although that is the main advantage. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends. There probably isn't one "whole point of a project"; I'm sure we each have our views about what's important, and it won't always map onto the GM assessement scale. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the first time I've spotted this talk chain (must've been overlooked as other topics were posted). I too am not too sure about a jumpclass prizes system. I don't think we have the numbers of regular participants yet to make it have enough worth (I would imagine the same 3 users would keep "winning").

As for the aims, it will naturally need updating and redefining every month or so as we make progress and identify new areas for development. I do think its latter points need a little TLC, though I'm not sure that, as a project, Oldham would form a key article to develop to FA for example; despite how much I would like to be. Certainly we're lagging with DYK? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody help?

Anybody know of a source that could fill in the gaps in the following table? It's for the population change of Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Year	1801	1811	1821	1831	1841	1851	1861	1871	1881	1891	1901	1911	1921	1931	1939	1951	1961	1971	2001
Population											644,873	714,333	730,307	766,378	621,895	703,082	661,791	543,741
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time

According to the same website, the population of Manchester Sanitary District was 505,368 in 1891. Care should be taken, though, as there's a boundary change to be taken account of.

This data is based around the Poor Law Union, which as you can see had massively different boundaries to the County Borough of the late 19th and early 20th centuries... Again, it's from A Vision of Britain through Time

Year	1801	1811	1821	1831	1841	1851	1861	1871	1881	1891	1901	1911	1921	1931	1939	1951	1961	1971	2001
Population	81,299	92,246	124,397	164,378	192,403	228,433	243,998	251,956	148,794	145,100	132,316	113,765

Finally, the 2001 Urban Sub-Division population (basically the 1973 County Borough) was 394,269. The Metropolitan District figure should be easy to locate for that data too. Fingerpuppet 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, from Kidd, based on the municipal boundaries of 1838

Year	1801	1811	1821	1831	1841	1851	1861	1871	1881	1891	1901	1911	1921	1931	1939	1951	1961	1971	2001
Population	76,788*	91,136*	129,035*	187,022*	242,983*	316,213*					644,873	714,333	730,307	766,378	621,895	703,082	661,791	543,741
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time *Kidd, Manchester (Based on the municipal boundaries of 1838)

Mr Stephen 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I think this takes us to the following so far. I'd be interested to know where the figures for 1981 and '91 exist. There's still a couple of gaps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Year	1801	1811	1821	1831	1841	1851	1861	1871	1881	1891	1901	1911	1921	1931	1939	1951	1961	1971	1981	1991	2001
Population	76,788	91,136	129,035	187,022	242,983	316,213					644,873	714,333	730,307	766,378	621,895	703,082	661,791	543,741			394,269
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time Kidd, Manchester

Or, Cities, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 203-212, 1996, City profile Manchester Table 1 Metropolitan Manchester's population

                  1801   1851    1901    1951    1991
Manchester City ~ 77,000 316,000 544,000 703,000 440,000
Boundary changes arising from municipal amalgamations until the 1930s. (sic)

Mr Stephen 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally (I knew I'd seen it somewhere): http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/A20_Man_Historic_pop.pdf Mr Stephen 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I wonder if simillar material exists for each of the other GM boroughs. Would be nice to produce something akin to this for Demography of Greater Manchester. I'll make the changes to the table for Manchester in the meantime however. Thanks again! -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1991 Manchester Urban Subdivision population is 402,889[1]. 1981 data doesn't seem to be easily available on the ONS website - I'll keep looking.

I'd warn against using these sorts of statistics for any other GM borough - all of the post 1974 GM Metropolitan Boroughs (bar Manchester) bear little resemblance to the like-named town, so most population comparisions pre-1974 and post-1974 are relatively meaningless at the local authority level. On the settlement level, however, comparing the pre-1974 local authorities and the modern Urban Sub-division is valid. Fingerpuppet 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vision of Britain seems to have done some work on pooling statistics from pre-74 districts into what became the modern boroughs. There's stuff for Oldham Met. Borough for example, here.

To quote.... "Most of our historical statistics were originally gathered for units with quite different boundaries. To give you a clear picture of long-run change, we have used our detailed information on boundaries and population distribution to redistrict the historical statistics to the modern units." - I'm not sure if you object to this as a source though; I know you're very well informed on districts and populations. What do you think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting - there's a set for Manchester as well. I wouldn't be convinced by them - they'll be approximately correct, but the output areas (or equivalents) won't match up and approximations will creep in. Any use of the statistics would have to come with an clear explanatory note on them, stating something like "approximate population of the area now covered by the Metropolitan Borough of X". Fingerpuppet 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The present Manchester demography table looks fine on the screen, but when printing out the right side of the table isn't printed, part of 1921 onwards is missing. I solved this problem for the Greater Manchester demography table with a different table. I suggest to follow this type of table for Manchester. The only thing with this new table, the manchester.gov.uk source doesn't have the figures for 1881 and 1939. There's a few choices for this, firstly: leave 1881 and 1939 with them unavailable, secondly: alter the table by removing 1881 and 1939, or thirdly: find another source for those years. As you may be aware, the 1941 census didn't place because of the second war. There are 1939 figures which were an estimation from the National Registration figures. The table below is the first one I suggest:

Year	Population		Year	Population		Year	Population
1801	70,409		1871	351,189		1939	unavailable
1811	79,459		1881	unavailable		1951	703,082
1821	108,016		1891	454,482		1961	661,791
1831	142,026		1901	543,872		1971	543,650
1841	242,983		1911	714,333		1981	437,660
1851	303,382		1921	730,307		1991	404,861
1861	335,722		1931	766,378		2001	392,819
Source: Office for National Statistics (2007). "Manchester's Population Historically" (PDF). manchester.gov.uk.

What are people's view on this suggestion? Cwb61 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent suggestion. I like your new version a lot. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Though I would recommend it use reduced text size, perhaps at 90%? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the population change table on the Manchester page. I agree the font size is better at 90%. The only change is from "1939/unavailable" to "1941/not taken ‡" and below a footnote after the source. Cwb61 (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really excellent work! Thank you!.... have you considered joining us at the project? I know you've done some excellent work for Bolton and district, -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The new box looks better than the old one but it is creating a huge amount of white space for me and other people I have talked to. Could we maybe merge the religion box into "Manchester Compared" and then maybe move the population change to the top left or switch with the comparison box? It really does look out of place and lonely on its own with no text to sit next to it. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier. I certainly favour merging the other two tables and integrating the population table with the text rather have it standing on its own. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side issue to all the above, some time ago I added on the 'History of Manchester' article that by 1900 Manchester was the 9th most populous city in the world. I used the following oft used source - http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201f.htm. Given that the figures are at odds with the new population box created recently, should I withdraw the statement or do people still feel it is still ok? I'm easy either way GRB1972 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That figure would be for Manchester, Salford and Stretford, at a guess. Not wrong just different. Mr Stephen 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe wording it "The Manchester city region was the ninth most populous in the world in 1900"? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll revise as suggested. GRB1972 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

Can I make members of this project aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). Comments and opinions in whichever direction would be appreciated to form a wide consensus. Regan123 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete all. Regan123 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester overspill estate category

Hello team,

Does anybody else agree that a "Category:Manchester overspill estates" would be helpful? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Me, but you already know that. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - what would it include? Rudget _zŋ 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd include all the council estates built by Manchester City Council in the mid-20th century. I don't know them all, which is why I'm interested in finding a way to identify them. Hattersley is one, so is Langley, Greater Manchester. There are some in Warrington and Crewe too, which would mean we may wish to tag them as part of this project.

They were built as part of Manchester's slum clearances, which resulted in a massive drop in Manchester's overall population (nearly halved!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. As you say, it would go some towards explaining the massive drop in Manchester's population. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could be a goer, and we could reference it. A few sensitive words at the category page would be in order, though. "Overspill" still carries quite a punch, and some estates that were originally overspills have changed in character. There should be some still-active news items about the subject, I'm fairly sure that some estates were polled recently (ie 2007) to see if they wanted to be run by Manchester City Council (or whoever they devolved the running of whatever council houses are called now) or if they wanted to be transferred to some other body (a housing associateion at a guess). Mr Stephen (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that Wythenshawe falls into this category? I know of one other which is at Ramsbottom. Perhaps if everyone were to add the ones they know of here we would end up with a full list. Richerman (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wythenshawe is an overspill estate. Others are Colshaw Farm estate, Damhill, Haughton Green, Partington, Langley, Sale West, Worsley, Hattersley. There are loads. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Seems like an excellent idea, and I'd be happy to help. Although I'd predict some users won't be very happy with the title, as Mr Stephen points out. But apart from that, yes. Rudget _zŋ 11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We could use "Category:Housing estates commissioned by Manchester City Councl" or something simillar (by less lengthy!), -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Stockport has Manchester overspill estates at Bredbury, Bredbury Green, Hawk Green, Rose Hill, Bramhall, Cheadle and Heald Green [2]. Would we (eg) tag Bramhall as an overspill? (Hell, let's do it for the crack!) Mr Stephen (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Worsley overspill estates in Little Hulton were from the Salford overspill rather than Manchester. GRB1972 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad source

-- Jza84 · (talk) has already made a plea to look for better sources than www.manchester2002-uk.com, which is admittedly a very nice looking site. But every fact from that web site that I've had reason to double check with more reliable sources has proven to be incorrect, most recently this evening with the listed building status of Wythenshawe Hall.

We have a list of reliable sources on the project's main page, but the warnings about unreliable sources get archived and forgotten. Which they ought not to be. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps replacing all the citations of that site should be one of the 'Things you can do' on the project page? I see from this page that the number of links is now 131. Mr Stephen 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For reference, listed buildings in Manchester are here. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Owdham!

Hello team! Just a quick note that Oldham is going for WP:FA status! I hope you can spare a few moments to read and learn all about this poor old town! It's nomination page is found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham. Thanks guys, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ... anyway, I'm expecting the whole team to pitch in behind this FA nomination, and to help where they can. I will be for one. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted. Well done. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup well done, the Oldham article is now officially FA standard :) ---- WebHamster 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester

The time is right, I have nominated it for WP:FA status. All comments and support/opposition to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester please and hopefully this article, central to our project, will get the recognition it deserves! Also remember that if you have contributed significantly to this article please do not vote but you can still comment! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope it succeeds! Rudget.talk 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done

WP:UKCOUNTIES

In addition to my work here, I've been working with my other WikiProject (don't fret - it is related!), UK geography.

I co-wrote the WP:UKCITIES standard with some excellent users this summer, and am now involved with developing a WP:UKCOUNTIES standard. This could have implications for Greater Manchester, and our sister counties of Lancashire and Cheshire... and Merseyside!

I just wondered if users from this very strong team could spare a moment at take a look at WP:UKCOUNTIES and see what they think. If you spot a mistake, you are free to edit the guidelines at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll have a more detailed overview in the next few days. Rudget.talk 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lostock edit war

There seems to be a slow edit war here whether Lostock in Bolton is

1. Lostock
2. Lostock, Bolton
3. Lostock, Bolton, Greater Manchester
4. Lostock, Greater Manchester
5. or at the current name Lostock (Greater Manchester).

An apparently there is another Lostock in Lancasire anyway (also called Lostock Hall). Simply south 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And Lostock Gralam Simply south 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), in conjunction with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), standard disambiguation is always "PLACENAME, CEREMONIAL COUNTY", where disambiguation is needed. In this capacity, the article should be titled Lostock, Greater Manchester (without brackets). -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I would suggest that only where there are two places within the same ceremonial county should the form "placename, local authority" is preferred - unless one of the settlements is distinctly more important than the other, in which case the more important does not need the local authority suffix. See Springfield, Birmingham and Springfield, Wolverhampton for the former and Willenhall and Willenhall, Coventry for the latter. In this case, I don't see a problem with simply Lostock, as it's clearly the most important settlement of that name. Fingerpuppet 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware about the edit war or this discussion. I had noticed on my watchlist that Lostock was changed to Lostock, Greater Manchester, the present title. So I removed redirect for Lostock and created a disambigation page, but moved it to Lostock (disambiguation). I then directed any links for the one in Greater Manchester to Lostock, Greater Manchester. It was then I found about this discussion. I have to agree that there is only one called Lostock on Wikipedia's website, see List of United Kingdom locations: Lol-Lov‎. The others, for example Lostock Hall and Lostock Gralam are double-named places. I feel its a case that all or none of them should have the ceremonial county additional. Cwb61 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I requested a synop move from Lostock (Greater Manchester) to Lostock, Greater Manchester simply to ensure consistency. But, if no disambiguation is needed, a move to Lostock seems perfectly reasonable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I realised about the title change and the naming conventions, the ceremonial county comes after a comma not in brackets. I've decided to leave its title as it is. If someone requests to move its title back to simply as Lostock, then I don't have any problem with that either. Cwb61 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Lostock in Greater Manchester

I've found there is a second Lostock in Greater Manchester, which is in Trafford. By using a search engine and typing Lostock+Trafford+Stretford, comes up with a number of results. For a few examples: Lostock Neighbourhood Forum 1, Lostock Community High School 2, and Index to places served by school buses in Trafford 3.
There are some Wikipedia articles mention about this second Lostock. In the Trafford article mentions the Lostock settlement in North Trafford, and in the Stretford article has a Lostock library. In the articles First Manchester and Stagecoach Manchester refer to the Lostock in Trafford Borough.
I suggest the present article Lostock, Greater Manchester moved to Lostock, Bolton. The second Lostock could then be Lostock, Trafford. Cwb61 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lostock is an area east of J9 of the M60, between Urmston and Stretford. On old maps of the area you can see the fields marked clearly. Lostock Road heads in that direction, to J9 of the M60. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with this going ahead, but I would ask if we believe a Lostock, Trafford to be notable enough to get an article? Certainly the very smallest of areas are usually unlinked and mentioned in larger, "mother" articles. I'm not from that side of GM so I'm not sure myself, hense the question. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Lostock, Trafford is quite small and if it did have its own article the information would be minimal. But to stop any future disambiguation I thought it was best to move the present Lostock, Greater Manchester to Lostock, Bolton. I only found about the Lostock in Trafford was because I was looking information and references for the Lostock in Bolton. Cwb61 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a small note of Trafford's Lostock on the Lostock (disambiguation) page so people will know it exists but doesn't have an article. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal

New look! - Still working on it. Hoping to get it to WP:FPO! Rudget.talk 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks good! If there's anyway I can help, perhaps with making graphics, do please give me a shout! -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's up as a candidate now. Hoepfully I've done everything right. Rudget.talk 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Organisation help please

Hi guys, as you may or may not know, over the last few weeks I've been beavering away on a total rewrite of the Belle Vue Zoo article. The problem is that I have some very good reference material and quite a large surfeit of info. This is where the limitations of some of my disabilities come to the surface. I have Asperger's and Adult Attention Deficit Disorder, the upshot being is that I am finding it very difficult to distil the information down to what is appropriate and interesting (us Aspies thrive on trivia so aren't very good at deciding what should or shouldn't stay). I'm also having problems organising the information.

My initial intention was to section the article into the 3 different companies that ran it which will mean that some of the sub-sections will repeat but with differing content.

I have enough information for multiple pages, there's more than enough for an article on the Jennisons alone (I've started one in user space) so again I'm not sure how to distribute the info. I have an awful lot on the early days (pre-1925) but don't know if a lot of it is entirely relevant and/or interesting.

All I really need is someone to oversee my work just to check I'm going in the right direction, I don't expect anyone to have to do any substantial editing (though copy-editing will be more than welcome) or researching as I've bought several books and reference sources so can do that myself. Any other advice is always welcome too. I reckon I could get this article up to FA, but I'm going to need guidance. Cheers --WebHamster 03:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that the article will also be filled out with much more info on the Gardens, the zoo itself, the circus, the exhibition halls (which were a very popular concert venue at the time), the speedway stadium and the amusement park. There's so much to cover I'm not sure if it's going to be too much for one article, and/or whether or not individual articles (or subpages) are notable enough in their own right. If not this is going to be a massive article when I've finished. --WebHamster 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be shaping up nicely, and your structure works for me - well done so far. I've only got one initial comment, and that's to do with references. If you're hoping to get this article up to FA (or even GA) then they will be crucial. There aren't anything like enough inline citations in the article at present, and it's a lot of work to have to go back through and put them in later, particularly when the reference is a book and you're trying to find the relevant page number(s); I'd strongly suggest referencing the material as you add it to the article. I'd also suggest structuring the References section like the Manchester or Stretford articles.

I've added Belle Vue Zoo to my watchlist, and I'm sure that others will be more than happy to help as well. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help, it's (it is <g>) much appreciated. As regards the inline citations, well that was sort of deliberate. All (well most/99% anyway) of the info is coming from the 2 books I've listed as sources. If there's a reference that doesn't come from the books then I use an inline. The problem I foresaw with supplying page references was the repetition. In fact so much repetition I thought it would be redundant and distract from any references from other sources. Additionally I've already hit on the problem of nested references (or lack of ability to do them) e.g. the Maharajah section. The other problem with only having 2 sources which overlap a lot is knowing which bit of the article needs to be picked out for a page reference as technically I could do it for virtually every sentence. Of the books I'm using, one, The Belle Vue Story is exceptionally well researched and in excruciating detail but is badly laid out and organised with information all over the place, whereas Belle Vue Manchester's Playground is much better organised but light on details being predominantly a photo collection. So I'm using the latter as a means to focus on certain areas with the former supplying the details. This of course makes it difficult for me to get it organised in my head, much less choose which should have specific citations. I'd be grateful for any advice on how to implement this. Likewise if someone could tag any specific bits that cry out for a citation then I could supply the necessary details. --WebHamster 11:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The problem with the reference style used at Manchester is that it fails rather badly with multiple references to a single source. It will become a pig to find where stuff that you've added is in a book, let alone stuff that someone else has added. My prefered style is used at Johannes Kepler, that is a "Notes and references" section then a "Bibliography" section. In wikimarkup it would be

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,<ref>Smith, p 100.</ref>

...consectetuer adipiscing elit.<ref>Smith, pp 100–3; Jones, p 45.</ref>

==Notes and references==

{{refs}}

==Bibliography==

{{cite book | first = ...

{{cite book | first = ... (to suit)

There are other WP:MOS issues, but worry about that later, get the copy in for now. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, yes the Kepler article looks more appropriate to the referencing I have available. I don't really see a problem with the Manchester article referencing, but 1) what do I know <g> 2) I don't think it's appropriate to the way I envisage the BVZ article going.

Yes I realise there's MoS issues but to be honest I've ignored them (apart from the obvious ones) for the time being. I've set it up for the moment as a way for me to organise the info and most of the sections are being used as placeholders cum aide memoires. This is where the AADD rears its ugly head as I tend to flit between the sections, though some of this is partly to stop the intermediate article being to heavy on one particular subtopic.

Well both your comments have given me directions to go in and work to do so I'm obliged. I think I will go through the article supplying the page numbers etc before I do any more adding of info, if only to make it easier later on. I have to say though, it's this sort of wiki-gnoming I'm better at rather than article writing :) --WebHamster 13:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick bit of help please

As you probably all know, Manchester is up for WP:FAC but since then a user has been to the article and tried to improve the demography section. I do believe it is the weakest section of the article and I have done a bit of a re-write of it and expansion on my sandbox but it needs a bit more text so it at least fills past the population history graph. So if anybody can help add some more information to it and correct anything I have done wrong. It needs to be done pretty quickly really before the FAC closes. Thanks in advance! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could people please take a look at the newly updated Manchester demography section and correct anything I have made a mistake on please! I am bound to have done something wrong! Thanks. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me! A vast improvement on the previous version. It feels much more FA standard now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A note from the Manchester FAC was do we really need the full addresses of the foreign consulates in the article? I don't believe we do but if somebody thinks they should be there I am happy for them to stay. Opinions please! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need the full addresses. I also think it could (albeit innocently) be a breach of WP:NOT#DIR. I don't have strong feelings on this though; I will certainly sleep at night if it stays or goes! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Mr. I removed them for now as your right about the directory policy but if somebody feels strongly otherwise with a fair rationale they can be put back on. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you made the right call in removing the consulate addresses. And your new improved Demography section looks great. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! There doesn't seem to be many comments being made on the FAC so maybe that is a good thing? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope so. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done yaaaaaay! Manchester is a WP:FA at last! Well done all! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Yeah! :) Good work, everyone! Rudget _talk 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

List of companies based in Greater Manchester

I am going to try to make List of companies based in Greater Manchester, a featured list. It might take a while though. Just thought I'd tell you! :) Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Would you put putting it into tabular form with details of the town it is located in, revenue, profits, established date etc? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's even better than what I was thinking. And seen as there are no other lists like it, it might be that bit harder. But, always one for a challenge regarding an article, or list. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Well if you have trouble finding any figures or data I am sure others and I will be able to help you. Good luck. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)