Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 11 July 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #98

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue XVII - July 2009 June issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Promoted articles: Cheadle Hulme is a suburb of Stockport that formed from several small hamlets, rather than growing around a church which was usual for medieval villages, although there is evidence of activity dating back to the Bronze Age. The Cheadle Hulme railway station was opened in 1845 and was the second railway station in the settlement. June's DYK?: Did you know that after the collapse of the Broughton Suspension Bridge in 1831, the British military introduced the order to "break step" when soldiers were crossing a bridge? Featured on the Did you know? section on 6 June 2009. Other news: Recently Salford was turned into a disambiguation page with the article on the settlement moved to Salford, Greater Manchester. This will hopefully make it clearer to the reader that Salford, Greater Manchester, and the City of Salford are not the same thing. Just remember to specify which Salford next time you're adding a wikilink to an article! Although it wasn't technically this month, list of people from Wigan was created on 2 July, and any help populating the list with sourced names would be great. It's one of nine such list for the boroughs in Greater Manchester (Bury doesn't have a list yet) and they all need populating. There is currently a discussion on our project's importance scale which has been adopted by WP:YORKS, and what it should cover. Please feel free to join in, the more people are involved the better! Remember to be careful about editors claiming places are still in Lancashire, today I had to revert someone insisting that Leigh isn't in Greater Manchester and recently the Friends of Real Lancashire voiced their dislike of the Lancashire article so this issue isn't going to go away. Just remember that the project watchlist can help us catch vandalism and is worth checking from time to time. WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff. Aims Our extant short-term project aims: Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Stockport Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Obtain GA status for Manchester city centre. Obtain GA status for Congestion charging in Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF). Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Recently another aim was added: bringing Stockport to GA standard. It's currently C-class and has some well developed sections. It will be a difficult task, but worthwhile considering it's Greater Manchester's third largest settlement. Also, the importance of bringing Salford to GA has been emphasised; it's currently B-class and should be the easiest of our aims to accomplish, although it's been there for a long time. Let's see if we can put this one to rest soon. Member News No new members joined the project in June and there are 45 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 20 members inactive since 1 January 2009). The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Manchester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. The project compared In June, WP:LON has a massive upsurge in the number of FAs, with some great work by Iridescent in promoting a swathe of bridge articles to FA. WP:YORKS has over taken WP:GM in terms of GAs, and for the first time since June 2008 (when WP:LON had the lead), WP:GM is not the project with most GAs. In June, the Derwent Valley Mills became a GA and is WP:DERBY's first GA although there are more likely candidates in the pipeline. WP:CHES continues to perform strongly considering it has few active editors, and in June John Douglas (architect) was promoted to FA and there is currently a FLC. In June, there was discussion at WT:MERSEY about how to generate more audited content (ie: GAs and FAs) and since then one article has been promoted to GA, there is one GAC and other articles being prepared for GAC.   GTRM LOND YORK MRSY CHES DERB FA 39 32 24 8 5 0 A 0 1 0 0 1 0 GA 44 32 45 12 23 1 B 106 230 191 32 88 37 C 115 59 246 108 71 71 Start 740 1823 2211 605 528 485 Stub 771 1236 3688 498 454 707 List 52 80 132 23 29 25 Unassessed 0 2825 1 305 0 1 Total 1867 6318 6538 1591 1199 1327 Reminders... Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images. Articles needing attention Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Written by Nev1, based on a template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!

Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wall

My copy of Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack) was a double album. Look at the article- the album is 74 minutes long, far too long for two sides of vinyl. It may have been a single elsewhere, but I've never seen it as one. Even Allmusic think it's a double. Rodhullandemu 15:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My ex-wife's copy was a single (it had to be her's, I'd die if anyone saw it in my collection! <_>). But I'll give you that one, but as far as sales goes, worldwide The Wall sold more than SNF. The 15m in the SNF article was US sales (The Wall only hit 11.5m in the US) but it doesn't mention worldwide sales. It is widely regarded that The Wall was the biggest selling double album worldwide, over SNF (OST) and HIStory. --WebHamster 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly SNF is the biggest-selling soundtrack of all time, regardless of format. I will take a look at both articles when I have time, to make sure we are not comparing apples with oranges. Rodhullandemu 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup could be as The Wall wasn't a soundtrack. --WebHamster 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Care In The Community

I have no wish to take this further. Pedro :  Chat  23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do, but I won't without Web Hamster's permission. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no beef here. But having spent time with people who were affected by that act (due to mental illness and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's) I find that using it in refernce to an IP on Misplaced Pages making stupid trollish edits is simply - well - wrong. And I'm not talking some bullshit third party opinion here - my gradmother died shortly after the state decided community care was for the best. So apologies for being over sensitive, but WH - you need to consider that just because you find it funny (as you stated) that doesn't mean it's actually still ok to post it. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We've all been affected by the daft "care in the community" ideas Pedro, your experience is nothing special. As part of my psychology course I had a placement in a hospital for what was then called the "mentally subnormal". Those hospitals have all gone now, but I wonder to this day what now happens to all those I saw in there who couldn't possibly have survived elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

People who actually have a sense of humour can find anything funny. As someone who was a paramedic for 10 years I'm well aware of what "care in the community" actually means. I also have personal experience of it, yet I can still find a laugh somewhere. That just leads me to believe that you are suffering simultaneously from a piousness overdose and a humour deficiency. I recommend that you don't use your own beliefs to lecture others as they maybe lacking in certain areas. Now as far I'm concerned you've had your say, I've had mine. The rest is up to you. Either way I won't be withdrawing anything. --WebHamster 12:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no beef with you personally. Pedro :  Chat  15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Consensus only matters among those making an effort to work toward it. Your only contribution to the discussion so far has been to contradict, and distort the actual points. The refs don't support the statements. Also, the refs aren't neutral or factual. Noloop (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You require consensus to remove a long-standing and referenced section of text. Refs do not need to be neutral, all they have to do is support the text they are being used as a reference for. They are factual, what they don't do is support your POV. The refs do support the text, you just can't see through your own biases. My contribution, as you call it, is to maintain the status quo against a POV warrior trying to remove parts of the article when he has no consensus to do so. Get consensus and I'll stop reverting you. --WebHamster 09:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's required is an effort to work toward consensus before you invoke consensus to block changes. Name-calling and refusal to address the basic points shows antipathy toward consensus. Misplaced Pages should be neutral, which doesn't happen when refs are one-sided. Refs have to do more than support what is said: they have to be reliable and factual. Opinion pieces published by the US military are neither. At the very least, Misplaced Pages should report opionated refs as expert opinion, not fact. But, the fact is, the refs don't support what is said. Why don't you QUOTE the part of the refs you think support this article, as a starting point for working toward consensus? Noloop (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you start an RFC if you think you can gain the required consensus? Whilst you're at it see if you can find another editor that shares your belief that the refs don't support the prose. If it's as obvious as you suggest then you shouldn't have a problem. --WebHamster 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just answer the question? Can you quote the parts of the refs that actually support the statements? It should be easy. Noloop (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is easy, I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about. --WebHamster 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted

I probably would have missed that Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)