Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fingerpuppet (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 19 December 2007 (→Just thought I'd better ask). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

WikiProject Greater Manchester Talk Page Welcome to the Talk Page of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Please remember to remain civil and to all users with respect. Please only use this page to discuss the Project, to learn more visit the Main Project Page

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

yes]

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Greater Manchester

I would like to draw the project's attention to this proposal to delete the List of churches in Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe List of churches in London should go up for AFD then or is this just a bias that London is more notable than GM? _└┘talk 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should be kept as a resource for people from across the world searching for baptismal records etc. It does need some work though as there are no lead or history sections and the list is by no means comprehensive. I'll be adding some of my local churches as soon as I have a few minutes to spare. Having looked at the List of churches in London article it has the sections but lacks references and is full of POV stuff. Richerman 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article is staying! I have already tried to improve it. I propose a general style the whole list should stick to with one table per borough/city per my example List of churches in Greater Manchester#Manchester, obviously the list is incomplete and I think formatting is a major issue. Thoughts on new design? _└┘talk 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there should be a 'website' column partly because it's not usual in lists and partly because it lends credence to the "WP is not a directory" crowd. Other than that though it looks okay to me, with the exception of the centred text, that just looks plain nasty! :) --WebHamster 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the websites, I only put that column in because alot of them already have it, I have removed it now and aligned the text left. I also noticed the inclusion of a Mosque and Synagogue when the list is supposed to be about churches. Agree these should be removed? _└┘talk 04:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I doubt that there would be (m)any places in the UK with sufficient mosques or synagogues that naming them in the article (if appropriate) would be in danger of becoming a list. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of changes to the table format, so see what you think. We obviously need to do a little bit of work on this list so that we can head another AfD nomination off at the pass, and probably something similar with the list of schools as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the table very much now, it is much easier on the eye with some colour in there. It would be great if there was a published list of all churches in different areas but I don't know of any so it looks like some research is in order. _└┘talk 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For me "church" is synonymous with "place of worship" which is why I included our local mosque, but I suppose that, after checking the dictionary, it does mean "a building for public Christian worship" so therefore they (it) should go. And yup, that new table is much nicer than the standard wikitable (shudder) and when the whole page is done will look really good. --WebHamster 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The whole page is done now, and it's still using a wikitable. Thank heavens for embedded CSS. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I've added Stockport and Tameside. My comment about the wikitable (shudder) is in relation to the default wikitable class. For straight forward tables like these wikicode does the trick just as well as HTML. I'm just programmed better for HTML (I don't have to think about it) as I've been designing websites for about 11 years. I'm getting to be an auld phart who can't get his head round new ways of doing things :) --WebHamster 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Walking home form the pub (in Prestwich) last night I got to wondering, as you do after a couple of pints, which is the oldest church in Greater Manchester. I was thinking about the history section for the list of course! Anyway I thought it might be St. Mary's Prestwich which is thought to have been built about 1500 but when I looked it up on the net I found this website with a list of daughter parishes of St. Mary's with the dates the churches were built. St. Mary's Oldham was 1406, although there was a church on the site in Prestwich from about 1200, but not the present building. Does that make the Oldham one the oldest in the area or does anyone know of any older than that? Also, I wonder if all the 41 churches mentioned still exist. This list could get very long if there are that many in just Prestwich-cum-Oldham. Are they all going in or just the notable ones?Richerman (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All of 'em. Not much of a list otherwise. The notable ones ought also to be covered either in their own articles and/or in the article about the area they're in. I don't think that churches that have been demolished/converted to offices or whatever ought to be included though, just active churches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like the oldest churches in Greater Manchester might be best served in an article entitled Religion in Greater Manchester that compliments the church list, perhaps?... From memory, I think St. Leonards in Middleton is one of the oldest in the county.

I agree we ought to have articles on the most notable churches - the Cathedrals and major Parish churches. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I googled St mary's oldham and the parish church was rebuilt in 1830 anyway, assuming that's the one it meant Richerman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's the same one!... Though I think you've set a good challenge to find out the oldest Christian place of worship in Greater Manchester. I can't imagine Oldham's was the earliest anyway, as it wasn't populous until the early 1800s. I would imagine it is the one in Prestwich, but possibly one in Rochdale or Middleton. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

St Leonard's is the favourite so far, some of it dates back to 1120 it seems. if you look here Richerman (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A Religion in Greater Manchester article sounds like a good idea to me. But I'm still struggling to understand what a church's "foundation date" means. :( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to the grouping together of the congregation (like a club) rather than the actual church building itself. Most of the research I've seen shows that churches ended up getting built second to a group of like-minded people coming together with a desire to worship. --WebHamster 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That concerns me too - I've been troubled with that in the Church list article... these seem to be the dates when the churches were built, rather than when the ground was first consecrated or used for worship. Perhaps this needs to be changed? Also, we're using the word "District" in the List of churches in Greater Manchester article, when really we should be using the word place or area (the word district strictly meaning an area used for local government).

Just an advance on St. Leonards.... parts of St. Chads in Rochdale are pre-1066 (!) and its tower dates from 1190. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "built" should be the recommended de facto standard as it's more likely to be published rather than any of the other dates. --WebHamster 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Oh, and according to some site called Misplaced Pages, St Michael and All Angels’ Church, Ashton-under-Lyne was mentioned in the Domesday Book! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah but,ah but - a church "on the site" was mentioned in the Domesday Book and it has been rebuilt twice since then. Now then, where did Adam and Eve go to church? Time for my bed I think! Richerman (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. ;) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Built would often give a range of dates though, like 1836–1838, as opposed to the date of completion of the building. I do agree though that the dates of building would probably be the most verifiable, and so I'd probably be inclined to go for the date that the building work finished, as opposed to the consecration date or whatever. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the column heading now; on reflection I don't have a problem with saying that a church was built 1836–1838. I think that "foundation date" gig just threw me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I just increased the "built" column to allow room for refs etc as it was wrapping them down to another line. --WebHamster 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you allowed to do that? I don't remember giving you permission to make alterations to my beautiful table? (Oh how wish that we had smileys, or some other way of making it obvious when we brusque northeners were just taking the piss :) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In this brusque northerner's case one can add the tactlessness of AS, oh and the fact that I'm usually taking the piss more than I'm being serious. As a result I recognise it in others... it's metaphor and allegory I come unstuck with! --WebHamster 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You at least have an excuse. I have an acquaintance who has a mild form of AS, and it's almost like their empathy chip is missing. But I have no excuse at all for my own tactlessness, other than being, well, tactless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I didn't realise you were both editting that page (I thought I'd be the only one up!). I may have altered some of your additions - innocently I promise! -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you only nuked a minor little edit of mine, it was no biggie to redo. --WebHamster 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is starting to shape up nicely now. That AfD was maybe a helpful wake-up call. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! We're certainly in a better position that List of churches in London - which I for one would expect to be the leading such article... this could turn into a nice little project for us. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, who can resist a challenge. Let's go for it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you lot ever go to bed? I thought I was getting a bit obsessive about wikipedia but I see I'm just an amateur. It's a new day now and I notice Freechild has been having a go at the List of churches in London article, but he seems to have toned things down a bit and put on "citations missing" and "notability" tags this time. Still, his full on nuclear attack technique worked in our case so maybe the AfD tag is the quickest way to get an article improved. Richerman (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I go to bed... sometimes. Even then I usually plot and scheme my next edits. But can you blame me when there's so much to do? I sometimes wonder how these articles would've looked if we each hadn't come to edit here - can you imagine!?.... anyway, just thought I'd give everyone a nudge to knuckle into the List of churches in Greater Manchester article at some point this week, whether that be adding your local church, a reference, starting an article for the most notable of churches, expanding the lead (like that in List of churches in London), obtaining a photograph, or finding a date (as in year, not the expensive companion with the same name).... we could get a freak featured list out of this one! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be doable for our list, but I rather like the layout of List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --WebHamster 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly a very nice looking article, but I think we'll probably be struggling even to find verifiable completion dates for lots of GM churches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in addition to the Images of England site, and some of the individual church websites, we have UK Church database, A Church Near You, and the Diocese of Manchester sites. GENUKI sometimes have church completion dates, whilst local history books (including the online History of Lancs book) will also help.

I too like the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - but I would imagine our list is going to be quite massive, so we may want to think about how feasible it is and/or if we can condense it effectively. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also just come across The Churches Of Britain and Ireland: Greater Manchester! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bench mark database

I just came across this website which may be of interest to any of you geographers out there if you didn't know about it already http://www.bench-marks.org.uk/. It gives the location of all the benchmarks and trig points in the country with distances between them etc. Although it's a bit complicated for a bear of little brain like me to use it looks as if it might be useful. It even lists benchmarks on buildings that are long gone such as the colliery buildings in Pendleton - which is how I came across it in the first place. Richerman (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent source. It looks like a really good one for the mother UK geography WikiProject. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it, I thought it looked useful for something!!! Richerman (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A small favour

I just created the {{Greater Manchester Metrolink stations}} template, to be used on all the Metrolink stations articles. Unfortunatly I had big hardware failure problems and now need to spend my time recovering my laptop so I can keep doing all my uni assignments. So basically could somebody put the template on all of the Metrolink station articles please, I have not put it on any yet. Thanks in advance! _└┘talk 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the stations which are in bold are the ones with rail connections as part of the station, I don't know how/if I should point this out on the template so feel free to add if it needs it! _└┘talk 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent template! Looks like it might be best placed on articles by someone with access to an AWB. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Making a start now. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to all the articles in Category:Manchester Metrolink Bury-Altrincham line stations and Category:Manchester Metrolink Eccles line stations - see links. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia amazing?

When I first started looking for info on Kersal on the British History "Townships" website I found the word "thegnage" that I thought was a misprint. Then I joined the project and kept finding the word as I looked for info on other places so I decided to google it to find out what it meant. And where was the only place I found information on it? the wikipedia article on thegn of course, which explained all. Well ok, I admit it. I thought it was pronounced "theg - nage"! I knew Macbeth was the "thane of Cawdor" but I didn't know it was originally spelt thegn. In the few months since I joined this project I've learned more about history, local and otherwise, than I have in the previous 58 years. I've found out about the amazing achievements of unsung local heroes like William Crabtree and Jeremiah Horrocks and the man who invented the micrometer William Gascoigne and then felt compelled to sneak off and write an article on the man who carried on their work Richard Towneley. I've also edited articles about newts and all sorts of things (sorry guys but I needed a break!) and after a chance remark by another editor about Aspergers looked it up (in wikipedia of course) and found out that Isaac Newton was thought to have it. So without Aspergers we wouldn't have the work of Newton or Einstein and we'd be more ingnorant about the universe without it. How cool is that Hammie? And I've also discovered little covens of wikignomes that beaver away at all hours of the day and night just for fun. It's a bit like finding the Borrowers under you floorboards! Keep it up lads and lassies and one day we could conquer the world. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the best thing I've ever read on Misplaced Pages! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sometimes thought that wikipedia gives us a window onto the best and the worst of ourselves. There's bickering and vandalism, politics and favouritism, but sailing gracefully above all of that is the vast majority of editors who freely contribute their time and effort just because of a vision. The vision that knowledge should be freely and easily available to everyone, everywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POST

Just to inform you that this WikiProject will become featured in this week's signpost. (Which was meant to be posted yesterday) :) — Rudget _speak.work 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! We're going to be famous! Great stuff. _└┘talk 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, lost me for a minute there..... you mean Signpost - nice interview! Richerman (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Just an idea. Anyone up for some deletion sorting. I came across an example before, you can see it here. — Rudget _{Contributions} 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea, but one that as a confirmed eventualist I'd probably be quite unsuited to. I'd be running myself ragged trying to do enough work on nominated articles just so that they wouldn't be deleted. :) I haven't yet seen an GM article that I'd felt like nominating for AfD anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant it as a display board for all members of the project to comment on a single page containing all GM related articles. It may encourage bias, but hopefully it wouldn't occur. — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were proposing a separate GM:AfD. In that case I'm heartily in favour of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Just have to try and persuade the others now. Hopefully, it'll go down like my last suggestion. :) — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be keener to see a system for stub sorting!... however, looks good, though like Malleus I'm not sure I've seen many GM articles suitable for deletion, if any! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article

Anybody think we could make one of our FA's hit the mainpage sometime soon? I'm thinking Manchester. Does anybody have any experience with the nomination process? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into that already and basically I think we need to choose a date to nominate it on and the current noms seem to choose dates relevent to the subject to give a rationale for the nomination. Manchester was the article I was trying to nominate but I couldn't think of any big dates in the Mancunian calendar. Also only five nominations at a time are allowed and it seems to be constantly full. _└┘talk 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be nice to book 1 April 2008 for Greater Manchester then, if we can get it to FA by that time!... I can't really think of a rationale for a specific date that would allow us to display any of our FAs. It certainly seems like something we should consider for the project though; WP:KENT has had a couple of their FA towns displayed in the past, and todays FA Lethbridge looks not too dis-simillar from a few of our FAs. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the date of the Peterloo Massacre? — Rudget _{Contributions} 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one! Though its 8/9 months off!... there's the "Christmas Blitz" on the nights of 22/23 and 23/24 December 1940 which is round the corner. 15 June 1996 was the IRA bomb. The article doesn't give the exact date as to when Manchester was granted City status - just the year. That needs fixing regardless! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I suppose it's a bit of a lengthy while until August 16th, but the Christmas Blitz idea is good! I'd pick that out of all the others. But it all depends on the users who (!)vote on whether or not to display it. — Rudget _{Contributions} 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that the Christmas Blitz article is still a stub. Still there's always next year. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 is a big year of sport in Manchester, see here. One of the showpieces is the UEFA cup final "televised live in over 200 countries and territories worldwide" on 14 May at COMS, but I guess any on this list would be OK. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The stadium is already an FA, so that looks like a good candidate for 14 May. The 21st June is also a good candidate I think; the 60th anniversary of the running of the world's first stored programme at Manchester University in 1948, on the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Heck, I bet there are lots more significant dates than we've got featured articles to nominate - so far, anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C. and City of Manchester Stadium have already appeared on the Main Page. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Most Main Page selections do not appear there as the result of a request - submitting it at featured article candidates implicitly acts as a form of request. The scheduling is determined by the featured article director, User:Raul654. The request page is only used for cases where a specific date is desired. Raul gives some explanation of the selection process at User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#The_main_page_featured_article. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone else agree?

I've just assessed the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine article as top priority. Does everyone else agree with that assessment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, though can't say I know much about it beyond the obvious! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that it's a subject close to my heart, so I thought I'd better check that I wasn't letting my heart rule my head. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wigan

Some time ago there was considerable edit warring on the Wigan and assorted pages. The dispute ended some time ago, but it might be starting up again. I'm very busy at the moment in real life, so if some local knowledgeable editors can keep an eye on it, it might be helpful. Personally removing the lists of notable people and editing them into the paragraphs as part of the narrative, seems worthwhile. I simply don't have the time to do this at the moment. Regan123 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right to bring this to the attention of the project. Without meaning to point the finger, User:80.193.161.89 seemed to be a leading antagonist for distrupting Wigan related material earlier this year. I had the displeasure of arranging a permanent block for this gentleman (well he arranged it himself!), though it appears he has re-gained his editting capability and is making comparable, sweeping changes with weak rationale. I would urge alertness from our members as bad faith has been established once. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for information: there was never a permablock on 80.193.161.89 (talk · contribs · block log). His talk page was modified by a single-edit IP 81.155.113.87 (talk · contribs · block log). Mr Stephen (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Manchester

Could someone add the grid references to the locations of the Grade I listed buildings article, listed in the header, please? Thanks. — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few, I can do the rest later if no one else has. On a slightly different note, I think tables often look better with a slight reduced text size. How do you feel about trying that? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...thanks for that. I'll try it out tomorrow, getting quite late now. :) — Rudget _{Contributions} 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

There has very recently been a huge addition of articles to the project which I do not believe are related to us at all. Mostly football related. It is going to mean a huge number of low importance article which will never recieve attention from the project. For example Arthur Gomez is from West Africa and once played for Manchester United. What does that have to do with us really?? A MUFC player from Manchester is fine by me as that seems to be related but most of those are just ridiculous. I mean 1915 British football betting scandal... come on... _└┘talk 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The huge addtions we added by a bot requested/developed at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests (not requested by me incidently!). It was inevitable that some unrelated material would be added, but I agree that articles about football players (blue/red/or any other team) are not going to be well served by the project as it currently stands. Personally I can't see much scope for most biography-class articles for us, but others may beg to differ.

Either we need a bot to somehow reverse some of the banner additions, or someone with AWB may have to spend half an hour wizzing through some of these. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there will be some biography-related articles of interest to the project, like Alan Turing, or John Rylands for instance. But in general I agree. The addition of all those minor footballers was quite alarming. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been brought to the attention of the bot creator here. I'm not sure he intends to reverse some of the additions. Apparently Category:Greater Manchester includes some false-positives. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to commonsense. :( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for this, fellow editors. I simply set my bot to go through the category and its child categories, and on the whole, it did a good job. I will of course reverse the bot's errors, if you can give me a list of articles to do. I don't think there were that many, but I can easily reverse an entire category added. Again, my sincere apologies, and I hope not a lot of inconvenience was caused. Kind regards, Redrocketboy 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's my firm impression that almost all of the articles tagged by your bot ought to be untagged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please name them then. Redrocketboy 01:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only a limited number of chronos particles in the world; life's too short. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm quickly writing some code to undo this, despite having to be up at 7am tomorrow morning. I'm slightly put out that you'd classify almost all the tags as mistakes, when they clearly aren't. I've received not one word of thanks (not that I'd expect it, but even so...), but of complaints. Now when the complaints are legit and fair, I'm fine with that. I'm amending the problem right now. But you've overexaggerated I think, and you can't say almost all the tags are wrong. Unless of course the majority of the articles in the Greater Manchester categories shouldn't be there? Redrocketboy 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

May I point out to you that if you don't have the time or ability to undo it, then you ought not to do it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the time and ability. I wonder if you have ever coded a bot? It takes time, and being rude about it isn't helping. I've already apologised. It's late, I'm tired, I'm working all day tomorrow. I'll try my best to fix it. At least there are decent editors like Jza84 who can at least be co operative and tell me what articles need fixing. So far you've simply insulted me without paying attention to the issue. Redrocketboy 02:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't fall into the trap of making assumptions. As it happens I have probably been a professional computer programmer for longer than you have been alive. So please try to forgive me if I sound as if I've heard it all before; I have. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Time out please guys! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are a programmer, then you will surely understand the predicament. I'll finish off the code tomorrow, and run the bot then. Nevertheless, you are falling into the trap too. You are assuming I can't fix it, when I most certainly can, and will. It doesn't mean you need to be rude to me about it. How about retracting your comment saying almost all of them need to be undone, as that is most certainly not true. Redrocketboy 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am done with this. Do whatever damage you like to whatever articles you like. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All I've done is helped your WikiProject out. All it's done is added categories to a few articles that are out of scope. The large majority are correct, despite your false assumption above. I've said I'll fix the "damage"; I've apologised; and all I've had is abuse thrown in my face about it. Next time, please manually tag the pages, or ask someone else. If there's one thing I can't stand it's rudeness, and you must be one of the most rudest editors I've come across. Good day. Redrocketboy 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But surely your own performance has been a little bit dodgey, to say the least. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Category:People from Greater Manchester might be a good start for banner removals. Gimme a few moments to check some more. Do you need categories or lists? Surely categories are suitable? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople from Manchester, Category:Bolton Wanderers F.C., Category:Oldham Athletic A.F.C., Category:Hyde United F.C., Category:Bury F.C., Category:Wigan Athletic F.C., Category:Wigan Warriors look like they are suitable for banner removal too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not go through that first category... the articles edited from there (e.g. People from Salford) are from other categories. Redrocketboy 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Don't be dispirited - I for one certainly understand you were acting upon a request, and acted in selfless good faith. I thank you for this. I can't see any problem, it wouldn't take long I imagine to undo some of the additions. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no articles to tag for any of those above. I did not go through any of those categories. I really think it was pretty much the Manchester United articles. Redrocketboy 01:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional categories may also include Category:Stockport County F.C., Category:Rochdale A.F.C., Category:Salford City Reds. I think this would crack this temporary glitch!

Other than that, yes, it appears to be Man Utd stuff for the most part. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this breifly, it seems that articles within the categories I provided yester-eve (such as Category:Hyde United F.C.) or their daughter categories have been tagged with WP:GM's assessment banner. Anthony Charles is an example of this. It is largely these sport/biography-class articles that need un-tagging. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have admin ST47 reverting all the mistaken taggings. If you come across anymore, please let me know. Thanks. Redrocketboy 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the above issue be related to the recent addition of the Greater Manchester Project's template to the talk page of Warrington Borough Transport? It wasn't done by anyone who has obviously been involved in the above actions, and we in the Cheshire Project would obviously be glad of any input to any Cheshire-related articles. However, I wonder whether the placing of this project template is entirely what your project would like to see? As far as I can tell, the first-sight reason for it being added was that Warrington Borough Transport has services that go into the GM area (as well as Merseyside area), but an extension of that inferred reason would see loads of articles which mention an abutting area having lots of geographical-area project banners on their talk pages for all the abutting areas, and I'm not too sure that would be entirely a good thing. Of course, this instance may be an exception that need not be consistently applied to other cases, but I thought I'd raise the issue here.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an issue unrelated to this one. Thanks Redrocketboy 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a user added it due to the article's categorisation. I would imagine its a good-faith mistake - certainly it's an article best served by the Cheshire project, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was all done in good faith and it seems that most of the damage was done because of the Category:Manchester United F.C. and all of its sub-categories which is in Category:Sport in Trafford, to suggest the categorisation of Greater Manchester is wrong is rather ludicrous. The addition of all the train stations in Greater Manchester is good and I did suggest it some time ago. _└┘talk 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency between categories & project tags

Seems to me - as the person who requested the bot work & specified the search space - that either a) there is not a problem or b) there is a problem with our categorisation. I take the view that anything connected with Greater Manchester is within the remit of the project. That, for me, includes Manchester United related articles, and, come to that, Warrington transport if it serves the Greater Manchester area. Conversely, if these things are not to do with Greater Manchester, then they should not be categorised, or the categories should not be so nested, as to place the article within a Greater Manchester category.

I do not buy into an argument that, for instance, Warrington transport, or a football article, are "best served by" another project - WPP:Cheshire, or WPP:Football. Rather I think the article is best served by multiple projects. Whatever, for the record, User:Redrocketboy was acting on my request; please direct any fack in my direction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We're a project that is still very much developing. Granted, Manchester United and other football teams are related to Greater Manchester, but we certainly don't have the strength of numbers to take on circa 700 articles on (for the mostpart, minor) football players as a project which is a geography-class WikiProject. Simillary, these are clearly going to be better served by the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that what is wrong here is asking a bot owner to do some work without discussing it on the project first. If you had asked here then maybe someone might have said "Go carefully". When I belatedly found original request I was astonished that I then couldn't find anything on this project about it. I even trawled through the archives searching. What a waste of my time. I think we should get a bot to run through all the articles of everyone that has ever read a book and tag them for WP:BOOKS. -MurphiaMan (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You can if you like. If you check out the bot requests page, and my bot request, you will see that the one says, with respect to subcategories, in effect "go carefully"; and that the other addressed the risks associated with subcategories. On this basis your injunction would be redundant. I note your astonishment, but am not much moved by it. We're talking about a notation on the talk pages, for heavens sake, of three or four hundred articles; which was made by bot and which could be removed by bot, both at little effort. More time by far has been spent, according to your post, agonising about the matter, than was spent in doing & undoing it. Meanwhile, I note your lack of interest in the other 600 or so articles which have been accepted by the project. And note the complete absence of constructive discussion as to what the scope of the project is.

There appears to be a simple disagreement as to whether MUFC footballers are or are not covered by WPP:GM, and a near absence of discussion or documentation of project scope. As it is, we now appear to be cherry-picking our footballers .. Beckam belongs to us, and a number of other footballers do not. That's not a sustainable or rational approach.

Good luck with your project. By my understanding, over the past few days, you're doing better at driving people away from it than anything else discernible. odd choice to make. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the assessment and template was added Redrockebot as shown here. A few threads above is a discussion about the bots actions. Rt. 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to reply; Our project's remit and aims are both on the main project page. We also have an assessment page outlining exactly where and how our project banner should be added. These could have been elaborated on or clarified if someone had cared to ask. This is a problem (storm in a tea cup) that has risen due to a fundamental lack of communication. But I wholly disagree it's on the part of this project. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Central station: suggestion for a new article

In case anybody else is interested: ...just a thought.... --Jotel (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chill Factore

Can I bring it to everyone's attention that Chill Factore was Speedy deleted on Friday by User:FisherQueen. Whilst, the old article may have been little more than a stub, I think at least a debate on the worthiness of having an article on this subject would have been in order. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's rather dumb deleting that, a trigger happy admin I expect. It really should have an article being the largest indoor ski-slope in the UK and having award winning advertising "The alps are coming to the North West" _└┘talk 13:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was little enough to it, so it shouldn't be hard to re-create the article whenever someone's ready to write something a little bit more extensive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already got a little bit on Chill Factor.... :) Rt. 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Foggy

Hello team,

Just wanted to raise awareness of User:P.hogg (contributions). He's doing some good work, but isn't a very chatty soul. It'd be great to get him (her?) on board. In the meantime, we might need to watch a few of their contributions as the formatting isn't quite spot on yet. Until they reply to their messages, it's the only thing we can do (I think) to support them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured list?

Would Grade I listed buildings in Manchester meet with FLC standards? I don't have much experience in the field, but I think it looks compliant. And, I'd like to thank Malleus for helping me. :) Rt. 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is just me but the Albert Memorial image covers over half the table. I'm on Firefox, maybe cross-browser problems? _└┘talk 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most probably. I'm on IE. Change it on yours and I'll see what it looks like on mine. :) Rt. 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{clear}} template to it and it looks fine now in both Firefox and IE on my computer. _└┘talk 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. I'm using Firefox too, and it looks fine to me. Maybe it's something to do with display resolution. I think the table probably ought to be reduced a bit in size anyway.

I don't have any more experience of FLC standards than you do - probably even less - but I don't think the article's quite ready yet. For instance, I just saw this: "There are fewer Grade I listed buildings in Manchester than other cities in the UK, due to Manchester's relatviely young history and emergence as a major city in the Victorian era. It is through the Industrial Revolution that Manchester became world's first industrialised city, with most of these mills recently becoming listed." What mills is this talking about? I'm not sure that history can be "young" either, and in fact Manchester has quite a long history, back to at least Roman times anyway. I also don't think that having a refs column works in this case, because not all of the information in each row comes from the ref, like the co-ordinates for instance.

Do you mind if I play with the table formatting a little bit anyway? I do think that tables look better when the text size is reduced slightly relative to the surrounding text. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well my display is set at 1280 x 800. _└┘talk 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably it; mine's set to 1280 x 1024 and it looks fine in Firefox. Obviously the image/table sizes need to be adjusted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure I quite understand what's wrong with the referencing column? Could you clarify? And as for the prose, please change as per your thoughts. All ideas are welcome. Rt. 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The logic of the reference column in the List of churches in Greater Manchester was that putting the reference beside, say, the date of completion, was misleading, as the reference didn't just verify that date, but all of the information in the row. That isn't the case with this list, where the reference doesn't verify the OS co-ordinates. If I've misunderstood then I'm sure that Jza84 will point that out to me. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Briefly. That's "architecture", not "architechture". Is there a reason why two of the buildings don't have steets? Some of the buildings have references in the 'date of listing' column, some don't. (I think it's OK with a single ref to the 'What is a listed building?' page at the council web pages - the information can easily be retrieved from there.) Manchester2002 is not regarded as a reliable source. The Manchester Architecture Guide ref needs completing. The given ref doesn't support the assertion 'There are fewer Grade I listed buildings in Manchester than other cities in the UK, due to Manchester's relatively young history and emergence as a major city in the Victorian era'. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have been a little ahead of you there. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done all - Rt. 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought - what about having the images in the table itself, like say that at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/maps#Maps_done (for want of a better example!)? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has no obvious breaches of WP:WIAFL, but at 11 items it does seem a little brief. How big would the list be if the scope was expanded to Greater Manchester? I'll put further, more specific comments at the peer review. As an aside relating to the Main Page topic above, one of the buildings in this list would be likely to reach the Main Page quite quickly if taken to FA, as there are not many FAs about buildings and structures. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion, increasing the scope to Greater Manchester. To answer your question, there are 39 Grade 1 liosted buildings in GM. :) Images of England --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A list of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester sounds like a good idea to me, there'd be no issue about length and it would prevent very similar articles for each of the other 9 boroughs in Manchester. If it was to be done, can I recommend adding a 'District' column to the table. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Might it be better to have separate tables for each of the boroughs, like in the List of churches in Greater Manchester article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd better ask

Is there anyone else on the project who would prefer me not to comment on, copy edit, or otherwise interfere with their articles? I'm not bothered either way, but it's always best to get these things out in the open I think. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else???.... A little cryptic! I would hope all our project's users are aware that no editor owns any articles to warrent them being "theirs". Your certainly welcome to edit freely by my account - even Oldham! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have hoped so too. But I have once again been reminded that isn't always the case. But as I say, I'm not bothered, I'm quite happy to leave those articles alone where the owner objects to my interference, just so long as I know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will finally add to that, that if the project is not going to be collegial, then it can count me out. I quote: "So far I have got: Manchester Featured article (featured article status, which I had previously got to GA and then A-class), Portal:North West England Featured article, Didsbury (good article status), 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack and also Manchester Airport (B class)."

The piss can only be taken so far. I can find other places to spend my time on wikipedia, with a lot less hassle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've obviously been asleep and missed something, but as far as I'm concerned if someone can see something that could do with improving, then as long as it's factually accurate then they should feel free. Don't get downhearted! Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. I clearly significantly contributed to Oldham and Shaw and Crompton to get them to FA; a spade is a spade as they say. But, these articles would not be FA without others, especially Malleus. Not a chance. This is even more true of Manchester, which was very much a communal effort. One of our greatest positives is our team-spirit, our different specialisms and bringing a different strength to a different aspect of writing and contribution.

I have some pride in that these articles being of high quality, particularly as Misplaced Pages becomes a, if not, the leading resourse on the web. But I certainly don't get any buzz out of point scoring. I don't think there is much to be gained by having a monopoly on a certain slice of Misplaced Pages's articles. I think the way Misplaced Pages works (for those who are heavily involved), tries to get users to do and acheieve as many things as possible, which often reduces the quality of their actions and contributions. I would urge anyone like that to go for quality, not quantity!

It's clear we have a core of users who put 110% into Misplaced Pages. I'm looking forwards to a Christmas break, and would hope others use their's too to reflect on how to move on with their aims, this project and Misplaced Pages. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'ts natural when you have spent a lot of time constructing an article to feel that it's "yours" and when somebody comes along and edits it to feel a bit miffed - especially if you don't agree with the edit. However, there's a bit on the edit page that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" and I think that sums it up really. I'm sure that you won't find any articles that have got up to FA status without a number of editors working on them. I've always found your contributions to be most helpful. Richerman (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether my userpage should be displayed and be subject to conversation. I disapprove of Malleus' actions there, but not before this. I am certainly not happy about this, and I would like to say that I meant it as "help" edits, and not therefore "ownership" edits. I don't particularly find the article I edit to be subject to this supposition, and no other editor seems to have issues with my editing so far with contributions to GM related articles. I'm ashamed that I have been made to feel as I have been such a "piss take". I have never once incinuated that Malleus should withdraw his editing from pages which I am dedicating my contributions too; apart from Didsbury, a while back. I am also slightly concerned about the over-exaggeration of the supposed "anyone else" in Malleus's opening statement, and I shalln't request his advice ever more. Rt. 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a case of crossed-wires and crossed-intentions? It seems to me that both are acting in good faith and have Misplaced Pages's best interests are heart. I don't think this warrents a feud, perhaps just some clarification and feedback? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this to be an issue for the project, but I did want to get it off my chest. There will be no feud as far as I'm concerned, that's not my style. But this not a misunderstanding that requires any clarification so far as I'm concerned. It's once bitten, twice shy. For Rudget to claim the credit for getting Didsbury up to GA after all of the hassle he caused was a step too far. It's not that I want the credit for anything at all, because I don't, but equally I don't like to see self-aggrandisement based on deception. I have tried to assume good faith over this matter, but I have signally failed, because I can see none. Almost every article that gets through GA/FA is a synthesis of the work of many editors, not just one. I will continue to edit wherever and whenever I choose, but in future I shall be more careful not to get involved in articles that have ownership issues, and to direct my efforts to where they are more likely to be appreciated. That's the end of this matter so far as I'm concerned, I have nothing more to say on it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're grossly over-exaggerating the matter. We all know that nobody owns an article and everybody appreciates the help. Some people may wish to "adopt" an article as a project to focus their attention on but they know they don't own it. As for "taking the credit" of a GA or FA, it is just a fact of life that the most significant contributor is going to receive credit for the status but we all know they would not move up with only one editor's input. Manchester is probably the best example of our teamwork as everybody contributed to it as everybody knows lots about our fair city. We all had a part to play in its FA status, I think I started the push after being disheartened from the second city debate bullies and felt it was my duty to ensure Manchester is well represented on Misplaced Pages. Your copyediting skills are vital to the success of this project, I just thought maybe you got bored of ce which is why I don't generally request your skills but if you like it there is a new article which you can work your magic on. I hope you stay faithful to the project as your skills are much appreciated and I'm sure most agree. _└┘talk 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but I hope that you will understand that I do not agree with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't want to part of any feud, and as Jza84 rightly says, we should be bridging relations not breaking them. But grossly over-ABF as Malleus has done, is totally unacceptable. I quote from one of his statements.."There will be no feud as far as I'm concerned, that's not my style", yet Malleus seems to have started some unfounded criticism of my editing contributions on a project talkpage based on an assumption. I greatly appreciate And-rew's and Jza's comments, but this whole stunt is probably to be some sort of reassurance of Malleus's editing, which everyone else has shown that he is good. He's becoming unfair to most editors on this project and the Wiki in general, as shown in the post-RFA user talk page. This whole thing will probably be brought up at any RFA or what have you in the future, but for anyone wishing to understand this situation, is the editor who has not only assumed great misconduct, but also the frank and public humiliation of my user credentials. Regards, Rt. 10:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Be calm, everyone. It's really not worth all this. Quite clearly you're both valued editors, and quite clearly you both want to make articles the best that you possibly can. Perhaps a break over the Christmas period (and then come back refreshed!) might help this all calm down? Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion?

Hello again team,

How do users feel about nominating Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture for deletion? I'm inclined to have this go. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Already been tried once and I voted to keep it as it is all true and is not disimilar to Harajuku, an area of Japan famous for its subculture. _└┘talk 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)