This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ancoats.jpg_of_Murrays'_Mills_complex.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ancoats.jpg_of_Murrays'_Mills_complex.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
Melesse (
talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
St. Ambrose College
Thanks, but I reverted my edit two minutes after adding WP:UNI because I noticed the same thing you did. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bmstephany (
talk •
contribs) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Strangeways riot
I'm planning on nominating it for GA in a few days, as it's not completely finished yet. I want to expand the "Aftermath" section slightly to include more about the reforms and future direction of the Prison Service post-Woolf Report. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion
here.
The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with
Buckton Castle and
Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and
Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done!
WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on
London and
Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind
London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (
here) and is an important issue for WP:GM.
As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details.
Member News
There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March:
Would you like to write the next newsletter for
WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at
WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
New Aims
The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in
a discussion on
WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are:
Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for
Rochdale,
Wigan,
Bury,
Bolton and
Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer.
Don't Forget...
Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the
requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common.
Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out.
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.
Ealdgyth -
Talk 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this up to GA status: a few months ago, I despaired of it ever being salvageable, but I think you've done a really good job with it over the past month. Once again, well done!
DDStretch (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Denshaw and Barnstar
Thanks ever so much for the Barnstar! I haven't had one for ages, although wasn't trying that hard anyway (honest!). I've got to thank you for the support on the
Denshaw article. I'm just waiting for the
stats to update to see what kind of traffic we got today.
Like you said somewhere, this kind of coverage actually did more good than harm, and proves Wikipedia can work. --Jza84 |
Talk
Hi, sorry about that. My friend got a hold of my account at school and edited the article. I've since changed my password, sorry about the trouble he caused.
On
22 April,
2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denshaw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
Hi there! Thanks for the help with this page. I thinkClegg Hall is in Milnrow; I suspect it's certainly within the boundaries of what was the
Milnrow Urban District at least.
Let me get back to you on that one. Give me a couple of hours and I'll see what I can find in a book my brother has. :)
Thanks again. --Jza84 |
Talk 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. In short, yes it's within Milnrow, but feet away from the old Littleborough Urban District boundary, or so I'm told! Thanks for this info. --Jza84 |
Talk 00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: May Newsletter
Yes, I could use some help with that progress report. Thank you for your comments, I should have them in in time for delivery. Happy editing, Basketball110My story/Tell me yours 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you finish the newsletter and send it out, due to my Jordan-like retirement? Basketball110My story/Tell me yours 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I can deliver the newsletter (Why? you may ask... I'll get to that). Also, thank you for convincing me that there is good reason to stay an active contributor. Thank you, again. Basketball110My story/Tell me yours 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the delay! In short... it's a thumbs up from me! --Jza84 |
Talk 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The
Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to
FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with
Jza84,
Malleus Fatuarum, and
Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article.
Ddstretch and
Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page.
Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the
Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in
Saddleworth,
Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to
GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over
19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included
Jza84,
Ddstretch,
Malleus Fatuarum,
Hassocks5489,
Nev1 and
Mike Peel.
Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page:
Hulme Arch Bridge,
Peterloo Massacre,
Bolton and Leigh Railway,
Barnes Hospital,
Denshaw, and
Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it
here. It gets the project noticed!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on
London and
Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind
London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at
WP:GAC!
Member News
There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month:
Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to
Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself.
Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article
be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the
FLC process.
Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the
City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The
requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click
here.
Delivered on May 1, 2008 by
Basketball110. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Murrays' Mill
I've reviewed
Murrays' Mills, and placed it on hold, since there are a few things which need addressing. I've left a note on the
talk page. Feel free to discuss this review with me.
Gwinva (
talk) 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I started an attempt at a new map using various sources, unfortunatley, when attempting it I was reminded that I have the artistic ability of a chimp :), and my half done attempt is quite poor. If you arent in the process of constructing something yourself, I wonder if
Jza84 might have time to look at this? He seems to have a good track record in drawing maps.
Pit-yacker (
talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I've made a request on Jza84's talk page. Sadly, your plan is probably better than any I could draw :-)
Nev1 (
talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is already an extremely thorough and well-researched article and after copy-editing should be outstandingly good. The reason I suggested that someone else copy-edited is not because your English language skills aren't up to the job but because, having work long and hard on this, you are probably too close to the text to cut it objectively. The alternative was a sort of copy-edit by proxy, where I advise you what you cut and you implement it. Unfortunately, this is horribly time-consuming and, as I have a houseful of builders here for the next few weeks, not very practical. I'll be glad to help you prepare this for re-nomination, though I don't have huge amounts of time free. For info, the
copy-edit I did for
Maximian took about ten hours, plus reading time. Anyhow, to summarise, this article deserves to be FA and, with the help of various Milhist resources, I'm sure we can get it there without too much pain. --
ROGER DAVIEStalk 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I wish you every good luck and should you encounter any difficulties, my door (as it were) is ever open :) --
ROGER DAVIEStalk 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it did not get to FA. Hope you do not feel too frustrated. Best wishes.
Peter I. Vardy (
talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Murrays' Mills
I'll probably be
hung, drawn and quartered in the next 24 hours yes! And that's if I'm lucky! But sure, I'd be happy to help with that. Thankfully I have
Adobe Photoshop and
Adobe Illustrator which are industry standard, and a piece of paper someplace suggests I'm capable to use them! It might be a couple of days, and I would need some source material to work from (feel free to e-mail me), but sure I can put something together I think. :) --Jza84 |
Talk 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes if you could ask him that would be great! Was it something like
this you and he were thinking of?
On RFA, I'm aware I've been in several scrapes, but disputes are inevitable as we all know. I know I've been in a few heated debates (the articles I watch mean they can be near nuclear!), but I like to think I've
not been inconsiderate. At worst I'll get feedback. As I told Malleus, if I don't get the buttons, it's not the end of the world for me. --Jza84 |
Talk 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if I pass first!! I pledge that I will not be taking the Rudget stance on this. Though I do not doubt that his work is vitally important, my first love is articles, not the backroom discussions and obscure noticeboards. I want the tools, categorically, for our project! Just look at the madness that happened on
Rochdale, or when I had to wait 4 days to get
Castleton to become a disambiguation page, or having to submit one of those lengthy forms to get things like
Jim McMahon (politician) off the site... Hell, if I don't get this, I think you're next inline!! --Jza84 |
Talk 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
...excuse me while I hide :-P It's good to know you'll be stayinng with us.
Nev1 (
talk) 00:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Williams and Farnie does have an alternative diagram, unfortunately I cant get the scanner to work at the moment (come to think of it nothing works on this computer at the moment).
Pit-yacker (
talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The article
1990 Strangeways Prison riot you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:1990 Strangeways Prison riot for things needed to be addressed.
Million_Moments (
talk) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Castlesteads
Yes, you are right, this (or relevant confusions) will arise again, so its is best to do as you suggested. Cheers,
Cplakidas (
talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the article's ready for another review.
Epbr123 (
talk) 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar!!! My aim is to get the article up to FL status, but from what I can remember from the Grade I debate there needed to be blue links to all the listed buildings within the list. I'll go through the discussion again though. —
PolishName 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar!!! It is much appreciated. Also thanks for the considerable effort that you put into the
Murrays' Mills article.
Pit-yacker (
talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Grade II*
No problem. Just wondering if you saw
the note I put on the Grade II* talk page about the confusing amout of listings concerning
Winstanley Hall in Wigan. Your help there would be greatly appreciated.—
PolishName 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nev1. I have given a second opinion about this article that you nominated for GA status. Have a look at my suggestions
here.
Axl (
talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have passed the article.
Axl (
talk) 12:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Old Trafford,
Murrays' Mills and
1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed
GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large!
Also,
Milnrow and
City of Salford have been nominated at
WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions
here and
here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the
City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on
London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind
London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at
WP:GAC!
And don't forget that the
Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)...
Member News
There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is:
Let's not forget that
Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed..
Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for
City of Salford being nominated at
WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article,
be bold and get editing! Articles such as
List of people from Bolton and
List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to
FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the
FLC process.
Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article.
Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to
FA status a while back. Please
check them out and see what you can do.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more 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.
Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please
take a look and see what you can do.
Hello there. An editor has pointed out that while
St Anne's Church, Haughton Green is in Haughton, it is not in Haughton Green. You wrote most of the article, so I am just checking if you have any objections/comments etc re a move to "St Anne's Church, Haughton" or (better) "St Anne's Church, Denton". Regards,
Mr Stephen (
talk) 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The source I had said, Haughton Green. However, it's not a hugely significant point and it could be wrong. I'd raise no objections in changing the name to "St Anne's Church, Denton" as a slightly more ambiguous name.
Nev1 (
talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Which source was that? The new Pevsner puts St Anne's in Denton and not in Haughton Green (Haughton is not listed). Just AIUI, Haughton Green is to the south.
Mr Stephen (
talk) 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The source I used was Tameside 1700-1930.
Nev1 (
talk) 13:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)