Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester

WT:GM

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Chadderton at FAC! Wigan and Kersal Moor at GAC!

Chadderton is at FAC here. It needs Alt text, which I'm not especially good at writing (I find it very difficult for some reason!), but bar that, I think it's as good as it can be. --Jza84 | Talk 10:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case you're not sure what Alt text is... Richerman (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richerman. :)

I have also nominated Wigan and Kersal Moor for GAC. :) --Jza84 | Talk 10:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger, now I'll have to get off my arse and get that Kersal Moor article sorted out! Richerman (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an incentive. I'll get started on finishing of the references for Wigan this . Nev1 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you get your spelling right though - hee, heee!! (evneinging??) Richerman (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, I don't expect people to pay attention to what I say so my spelling's not important! ;-) Nev1 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm meant to provide alt text for this I do not know! It's brought me out in a cold sweat! --Jza84 | Talk 01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text for a coat of arms is horrible, but I gave it a try for Ashton-under-Lyne, and this was acceptable to the reviewer. Nev1 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that example helped a great deal! --Jza84 | Talk 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you are Nev - I was about to say that all your words are pearls of wisdom but the proof is there for all to see. You'll make an alt texter out of Jza yet! Seriously though, it's great that wikipedia is being made accessible to as many people as possible - I wonder how many people benefit from the alt text? Richerman (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia was (or is? I'm not sure...) meant to be a simillar type of project. I'm not sure how effective or wide-reaching it is really. I think it's an admirable cause, I really do, but I think "alt text" was a little rushed through, and a possible area for conflict down the line. --Jza84 | Talk 01:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I come back to Chadderton with a niaive question. On the svg, there is a technical description of the grant of arms- and technically the graphic representation shown is merely an one interpretation of that- would the assessor accept that as an alt? An interesting case where th alt has become the substantive and the substantive the alt! If it is accepted than for each Coat of Arms we can bore down and retrieve the grant of arms? Or are you saying that the assessor doesn't speak Norman English? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they wouldn't accept it, but it's a good point. --Jza84 | Talk 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need a source (or two) for the following:

South Chadderton is the smallest of the three secondaries, and serves 700 pupils from Chadderton and north Manchester. Almost every suburb of Chadderton is served by a primary school, some of which have religious affiliations.

The sources I'd used are either dead or unreliable. --Jza84 | Talk 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to source the second sentence (it might just be easier to get rid of it), but the first shouldn't be too hard. Here's are three links which together show that South Chadderton is the smallest secondary school in the town and serves ~700 pupils: [1] [2] [3] Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I just have one outstanding issue now at the moment, citing the following:

Citibus was a Chadderton-based commercial bus operator serving Greater Manchester, launched in 1986. It competed with GMPTE until 1995 when it was bought-out by GM Buses North, what is now First Manchester.

Any transport enthusiasts able to help? --Jza84 | Talk 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brilliant! I'll give it a whirl! --Jza84 | Talk 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audenshaw School

I see a new user has deleted the section on the teacher arrested for on suspicion of having sex with a pupil. As there was no explanation I was about to revert the edit when I realised that this is quite possibly the woman herself or someone who knows her. As the case doesn't seem to have been to court yet and she's innocent until proven guilty maybe it would be better to leave it deleted for now. No point in having dragged someone's reputation even further through the mud if the allegation turns out to be unfounded. Richerman (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Wikipedia isn't a news service after all. BTW, I hate to be a pedant but its innocent unless proven guilty :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the same apply to the two kids accused of conspiring to blow up the school and who were found not guilty earlier this week? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I realise that the kids weren't named in the article, and I agree with your decision not to revert the removal of the sex charges teacher. If she's found guilty will be soon enough to include it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a pedant but I will be anyway? - you sound like my wife ( I hate to say I told you so but....) :) I see someone's reverted the deletion already so I've taken the name out and left a message on the talk page - let's see if that works. Richerman (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She pleaded guilty, see the MEN's report. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have mentioned the story anyway, regardless of whether she was convicted or not. If the story was notable enough to make the news, then surely we should mention it? After all, since we are supposed to have a neutral point of view, we wouldn't be implying anything either way! – Pee Jay 07:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources again, I couldn't see a mention of Audenshaw School, just that it was a school in Tameside. According to the latest news story the teacher "has been suspended from her job at a Greater Manchester School which cannot be named for legal reasons", so I'm guessing it was added to the article on Audenshaw School by a pupil or someone who searched for where the teacher was suspended from, which constitutes WP:OR. If they can't mention it, we certainly can't. It's possible that it will never be announced which school she taught at, but it's also not claimed in the sources that the other party involved was a pupil at the school (whichever one it was). Nev1 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I suppose the reason is to protect the child involved, which is something I hadn't thought of. Actually I have seen it argued that because someone can't be named for legal reasons in this country it doesn't mean they can't be named in wikipedia as it's hosted outside the UK and UK law doesn't apply - assuming the information is available. I think it was to do with the baby P case. It's a pity people take that view as these restrictions are applied for good reason. The public's "right to know" isn't a something I always subscribe to. Richerman (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Hell, I'm amazed I didn't spot that none of the sources actually named the school! I'm not perfect after all, that's going to be a tough pill to swallow. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long this will be valid, but as of now this google cache is different to this MEN page. It's obviously been changed for a reason. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, that makes me feel better about my reading skills! That explains how we all missed it, I was really surprised to think I must have missed something as important as that when I first read the sources. Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help required

Hi, is anybody out there any good at writing those Demography sections for the settlements? I wondered if some kind soul would help me write ones for Atherton and Leigh....... You never know they might eventually become GAs...--J3Mrs (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do what I did, copy one from a GM FA, and change the stats and sources accordingly :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these?

Greenfield Reservoir, Yeoman Hey Reservoir, and Dovestones Reservoir? Also, possibly Chew Reservoir (Greater Manchester) as well, since all three are in a rough alignment (here). There seems little point keeping them separate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]