Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

History of Cheshire timeline

Following some work on History of Cheshire, I note that an earlier review suggested it needed a timeline. I cannot find an example of a timeline for another county - the nearest I can see is Timeline of Cardiff history, having had a quick look at List of timelines. As a 'starter for 10', I had a crack at User:Pixie2000/Sandbox1, but I am not that happy with it. I think I now prefer the Cardiff version. Anyone got any thoughts? Also, should it be its own page?  Pixie2000 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Any tabulated format is likely to get rather hard to edit if the timeline becomes in the least detailed. There might be scope for two versions: major events (table or figure within the history article) and detailed timeline (separate article).

By the way, there's also the "In this month" section of the Portal, which I've been working on recently -- I've often wondered what that would look ordered by year, but it would become a bind to edit in duplicate if the two versions could not somehow be generated programmatically from the same dataset. Also (1) that only includes events with a known precise date, and (2) it includes a high proportion of biographical dates, which would be less useful for a timeline. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have had another go at User:Pixie2000/Sandbox2, and I am happier with this. Easier to maintain and easier to read I think. I have taken some of the Portal dates just to 'fill out' the page more and it has helped identify some 'facts' for the History of Cheshire article that are missing, particularly around Religion. If the History of Cheshire article needs to change into a 'theme-based article' as discussed at Talk:History_of_Cheshire, a timeline would stand alone better rather than being a summarised version of the history article, which it seems to be currently.

I have refrained from adding biographical dates to the timeline page, as I am guessing it will swamp it. If we get really keen, perhaps we could have a separate Timeline of people of Cheshire article as well as Timeline of history of Cheshire. Pixie2000 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the organisation of your sandbox 2 version -- suggest you move it into article space. The creation of a reasonably detailed timeline seems synergistic with a main history page that's organised predominantly by themes. It could also be highlighted at the Portal under the proposed new lists section.

I agree that people should be kept off the timeline; a list of people from Cheshire organised chronologically might be feasible. Once we've got the timeline and the themed history fleshed out, a brief timeline could be made into some kind of graphic which could be added to the themed history to give a chronological viewpoint.

Now off to try to make some sense of Tigwell for the nth time this evening... Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Cheshire history article has been created as a stub. Pixie2000 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The timeline got a bit sidelined in all the discussions about the main History of Cheshire article (which themselves never bore much fruit) so I'm restoring it in an attempt to kickstart discussion again. I've been trying to remember to add items when I add them to the timeline on the portal, not helped by the fact that the timeline needs refs and uses present tense... I keep meaning to add the remaining non-biographical items from the portal, but some are perhaps rather too trivial?

I was also wondering whether the largely empty century headings for the earlier part of the history are a little offputting, and also generate a rather long contents listing. There are never likely to be that many dated events from, say, the 3rd century. Could we wrap everything before, say, 1000 under one heading? That would generate a list of similar size to many of the later centuries. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that events pre-1000 should come under one heading. I've made a few corrections and added a category. Should we now move this discussion to the talk page of the article? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible -- might be worth leaving a notice here for anyone who hasn't already watchlisted the timeline. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

History of agriculture in Cheshire

I was working on this article in my userspace but realised I'd stalled, so I'm moving it into mainspace in case anyone else has the inspiration to finish it. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral FAC push

Well more a gentle and prolonged nudge perhaps, but we're moving in that direction if anyone would like to contribute. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposing putting the portal up for peer review

I think the portal might be close to being ready for portal peer review -- if anyone has any comments on the current format/wording, or would like to suggest further material for inclusion, or to comment on the suggestions currently up there, then do go ahead! (Just to clarify, the raft of Chester hooks under DYK are waiting for non-Chester hooks to make into balanced selections.) More quotations would also be useful -- we've generally gone for ones about Cheshire or its features, rather than quotations by famous Cestrians about unrelated topics. Also events for the sparse months (currently May, July, September & November). Espresso Addict (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about portals but, having had a look at the criteria, I think this fits them. A peer review can do no harm, and if it's supportive, go for featured status. Good luck.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No Man's Heath, Cheshire

No Man's Heath, Cheshire should be at the redirect location of Nomansheath, Cheshire - needs an admin to delete the redirect and then move the article to preserve the history. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The unitary authority's website is pretty schizophrenic about the spelling. See this (alloneword) and this (three words). But what the parish council calls itself, is, I would say, pretty definitive: No Mans Heath & District Parish Council. So if we are going to move the article anywhere it should be to No Mans Heath, Cheshire. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, the settlement is "No Man's Heath" on the OS 1:25,000 map. Worth even less, but I live pretty near there and I've never seen it referred as anything other than "No Man's Heath", occasionally without the apostrophe. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) "I can find no reference saying that Nomansheath is the local name, as the article says. The citation following it in the article leads to a map calling it "No Man's Heath" (when you magnify it). IMO the title should certainly stay as it is. If the alternative name continues to be used, the proposer must cite a source." --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more sources... Google Maps & Geograph gazetteer have No Man's Heath. OS 1:50,000 & Bing mapping have No Mans Heath. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The road signs give it as No Mans Heath[1][2] too. My apologies - years ago I'm sure it was Nomansheath (certainly that's how the locals pronounce it) but it seems a new consensus has emerged. Sorry for wasting all your time. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral II

I'm heading down to the cathedral this Saturday 2nd July at 2:45pm, for what I hope will be an extensive photography session. If anyone wants to come and join me for a cuppa in the refectory or to help out, I'll be the wikipedia nerd with the Nikon and tripod and will likely be there for a few hours or until I'm thrown out. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a prior engagement in Preston. But have a good day! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

George Latham (architect)

According to Pevsner there are two architects of that name, one from Nantwich (with the meagre biographical details I've just added) and one from Northwich. The Northwich one certainly needs splitting out, as he's responsible for Arley Hall and the Wistaston church (and presumably the Northwich salt museum); however, I know nothing whatsoever about him -- can anyone help? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure there are two? My Pevsner (1971 edition) says under Arley Hall "Latham of Nantwich" (p. 62) and under the Wistaton church "Latham of Nantwich" again (p. 390). A Google search has produced this (see p. 2) (I know Tony Bostock, very reliable, past chairman of the Cheshire Local History Association); this (for what it's worth); this (didn't know he designed Willington Hall, where I have dined - needs an article); this - Willington again; this from the National Archives, no less; this is for me an interesting "find" — his son was articled to John Douglas. But for Northwich all I found was this family history, which says he designed the Wistaton Church; IMO this is a "rogue". I'm pretty sure there was only one George Latham (architect), and he was from Nantwich. There was an error in Peckforton Castle (probably mine) which I have corrected.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a relief -- my 1971 edition (or to be precise, the library's) has two entries in the index: "Latham, George (of Northwich)": Arley Hall (text states "one Latham of Northwich), St Mary, Wistaston (text: George Latham of Northwich) & "Latham, George": Nantwich Market Hall (text: by George Latham). It's possible one or the other is a later printing in 1971 with some minor errors corrected? Mine doesn't mention any reprints, does yours?

Hall's History mentions him only in passing twice and doesn't even give him as the architect for the "new" market hall, which is what started me worrying. However, de Figueiredo & Treuherz mention "George Latham of Nantwich" as the architect of Willington & Arley, so hopefully my copy of Pevsner is in error. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually my Pevsner, although it is the 1971 edition, was republished in 2003 by Yale University Press (the original 1971 version was published by Penguin Books). So someone must have noticed the error and corrected it. Interesting; I should have thought they would just have done a reprint, as it were. It's good to know that "someone" fixed it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent -- though I wonder how many other errors I've been perpetuating! By the way, if you're interested in the son, Baldwin Latham, I've discovered he has an ODNB entry. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheshire Portal at peer review

As a step along the road to featured portal status, I've put the Cheshire Portal up for portal peer review. The discussion is here and we've already received some helpful comments, which I'm going to try to address this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The peer review has been archived. I've actioned the comments, updated news/DYKs & fixed one or two very minor issues, and I think we might be nearly ready to apply for featured status now -- if anyone has any more suggestions/comments? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory

Norton Priory is the TFA for this coming Sunday (the 22nd), so a few extra pairs of eyes keeping a watch for vandalism would be a great help. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate

I have nominated the Cheshire portal for Featured Portal status. To join the discussion, visit Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Cheshire articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of places formerly within Cheshire

At the Featured Portal discussion, Mhockey has brought up the interesting question of the 1974 boundary changes, and suggested that a list of places that were formerly part of Cheshire would be useful. Apparently other counties that were significantly affected by the boundary changes maintain such a list; I'll try to find some examples. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The format appears to be List of Cheshire boundary changes; there are some examples at Category:Lists of English county boundary changes. Vision of Britain details some boundary changes between 1889 and 1974. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the lists in Category:Lists of English county boundary changes are of relatively minor changes, but List of Berkshire boundary changes includes an extensive list of places transferred in 1974. That might be the format to follow for Cheshire, where the 1974 changes were also extensive. The list followed a long CFD debate here: there was for a long time a category of Places historically in Berkshire, and the outcome of the CFD debate was to Listify. I think WP is well used by local and family historians, and this sort of list is useful for tracking down a place referred to in the sources by its historic county.--Mhockey (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheshire historic towns survey

For anyone interested in settlement articles, Cheshire County Council seems to be putting online the Cheshire historic towns survey reports. They contain useful information on the history of towns and sometimes on their current state. The Cheshire West and Chester link is here. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks very useful. Oh, that there were more time....--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Cheshire to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

River Weaver article

I am thinking of submitting this article for Good Article status. Any comments, help, or additions would be appreciated. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It passed. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds

Should articles on hundreds be titled Foo (hundred) or Hundred of Foo? Input and comments please at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Hundreds. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move Silver Jubilee Bridge to Runcorn Bridge

There is a discussion at Talk:Silver Jubilee Bridge#Requested move regarding moving the article to Runcorn Bridge or possibly Runcorn-Widnes Bridge. Please participate. Bazonka (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Listed churches

With Union Street Baptist Church, Crewe, I think there is now an article on every listed church in Cheshire. If any have been missed, please either write an article, or let me know here or on my talk page, and I will do it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I admire your optimism Peter; there's probably only you and now with this page in our watchlists. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Silk Fustian and Cotton

• Macclesfield Sunday School does that count as a listed church-- the Anglicans seemed to be worried. That's one new article for the pot.

I have been plugging away at

• List of textile mills in Cheshire and it is now at a stage where anyone can join me- correct m' grmmer- and fill the few holes that I have left! I had a little bright weather on the only day I have ever visited Congleton, not so in Macclesfield, so there are now a couple of hundred extra piccies on Commons Macc and Beartown. Do Check if I have identified them all correctly- and add the missing ones. (Excellent change from doing churches!) There are some notable images missing, that some one more local could add. Probably I will split the Congleton and Macclesfield subsections into separate articles.

• The Silk Industry of Cheshire. I have completed the first draft of this requested article, and need to give it a rest before before culling and shaping. So comment and advice welcome. I totally fail to understand how I can get anyone to assess any mill article I write. Should I self assess this one as a 'C', and (as it was requested) put the importance as Mid-importance. Then I need some lessons on how to turn a 'C' into an 'FA'.

• Clarence_Mill is in Bollington- in need of an assessment-help! This would be useful to have this assessed, as it would give me a standard on which to evaluate other mill articles.
• Fustian is Mow Cop and Congleton related so have added some text- more to come. Fustian cutting seems quite relaxing!

OK- that's me reporting in- over to the world to respond. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Portal back from the mists of time...

Is this thing still on? [Taps microphone] I've done a few updates to the portal, which languished rather since my Wiki-demise. If anyone's still reading this, then feedback on my suggested new content (from the huge list of new GAs & FAs -- well done, everyone!) would be useful. I'm not planning on returning to Wikipedia, but I will try to get the portal a little more up to the year, if not the minute. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delighted to have you "back", even if only occasionally. During your gardening leave the portal and news have certainly languished, although articles have continued to be written (I personally am happy with doing the last, but am not skilled in managing the first two — important though they are). I have also tried to keep an eye on the articles you have created. So if you would occasionally deal with the news and the portal; then return to full production asap, that would be excellent. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter -- good to talk to you! I don't know whether I've the energy to fight the system these days, but I might create one or two of the articles I had planned before my offline life took a turn for the complex. Is anyone else still active here? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Schools articles in need of assessment

I've tagged ~30 articles on Cheshire schools for the project, but in most cases not assessed them as I'm not sure what the standards in this area are. Not surprisingly, even the longer ones seem to be a magnet for PoV or unsourced edits. If someone were able to assist, that would be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me a hand and and put a few comments on the Talk:Clarence Mill page which I wrote and self -assessed. I am unsure whether I am getting the levels right- then I will more confident to assist with the task above. I have penned my own guide to the task- but have no feedback on that either. That could be customised to Cheshire assessments- or school assessments. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty out of my depth with mills, too, but I've put some general comments on the talk page; hope they help! Your assessment guide is interesting; my evaluations are much more back of the envelope, I'm afraid. I tend with Cheshire assessments to try to be fairly generous, to encourage writers. It would certainly be useful to include a selection of Cheshire articles as examples in the project's assessment guide. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Those few comments were incredibly useful. Thanks. Now to Cheshire schools- using this guide I will see if I can knock off your list- I suspect we are only talking about Stub, Start, and C. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My feeling was the main distinctions are about referencing. Is there an appropriate external reference? Is there any reference except to the school website? How much of the content is obviously unreferenceable personal recollection? Is there too much trivial detail (eg lists of non-notable clubs, staff lists)? It's not really clear to me what a B-class school entry would look like! I know we have at least one (The King's School, Chester) but I think that was assessed (by me, it seems) years back, and might need downgrading. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We did have B. I have gone and looked at KSC- and found and article tagged with multiple problems- I downgraded it to start because all the important advice you had given in 2007 had been ignored. The school website could be used occasionally as a source- but it is used far too often for that.

I checked the history section-ref [3]- and followed it back to the school website-- in fact the text in the history section is the school website! Blatant C&P. I have mentioned that in the comment but feel we need to put a subst:copyvio tag on the page.( I have put one in comment brackets at the spot) When it mentions at the end the legal actions still pending with named members of staff I am even more uncomfortable. Please have another look- or advise what to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't scroll to the bottom when skimming. The BLP policy appears to have tightened in my 2 years of absence; I'm not sure whether the various local newspapers cited would be considered suitably reliable sources for this material ("Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"). It's probably safer to remove it, but I suspect that will generate edit wars. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have looked again and placed the subst:copyvio on the History section. Now what were we saying about assessment? The important thing to me is that we can justify our judgement. If we start at the B/C borderline we can just test the 6 criteria- Six ticks- and it passes. And if it fails by having too much trivia [B6]- too few independent notable references [B1] then we look again. No references- or incoherent a stub. Some sources and coherent makes a Start. Leaving the rest tentatively Cs. Useful articles with references, unbfinished with some dross. I will work on finding the perfect B article for reference. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done- all I could find. I got one C- a few starts and a lot of stubs. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've assessed the remaining unassessed articles, but I've noticed a lot of Cheshire related articles are not project tagged so there's still work to be done... Espresso Addict (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue- the template we use is {{WikiProject Cheshire}}, I was working alongside {{WikiProject Schools}} which has a couple of extra fields- including the info= field which would allow us to put constructive comment into the assessment and to sign it. I think it is a good idea to change our template to include this. Would this have support? --ClemRutter (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I doubt I'd use it -- the assessment reason is usually obvious or there is need for detailed comments, which I put on the talk page. However, I wouldn't mind this change as long as if the info field were left blank it wouldn't show; an extra blank line would be a little spacy on those pages where there are multiple but uncollapsed project templates. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done- c&p from Schools and have tested several existing pages - and placed the info= field on the Lymm High School page where it appears to work- I don't think I have broken anything. It may just be in the case of schools where most of the articles are Start and below- but I think it is useful in encouraging new editors and to point out what to us is obvious but to them a revelation. I think it is good practice to sign and take responsibility for any assessment of your peers. It gives the editor new to the article a starting point- a link to ask questions. And it does no harm - it doesn't force are POV. If there are problems- then we can always revert. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on One Direction and portal

The band One Direction has a member from Cheshire (one of five, if you are as ignorant of them as I). One Direction is tagged for the project, and has by far the highest hits of any Cheshire-tagged article (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Popular pages). The main band article is a GA, their discography is a FL, and several other articles relating to them are GAs. At the moment their content is completely absent from the portal. Should we include (some of) this content on the portal? In the box of Recommended content? In the Selected biography? In the Selected list?

I've poked around other county portals and can't find much of an example where the group only had a single member from the area covered.

All thoughts welcome; you can't know less about boy bands than I do... Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(A passerby writes) This highlights a basic problem which noone's really resolved, how biographies relate to "geographical" Projects. Personally I'd eliminate all geo-Project tags from biographies, and handle it by regional taskforces of WPBIO. You have to remember that the purpose of tagging with Projects is not as some form of category system, but as a way of identifying priorities for the Project. In the case of most biographies, another project is better off taking the lead, rather than a geographical one. Even in cases like the Pogues or Beatles, where their Irish/Scouseness is fundamental to their identity as a band and they have in turn are a significant part of the culture of their home cities, I'm not sure that WP:IRELAND or WP:MERSEYSIDE necessarily have too much to say that wouldn't be more of a priority for one of the music projects. Based on that, I really don't think 1D's relationship with Cheshire makes it worth the Cheshire project wasting any time on the 1D article. Have 1D even played in Cheshire for instance? (maybe, as part of the X-factor final "homecoming" gigs, but I doubt it's much more than that).
The anchor in this link says it all - WP:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Overtagging_is_disruptive "WikiProject banners should not be used to duplicate the category system or portals. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article....It is more friendly to omit outside WikiProjects that you think will rate the article as low importance relative to their specific field."
In this case WP Biography / Musicians and WP Music of the United Kingdom are overwhelmingly the "lead" projects and I'd delete all the county project banners. About the only biographies I'd keep a Cheshire banner on are people like landowners, mayors and Lord Lieutenants, the kind of people where there's no real Project for them to call home and where the articles are most likely to be worked on by people coming at Wikipedia from a Cheshire history background. PS The Holmes Chapel article calls it a "village" - I'd have said a small town? Le Deluge (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm Hoping That I'm Back

I seem to have got my admin status back and hope to be contributing again, though it will be from the depths of China. I may have to hold back a little until all my local history bhooks for Cheshire have also been re-located to China, but that's the way it goes.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(Just for info's sake: admin status was never taken off me: I just resigned it for a while)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, DDStretch! Happy Christmas, if you celebrate it over there! I'm back this past month from a 2 year wikibreak -- looks like the project might be getting a little more active again. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. They don't really celebrate Christmas here: for example, my son went to school as normal on Christmas Day, and I had some meetings, just as a normal day, in a local university here. We abandoned any idea of celebrating Christmas, but we have a "fake holiday" around 1st January, so we'll celebrate things then. (I call it a "fake holiday" because, although it is touted as a holiday, most national arrangements mean that all that happens is that the "days off" are made up for exactly by working on Saturdays and Sundays on either side of the so-called "holiday", hence my name for them...). Anyway, after I've got familiar with things again, I'll begin to become more active on wikipedia, but I don't intend to become a very prominent admin.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Training event for UK Wikimedians

Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia, we are running a weekend training workshop that will take place on the weekend of 23–24 February in Manchester. If you're interested please take a look at the event page for further details. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured review again for portal

I'd like to renominate the portal for featured status. I believe it largely failed last time because I had to go on an extended break, as there were few non-minor points raised. I've done a fair amount of work on it since I've been back to incorporate new material and answer the concerns raised last time, and I think it might be as ready as it's ever going to get. Any help you can give in final touches much appreciated! Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As no-one objected, I've gone ahead and renominated it. The discussion is here, if anyone wishes to participate. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The formal close hasn't yet gone through, but the portal has been successful in achieving featured portal status -- a hearty thanks to all those who have worked on the selected content over the years! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!  DDStretch  (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen much of portals before, but the Cheshire one looks really nice. Well done. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism check and watch

Ok. I'm easing myself back into editing, and I think I know what I can do to begin with. I've noticed quite a lot of additions and changes that don't seem to fit in with the ideals of an encyclopedia. This may be the most extensive one. I'll start to go through articles and try to rid them of obvious stupid entries, unnoticed vandalism, etc. However, is there a view about what we should do about rather extraordinary claims that are unreferenced, even if they are long-standing. I recall that just before my extended leave, some quite vociferous exchanges took place, sometimes between single-purpose editors, about their unreferenced additions and alterations. Has anything in policy altered about that in the last 3 years? If you think I should be doing something else, then also, I'd welcome suggestions. Thanks  DDStretch  (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do. I have tried to keep an eye on edits to Cheshire articles, but only really those on my watch list; and I may have missed (or ignored) some myself. (Orford is not on my watch list!) It's a tedious job, and I am grateful for your offer. Soem of the more important articles, like Chester have been meddled with quite a lot, and might need some more intensive loving care. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at Chester. One immediate thought is: What defines the boundaries of the city status? I know that there was some discussion, somewhere, about this when there was a Chester District, and I recall (though could be wrong), that the entire district was classified as the city. Now that re-organisation has happened, has the area of the city been changed at all, or is it still the area which used to be Chester District, rather than the central and principal settlement in the administrative area (or something else)?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!  DDStretch  (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced but plausible material can always be moved to the talk page in the hope that someone will come up with references. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I started to do before I took my break. It's a good idea, and I'll do that as well. I particularly used to do it to unsupported "Notable Residents"-type sections, but it should be done more widely. In general, until I can get some of my local history books which are still in the UK. I think any creation of new articles may be on the back-burner for a while.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Little Bollington

An editor has so far changed the standard opening sentence of the above article two times in a way that removes information. This editor has been engaged in edit-warring on other articles in the past. Given this, I feel it is important to avoid trying to revert again if any changes are made unless the mattter is discussed as this will prevent problems for everyone. I have opened a discussion about the opening sentence on Talk:Little Bollington if anyone wishes to comment.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Cheshire at AfD

Just noticed this in the project alerts (must have missed the bot update) and bringing it to general attention so that members can join the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(c/e) Just in case it is deleted, I have placed most of the content in a sandbox under my i.d. if people want to later re-work material in it into an article on Transport in Cheshire. See: Sandbox11 - Bus Routes in Cheshire. I am rather busy in China at the moment, and I haven't been able to do much other than a bit of vandalism-fighting.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to know what to do with the material, as -- if deleted -- we can't reuse the text because of the requirement for acknowledging the history. Sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I've worked out why I didn't see the notification -- one needs to be watching the project's Article alerts separately! Just a heads up in case others are in the same position. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable places map in Cheshire article

On a related note, I was looking at the transport section of Cheshire, and noticed there's now a map of "notable places" which appears to be constructed by population. As large areas of the county are rural, this leaves large blank spaces across Cheshire West & Chester and Cheshire East. Would anyone object if I were to add some places under 20k inhabitants, which are notable for some reason other than (2001) population? A few obvious omissions from Cheshire East are Sandbach (18k), Middlewich (13k) and Nantwich (12.5k). Sandbach is an administrative centre for CE, and Nantwich is certainly historically important. In CW&W, Neston (15k) and perhaps Frodsham (9k)? Lower still in population, but of historical importance.

If people prefer to apply the 20k cut off rigidly then the legend needs to be changed to reflect that it is showing centres of population above 20k. Also, I think some places have been included by mistake; Knutsford in particular is below 20k as far as I know. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we need the map? It does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose. It's little to do with transport. What is "notable" anyway? And a high proportion of the towns are outside the current boundaries of Cheshire. I would be happier to see it deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It does show the motorways and major A roads. If deleted, then the only other map in the article is the schematic showing the four unitary authority boundaries. I agree it would be clearer if the majority of the no-longer-in-Cheshire towns were removed; Stockport should probably be retained as it's a road destination. A decent physical geography map would be interesting, but I recall looking for one when buffing up the portal without success. The best I found was the below, which doesn't work well at small sizes. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• 

1st Chester Wikimeet

The 1st Chester Wikimeet will be taking place on 21 July. It would be good to see a few new faces there, rather than just the regulars who turn up to the Manchester and Liverpool meets (although of course they're welcome too!). See you there? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Identify that building!

What's black and white, impressively decorated, timber-framed, and lives at 55 Bridge Street?

Hi folks, can any of you tell me what the building at 55 Bridge Street in Chester is? I have some photos of it that I'd like to upload to Commons and I want to make sure they're categorised properly (and it's interesting!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a Grade II listed building; details here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Only Grade II? Wow. Thanks, Peter, I'm not sure how I managed to miss that! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help get Cheshire listed buildings tidied up for the Wiki Loves Monuments competition - opening today!

For the whole of this month (September) the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed structures of significant importance (eg grades I or grade II* or equivalent), as recorded by English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures.

We would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject to check that your local lists are in good shape. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible structures are up to date and well-presented. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the links, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table.

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by the official listing organizations. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

Some data may still need the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the official database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated.

Finally, to enter the competition, go to http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget about the Wikipedia Takes Chester event on 7 September. Hope to see you there. Bazonka (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Portal update

I've popped back after a wikibreak to do a long-overdue portal update, adding Chester Canal to articles, James Chadwick to bios, another DYK set (Addleshaw Tower, James Chadwick, Joseph Partridge (historian), James Hall (historian)), refreshing the news & recently created articles, updating the recommended articles, and updating various outdated bios. Let me know if I've forgotten/missed anything, especially new DYKs/GAs/FAs.

To keep the featured status, we technically need to keep refreshing the content every 3 months (though it's rarely enforced); I've suggested Ben Amos again as a possible biography, but if anyone has any better ideas...

Getting the portal featured appears to have broadly doubled/trebled the monthly hits, from 450–525 to 1000–1500, but they're still on the low side. Doing a bit of research it looks as if the main way of promoting portal hits is to link the portal from elsewhere. I'd therefore suggest two things:

• Adding a link to the portal in the Wikiproject talk-page banner; see eg the Wikiproject Biography banner;
• Adding a portal graphical link to the See also or External links sections of key articles, especially those featured on the portal. This would use the code {{portal|Cheshire}} which puts in a relatively discreet right-aligned box (which can be amalgated in various ways with other portals, if necessary):

Would anyone object to either of these measures? Discussion & suggestions very welcome! Espresso Addict (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As no-one objected, I've now rolled out the portal graphical link on around 200 articles, mainly those highlighted by the portal as well as some high-traffic articles and those that seemed of potential interest to tourists. I've generally avoided placing it on biographies, as I'm aware that some editors object to geographical portal links on these articles. Apologies to everyone whose watchlist I've been spamming over the past week! I'll see whether that seems to have any effect on the portal traffic before doing any more bulk additions.

I've also changed the image on the graphic to show the wheat-sheaves flag, which is both more obviously Cheshire and less deep than the England location map. I hope no-one minds?

I've been trying to keep the portal's news reasonably fresh as an incentive to visitors to return, but my main source is the BBC. If anyone has any items of local interest do be encouraged to post them here. It's most helpful if you also provide a reference on the archive page. I avoid criminal convictions, traffic accidents and the like. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just added the portal graphical link to the WikiProject talk page banner. While I was editing it, I've also switched the image to the colour map, versions of which have been used on the Cheshire article for years now. Or we could use one of the wheat-sheaves graphics? What do people think? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Joan Carlile

I'm curious to know why the Joan Carlile article is of interest to the project. Headhitter (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if you added the banner, presumably in error, when you added a banner shell on 12 March [3], but it was hidden until a recent bot edit. I see no connection with Cheshire, so I'll remove it. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well investigated! Thanks for sorting this out and my apologies for the inconvenience. Headhitter (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Quarry Bank Mill

On the project page I can see no mention of Quarry Bank Mill, a high importance topic that is tagged on the page. I have done a little work here. Would someone like to step over and check its quality rating.

I believe that there are 31 images on geograph that haven't been transfered across- does anyone know how to accelerate the process? QBM in the past has had a varied record for allowing photography. One school will visit and be allowed to photograph at will- then the policy will be reversed and phones and cameras forbidden.

There is some urgency in that a TV company is planning to do a sequel to its previous docu-fiction so we can expect visitors. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Consultation on relocating the county archives

Members might be interested in a consultation on relocating the Cheshire archives. It is open until 30 June 2014. I have just responded suggesting digitisation of records where possible for free online access, and cited Wikipedia as the group to which I belong. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I too have responded. Knowing some of the staff at CRO, I am sure they would do more digitalisation if the funds (and/or volunteers) were available. For example the brilliant Tithe Map feature (which I think is a pioneer project in the country) is an example of this. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The tithe maps are indeed excellent. I'll have to poke around their website as the survey mentioned a few online resources I haven't discovered. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheshire Show

The annual Cheshire County Show was held this week. The standard of its Wikipedia article fell some way short of Great Yorkshire Show or Kent County Show (or many others in Category:Agricultural shows in the United Kingdom), as it mainly consisted of a few paragraphs about local travel disruption. I've started adding some content covering the show's history and some of its attractions, and inbound links from other articles. Perhaps the Cheshire WikiProject can help? --AJP (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, AJP. I'm afraid I can't do much to help; I've never been and looked in vain last week for substantive independent sources to improve it. I had already included a news item about it in the portal & I've now linked this article, which might perhaps bring in a knowledgeable editor. Regards, Espresso Addict (remote) (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal update

I've done another update to the portal. This includes a new selected article (Cholmondeley Castle), biography (William Windsor (goat)), two new images (Cheshire cheese & Aldford Iron Bridge) and two new DYK sets, mainly courtesy of Peter's unfailing efforts. I'm trying to keep up with the news & new articles so that there's something new every week or so to encourage returning readers.

Linking the portal using the little graphical link from a range of articles has increased the portal traffic, up from around 1,100–1,500 to around 2,400–2,750 hits per month. If no-one objects, I'd like to roll out links to a wider range of articles (but not biographies) as my RSI permits. The main problem is where to place the link when there's no See also or External links section (and where there's no obvious See also content to add). Policy seems to suggest creating a blank See also section, but I don't personally like the result. Comments/suggestions welcome! Espresso Addict (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing the Cheshire Cat page: Request for Guidance, Support

Hello, my name is Hannah and I am part of a Cornell University class project where we are hoping to edit and improve the Cheshire Cat page. I see that the WikiProject Cheshire community is interested in this topic area, and I therefore wanted to reach out to you on behalf of my team to ask for help/advice. We are looking to add on to each of the page's existing sections to expand the cultural impact and cross-disciplinary influence of the feline icon, to give the page a general design overhaul (including charts, quotes, images, etc.), and to add a comparison of the different cinema representations of the character. Do you have any suggestions for articles or other sources we could use for our project? Or any suggestions at all for engaging in the editing process on Wikipedia?

If you would like to learn more about our class assignment, this is the link: [[4]]

The other members in me team are: Isabella Krell , Abby Sonnenfeldt , and Carolyn Sussman

Thank you and look forward to hearing from you, Hkm24 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Old maps and views of the North-West

As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As of Sunday night, over five thousand new maps have been identified, with 26.5% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/England - North West

which currently shows pink templated links for 172 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on Cheshire and the North West.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Portal update

I've done a long-belated update of the portal, with two new Selected Articles, Capesthorne Hall & All Saints' Church, Runcorn, and a new Selected Picture, Handforth Hall, as well as updates to the News & Recent Articles. I only found two new DYKs (All Saints' Church, Runcorn & William Owen (architect)) so I haven't updated that yet; if anyone knows of any more do let me know.

Since adding the portal links to various high-traffic pages, the monthly hits on the portal have gone up a bit: averaging around 1100 to 1350 hits/month before, and around 2250 to 2750 since. There are slightly more hits in months where I update, though that might just be me refreshing it repetitively to check that the new items show.

I have just relocated to Scotland, so I'm going to be less in touch with Cheshire news in future. I'll try to keep on top of updates but I'm going to be very busy for the next few months. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done another small update, adding Paula Radcliffe to the biographies, a new quotation and a DYK set. I've finished rolling out links to the portal in relevant B/C class & high-importance articles, as well as all CPs with a separate list of listed buildings and so an excuse for a "See also" section. Feel free to add the link elsewhere, of course, or remove it if you feel it isn't suitable.

There doesn't seem to be much activity in the new articles picked up by the bot, so I might remove that section in the future as it's a fair amount of work to keep up, with all the bot's false positives. Does anyone actually use it to find new articles? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheshire West and Chester Civil Parish Changes

There have been a number of changes to the Civil Parishes of Cheshire West and Chester, as of 1st April 2015.

All the details are provided at Cheshire West and Chester website.

How do we propose to get the pages updated? Some Civil Parishes now do not exist (e.g. Burton, Gowy - which I have reworded - and Iddinshall), so what do we propose to do with them?

 Pixie2000 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Editathon, 8 August 2015

You are invited to an editathon in Widnes on Saturday 8 August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015

Hello everyone. I've nominated the article Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015 for peer review here. I would very much appreciate if a couple of people from this group could have a look at the article. It's not the most exciting election, but the unusual result (only council which went from Conservative to Labour control at the last UK local elections) and active local press means that there's a lot of information available. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. Smurrayinchester 12:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Cotterill Clough

Is a Cotterill Clough page still required? Or is this the same as Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve, for which there is already an article? PennyDarling (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheshire Inventions, Innovations and Firsts

I have started a Cheshire Inventions, Innovations and Firsts as per Open tasks - if anyone has suggestion then please feel free to add or edit PennyDarling (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Peak District

Hi, I've just created a portal for the Peak District which may be of interest here. Do feel free to enhance it with new or improved articles or by adding to the links. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Cheshire, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wally Oakes' grave

Please could somebody provide pictures of the gravestone of Wally Oakes, which is at St Matthew's Church, Haslington? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to guidelines on UK counties

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion taking place here [5]. All comments are welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Portal revamp planned

I'm planning on revamping the portal, in the (perhaps faint) hope that it might stop it from being deleted over the coming months. If anyone's interested in details or helping out then please ping me. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I will do what I can to help, in between work and family!  Pixie2000 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Pixie2000! If you'd be prepared to put yourself down as a maintainer that would be immediately helpful.

I've been trying to respond to two broad concerns expressed in the spate of recent MfDs:

• Geo portals should contain maps -- I've added two, plus one indicating where the geo-located FAs/GAs are, so this is hopefully improved now;
• Portals should link to a huge amount more content than the traditional 20 articles +20 bios +pix +DYKs model. As a start, I've split Towns and villages out of the Selected articles but am having trouble finding more content -- I'm going to add Sandbach, and probably some more of mine that are B class (ie Acton, Peckforton, Sound, but mine are all in the former Crewe & Nantwich, so not exactly diverse!

My other thoughts all had obvious problems (in broad order of usability):

• Northwich has had edit warring over the population, and I can't quickly get my head around which is correct: I think Northwich CP is distinct from Northwich town, and both are distinct from an amorphous Northwich urban area, that might include Winsford;
• Chester really should be in, but has orange-level tag for notable people;
• Birchwood -- notionally B, but looked more like C to me. In Warrington area, which is underrepresented;
• Blacon -- suburb of Chester; also quite thin;
• Macclesfield -- micro-lead, lots of illos;
• Haslington -- near Crewe;
• Winsford/ -- important admin centre but haven't checked yet;
• Handforth -- I upgraded this without checking carefully;
• Crewe -- could probably be promoted to C but I haven't checked it;
• Warrington -- could probably be promoted to C but I haven't checked it; not sure whether covers the town or unitary authority, or both.

If you could take a look at any of those and see if you can fix any obvious issues that would be super! Also any other suggestions very welcome. I have some other thoughts but they are all start class.

The other thing I was hoping to get round to was adding a list of key Cheshire people to the topics box, but I haven't got started on defining who exactly might be in. There are far too many, even if one only counts people born in Cheshire (per reliable source). Any thoughts here very welcome!

I'm also looking to split out some other categories from the Selected articles, but I don't want to start that until the new settlements section has at least 10–12 items, as there's a drive to take portals to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that have underpopulated boxes.

Er, sorry if that felt like biting your hand off! Any help very much valued, and just the sense that the project isn't dead and does care about our portal is heartening. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

List of parks and open spaces in Cheshire

I created several parks in the past and will be turning the category:List of parks and open spaces in Cheshire into a main space article. It appears one doesn't currently exist and I believe it would be useful and encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Szzuk, that's extremely useful; I will link it from the portal. Also thanks for your help with the List of museums in Cheshire, much improved now. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cheshire

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Constituency boundary changes

I've been updating my CP articles with the changed MPs but found that Coole Pilate may have moved from Crewe and Nantwich into Eddisbury with the 2010 boundary changes. I used to use the councils' online mapping to find out which constituency CPs were in, but that seems to be down permanently now, and presumably has been a casualty of budget cuts? Does anyone know of an alternative reliable source? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Milestone & Macclesfield population

As I've been bumbling around the project's articles on behalf of the portal, I noticed that there were a lot of biographies and a few geographic articles not tagged for the project, so I've been tagging them as I went along -- tToday I see that the number of tagged articles has now passed 4000!

I've been trying to improve Macclesfield so that I can write a summary for the portal, but have hit the snag that I can't source the 2011 population figure given. I've tried adding up the 6 wards and the two different (why different?) figures for the built-up area, but none of these is close to the figure given. More detail on the talk page. Any advice welcome; I think this might be a general problem for towns. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Portal update

Hello again. I've made some small updates to the portal. The current advice is that all sections should have a minimum of 20 items, so I am trying to fill out both lists and towns/settlements. So far I've added:

• Warrington
• Warmingham to towns/settlements
• Bishop of Chester to lists

Keen on other suggestions for both of these categories! Articles must be at least C class (I've used nearly all the appropriate B class), with reasonable referencing and no orange-level tags. Lists must preferably be complete and sourced.

For towns/settlements my next thoughts are:

• Macclesfield, which will need the lead filling in, and is a bit undercited. Good example of a mill town.
• Winsford/, for variety as a lot of the current selections are in Cheshire East. Salt mining is an interesting USP. Article isn't very well developed, eg lacking demographics detail, unfortunately.

For lists, there are all Peter I. Vardy's listed building lists, of course. I'm keen not to overlap too much between these two boxes, nor to flood the section with too many lists of listed buildings, so my current top thoughts are:

• Listed buildings in Lymm
• Listed buildings in Great Budworth
• Grade II listed buildings in Chester (central)

All thoughts welcome! @Peter I. Vardy:, are there any you particularly recommend? (Or any that I should steer clear of?) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Although it was originally written by myself, how about Ancient parishes of Cheshire?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi ddstretch -- Good to hear from you, and thanks for this. (Self-suggestions are fine, of course.) I should have said, there needs to be around 165–200 words of lead text and a (free) representative image -- see the archive for the sort of thing that we've got at the moment. Could you write something a little more expanded? I don't know anything about the APs and don't have access to a Cheshire library anymore (or any library, but that's a different story). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the brilliant work you do on the portal. Regarding listed buildings, your suggestions are fine, and I would add Nantwich and maybe Sandbach. Macclesfield is an important town but the list has been (aesthetically) spoilt (IMO) by the insertion of some intrusive narrow images. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter -- and thanks for all your incredible hard work over the years that has generated this mass of material to put in the portal! I don't know how long the portal will last in the current arctic climate but I've been trying to take all the reasonable critique seriously.

Nantwich is already in, as are your three featured lists on LBs. I'll take a look at Listed buildings in Sandbach; I'd ruled it out as it is already one of the selected settlements, but the overlap could be minimised. Macc has the disadvantage that it has no grade Is, as I recall. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just added some new images, but there are still some others awaiting a decision, if anyone's interested. I've also suggested some additions to articles, bios and lists -- mainly B class but some C class bios. As ever interested in suggestions, and self-suggestions are very welcome. (I'm hoping to do some work on the portal this month, and then join the Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon next month, so I might see you there.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cheshire help

Hi, Cestrians! (Is that right?) I'm trying to find any information at all on the goat tower at Cholmondeley Castle for Goat tower. I know it's there because it's mentioned in their tourist brochures and there's a photo at Commons, but other than that, nada. Which is weird because generally goat towers get remarked on, and this one was definitely there in 2000 when the then Marquess photographed every building on the estate. I'm particularly trying to find out when it was built, which seems like someone in the local press would have noted. I mean, it's a goat tower. At any rate, if anyone has any clues, I'm buying! Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee I used to live a few miles away from Cholmondeley Castle and drove past it very frequently yet was very surprised by the idea that it might have a goat tower, sorry. It doesn't seem to be listed? (No longer live within 500 miles, sadly.) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, sorry, was out of pocket for various reasons for the past couple weeks. I'm sorry, 'it doesn't seem to be listed' where? --valereee (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity, Valereee -- I meant that it does not seem to be a listed building, based on it not being mentioned in Peter's Listed buildings in Cholmondeley, Cheshire. I've just looked in Hartwell et al. and they mention (p287) "a late C19 rotunda brought from elsewhere" -- I wonder if that is it? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, ah! Yes, I suspect it was built recently. If it were more than 40 years old, it would be the second one ever built. If it were built before 1900 it could possibly be the oldest one in the world. Thanks for the help! :) --valereee (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Importance levels

Hello everyone -- I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to amend the importance levels for some of Cheshire's settlements/CPs. The current structure is fairly flat, with hardly anything at Top importance, and nearly all CPs at Low importance. I suspect the levels were set up when there were far fewer articles.

There are currently only two Top importance articles (Cheshire, History of Cheshire), while other projects I'm a member of have many more items at this level. I'd like to add at least Chester and Warrington.

At High importance, I'd like to add Macclesfield and Wilmslow, which are large towns that get consistently high hits, and possibly also Northwich, Ellesmere Port and Congleton, which get slightly lower hits. [6]

At Mid importance, I'd like to add some of the larger villages with ~2k or so population. I haven't checked, but ones I've come across recently include Alderley Edge, Prestbury (both high hits), Mobberley, and perhaps even local centres such as Audlem and Malpas.

It might seem like pointless deckchair rearrangement, but it would make finding suitable articles for the portal easier, and perhaps would channel editing towards articles that are needy. Thoughts, anyone? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Unassessed articles on football seasons

We have a bunch of unassessed articles at present -- a lot seem to be football seasons, which I'm neither qualified to assess nor interested in doing so. Could they be perhaps be removed from the project? Just having the main football club article seems adequate to me. Or should we just copy the WP Football assessments blindly? Or could someone else volunteer to take a look? I'm worried it's making the project look inactive, when I see quite a bit of activity around the place lately. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now assessed all the other unassessed articles, leaving 82 football seasons or similar. Unless anyone objects, I'll take the project tag off these in the next few days. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cheshire History journal

Hi again -- Does anyone happen to have a copy of the 2015–16 (no. 55) issue of Cheshire History [7], particularly the article by Young about the Cheshire Cat? There's some queries about its content on the talk page of that article. Unfortunately it's not online yet. It's very quiet here -- hope everyone is well! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Districts

I want to begin by considering just one district. Looking at Cheshire East, for example, I consider that the article section concerning Administration is biased largely in favour of council wards. I think it could be made much more clear by separating the different types of areas: electoral wards for council elections, and civil parishes. They could legitimately be separated out as they refer to different kinds of representation, which, due to unclear thinking by legislators, do not fit together well. I would like to see a table of civil parishes including a history of their creation and predecessors, and wards they are in, with a corresponding table of council wards. There is a table there at the moment, but I find it rather unclear myself. I think the section headed Members of Parliament should focus upon constituency areas, and have as a subsection the current members of parliament. I think getting these issues sorted out might be another good thing to do, and it might have the same priority as dealing with the missing civil parishes. The articles on the other districts of Cheshire have very different structures. I think they should be harmonised.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Parishes project

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Cheshire are:

• Aldford and Saighton
• Ashton Hayes and Horton-cum-Peel
• Cuddington, Malpas (?) may need a separate article to Cuddington Heath?
• Delamere and Oakmere
• Dunham-on-the-Hill and Hapsford
• Eaton and Eccleston
• Hargrave and Huxley
• Mickle Trafford and District
• No Man's Heath and District
• Poulton and Pulford
• Saughall and Shotwick Park
• Stanthorne and Wimboldsley
• Tattenhall and District
• Tiverton and Tilstone Fearnall
• Utkinton and Cotebrook

And these exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Marbury cum Quoisley
• Poynton-with-Worth
• Burtonwood and Westbrook

A total of 18, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (1)#Cheshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I'm not 100% sure what purpose is served by some of these? They seem to have mostly resulted from a CP rearrangement in Cheshire West & Chester which amalgamated a lot of CPs. As far as I know there's no population data yet for the new CPs but it happened after I moved to Scotland, so perhaps someone else can confirm.

I deliberately put Marbury cum Quoisley CP at Marbury, Cheshire; I'd be surprised if there was enough for a separate article on the CP beyond a microstub. As I recall, there's no settlement at Quoisley to speak of these days, just Quoisley Meres. It's already impossible to get population figures for Marbury because it's reported combined with Wirswall, and the parish council combines it with Wirswall and Norbury. Perhaps someone more familiar with the others could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside I'm pretty annoyed that you got Wrenbury moved to Wrenbury-cum-Frith, and minded to undo the move. I used to live there and "Wrenbury-cum-Frith" does not exist; if anything the CP is formally "Wrenbury cum Frith", but the village is called "Wrenbury" by everyone and should, I think, be at that title by common name and by common sense (why have a potentially hyphenated or not title that no one uses?). I wish someone had bothered to at least ping me or ask me about the question before unilaterally moving it. I'm not very active but am responding to talk-page messages. @Crouch, Swale and Anthony Appleyard: Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Good Faith™ prevents me from assuming this entire project was a way of C/S gaming their Arbcom-imposed restrictions. SN54129 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Population data is available from City Population (example) and perhaps also from Cheshire West and Chester council, see Shocklach Oviatt and District. There is no need or requirement for the population figures to have been published for the article to be created anyway.

With Marbury the village is called "Marbury" while the parish is "Marbury cum Quoisley". Marbury, Cheshire should describe the village while Marbury cum Quoisley should describe the parish. With Wrenbury the village is called "Wrenbury-cum-Frith" and the parish is called "Wrenbury cum Frith" so they should be described in 1 article. If you think the move was inappropriate you can revert it per WP:BRD but it does seem like the village is now "Wrenbury-cum-Frith" though many sources do use just "Wrenbury". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging 1st half of members to get more input @Ddstretch, SunStar Net, Pixie2000, JFBurton, Richard B, Regan123, Phildav76, JimHxn, Twinney12, Salinae, Peter I. Vardy, Bobo12345, Nev1, SportingNonsense, Cosmopolitancats, RickCraig, Snowy 1973, Clogs, Jamesb1, and Alexhayes:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging the 2nd half, @Big Moira, Steve Farrell, (RT), Mothball, Espresso Addict, Pjbeef, Coolhawks88, Neil, Harrison.sam, Bs0u60d3, Joopercoopers, ARBAY, Coldmachine, Floorhugger, Skully Collins, Scythre, Southdunedain, Geopersona, TimMassey, Cesdeva, and Dadge:. I realize many people joined the project years ago and may no longer be active but its worth pinging anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Leftism: who was renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • As a former Cheshire resident and one who worked with many communities, I always knew Wrenbury village as just that, even as it lay within the parish of Wrenbury cum Frith. Older OS maps have simply the name 'Wrenbury' applied to the village. The parish council's own website says this: The Parish of Wrenbury-cum-Frith is located in south Cheshire, about 5 miles from Nantwich and lies within the administrative district of Cheshire East Borough Council. The parish covers Wrenbury, and the smaller settlements of Pinsley Green, Porter’s Hill, Smeaton Wood, Wrenbury Heath, Wrenbury Frith and Wrenburywood. That suggests the village is most likely simply 'Wrenbury'. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • . . . and I note that the latest edition of the Ordnance Survey 250k mapping labels it simply as Wrenbury - though it wouldn't be the first time the OS has been inconsistent across scales! Geopersona (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • In the TOID the only place it marks with just "Wrenbury" is the station. It may be possible to have 1 article at "Wrenbury" for the village and 1 at "Wrenbury cum Frith" for the parish but I'd probably say that's not a good idea since it seems like the names are interchangeable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I think we need to decide whether we have civil parish articles, within which we can have settlements named, or whether we have settlements as articles, within which we say which civil parishes they belong to. This is an old dispute which rears its head every so often and has never been resolved. My preference would be to be flexible, as we can clearly have information solely about a civil parish that affects a settlement within it, and we can clearly have information about a settlement that does not apply to other areas of a civil parish. There are multi-settlement civil parishes, for example, the civil parish of Haslington contains the settlements of Haslington, Oakhanger, and Winterley (Pool). Different situations can lead to different solutions, that seem locally accurate, but on a wider scale, looking at consistency, it may not seem satisfactory. I suggest a decision is made about what should be the principal article (settlement or civil parish), and that article be written, with relevant sections within it about the other aspects one had to choose between to write the article. If necessary, links could be provided to relevant sections within the article (if necessary by means of stub articles) to try to resolve the issue of consistency. Do people understand what I'm suggesting here (I've compressed it a bit)?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
          • In essence, this all is an attempt to jam together two things which are different qualitatively: we have areas of the county that form administrative units (civil parishes and unparished areas at the level we are considering here}, and settlements that roughly have boundaries that are similar and yet sometimes not identical to the administrative boundaries. Thus we have civil parishes that contain one settlement, more than one settlement, part of one settlement and no other settlement, parts of settlements, and a very small number that contain no settlements, etc. On the other hand, we have settlemnts that are solely within a civil parish, settlements that are in more than one civil parish, etc. Ideally, we wouyld have separate articles for civil parishes, and separate articles for settlements, and this could be easy as wikipedia doesn't seem to have space limitations, but for a variety of reasons, this is not wanted by a consensus on wikipedia, and various bans have happened as a result of differing positions on this.I have ideas on how to deal with this ultimately confused view that lashes together conceptually different entities (administrative units like civil parishes, and human settlements). It would involve listing all civil parishes along with maps showing them within their corresponding district, and supplementing that with various tables ssummarising their administrative histories.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
            • With Haslington the name of the parish matches the settlement so the normal situation is to have just 1 article however it would be possible to have 2. If the parish is later renamed to "Haslington and District" or "Haslington and Oakhanger" then we would split. Civil parishes and unparished areas tend to be combined with the settlement of the same name (if one exists) while districts and constituencies usually aren't, see WP:UKDISTRICTS. The reason generally is that parish boundaries tend to be stable for long periods and correspond to natural boundaries while constituencies tend to have more artificial boundaries and the change frequently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
              • I think you make a mistake. You wrote "With Haslington the name of the parish matches the settlement so the normal situation is to have just 1 article...", but, as I wrote before, there are two other separate settlements within the parish: Winterley Pool (as I used to know it when I was growing up there in the 1950s), and Oakhanger. They are still separated by fields and are quite distinct. This is a case where information about the civil parish was included in the settlement of the same apparent name (I think I originally wrote it), May be you intended it to be something like this: "With Haslington the name of the parish matches one of the settlements included within it (may be the principal settlement), so the normal situation is to have just 1 article..." It is this potential misleading situation I am talking about where one mixes up the conceptually distinct categories of settlement with the administrative area of civil parish. It potentially leads to confusion unless it is handled with far more care than wikipedia consensus currently desires. One needs to be very careful with wording here, and it is not a case of being unduly pedantic either. Later on you write "with the settlement of the same name", when I am saying there are other settlements within that civil parish and it is better to have written "with one of the settlements (or the principal settlement) of the same name." Not being accurate in one's writing here can easily lead to problems and squabbles later. Perhaps it is one of my professional expertises in philosophy and informal logic that makes me sensitive to what in other contexts in known as a "category mistake"?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
                • @Ddstretch: To clarify are you saying you think the likes of Hatherton, Cheshire should be 2 different articles? That is to say have 1 article for the village and 1 for the parish even though the names are the same? As I noted the consensus is against that. Look for example at de:Neuhofen im Innkreis that deals with both the settlement and the municipality. I think we should just look at creating the ones that don't match a settlement name and if you think we should have separate articles even when there is a settlement of the same name then a wider forum should be asked. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
                  • Ideally they ought to be, but I accept that consensus is against that. However, I do think we need to clarify the fact that the settlements and the civil parishes are two distinct categories of things. And I am aware of how things are therefore done by combining the two different entities together,though sometimes there is confusion instilled by this combining. I did think that in these cases, we could have a link created, for example in the case of Hatherton, Cheshire, it might be Hatherton, Cheshire (civil parish) which merely directly took one to the section within Hatherton, Cheshire which dealt with the civil parish, its boundaries and its history, etc, but I think this would be rejected by the consensus as well. In the case of Wrenbury, which caused some discussion, above, I think confusion led to the name change - if the current article focuses most on the village, then the name ought to be "Wrenbury", with "Wrenbury cum Frith" linking directly to the civil parish bit of "Wrenbury". You always need to be aware of these two logically distinct categories and the problem has been made worse by consensus not accepting these two logically distinct categories of things.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this up again. I had tried to do this myself when the Cheshire Project started and for a year or so afterwards I tried to include articles about various civil parishes in Cheshire, intending there to be an article about every one of them. The Real World then intervened, and after various other changes in my situation, I am largely now unable to do as much as I am disabled now and have been in and out of hospital recently. That's why this message is late. I did contact the old City of Chester borough people to ask about the various extremely small parishes in that borough, and was told that parish council meetings or parish meetings had never happened for most of them, to their knowledge (and this was in contrast with the other old county boroughs at that time.) I have a book which lists the histories of all the parishes in Cheshire, including boundary changes. I think this could be useful to use to describe the history of the newer, merged parishes that were established when the latest changes to the county occurred. I'll dig out the book and remind myself of things to get me a bit more up to date. I think given that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that including information about all parishes would be a useful addition, and I recall that I did envision a set of lists or tables that described the various sub-units of Cheshire and how they changed over the years. Thank you for wanting to take on the tasks you have described.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The lists or tables I was thinking of would be similar to the article I wrote called Ancient Parishes of Cheshire. Here are the references I used for the earlier histories of the civil parishes (though I also used others, as listed in the Ancient Parishes article). Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 2: Northern England), London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 9780901050670 Dunn, F. I. (1987), The ancient parishes, townships and chapelries of Cheshire, Chester: Cheshire Record Office and Cheshire Diocesan Record Office, ISBN 0-906758-14-9  DDStretch  (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The majority of these are them are the new ones created in 2015 and the orders are here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Yes. I was thinking that there would be a need for historical information to be included in the information about each civil parish, and that the sources I gave might be useful in providing some of that information. As for the Wrenbury/Wrenbury-cum-Frith controversy, above, wouldn't there be a case for finding what all reliable sources say? I know the OS map has been used, but is there a reason it uses the "Wrenbury" name now? Can we pin down when any apparent change happened? If we can, that can be documented and used, if suitable RSs be found, then write about them in the history sections of the entry for the civil parishes? In all these kinds of disputes, it's often best to see what the RSs say and try to resolve things if they conflict.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: Historical information normally goes in the article it directly relates to such as the settlement but may be mentioned in other articles. Wokingham for example contains historical information but Borough of Wokingham contains less, most of it relates to the newer borough. The same would likely apply here namely the post 2015 information for the newer parishes goes there while the older information would generally go in the settlement articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I think you should say "Historical information normally 'should' go..." because it clearly does not go like that on all articles on wikipedia, because we mix up information about civil parishes with settlements in articles, particularly including information about an entire civil parish in articles about settlements that are just one of a few within a particular civil parish. I think a much more nuanced situation exists on wikipedia because of a consensus that dislikes what some editors see as unnecessary duplication when they don't realise that they are dealing with conceptually different things. Bans have resulted over all this, as I now know you know (I just read up on various issues). I think in this issue, wikipedia's consensus has led to a lack of clarity in how we deal with administrative areas and settlements. DDStretch  (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: Wikipedia tends to combine information on civil parishes if (and only if) the parish has the same name as a settlement. Denby Dale for example covers both the village and civil parish (as you put i "mix up") while if they don't such as Nedging-with-Naughton we have separate articles. Most of the time when the latter happens its because a merge of parishes took place, another settlement has grown significantly or there is a historical reason for the distinct name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Yes, I know of course all that, as I have been active on matters to do with civil parishes of Cheshire in particular for a long time. Recently though, for reasons not important here, for the last 7 or so years I've not been so active. I think it is a bit unsatisfactory, to be honest, and it was one reason my involvement diminished somewhat.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: The situation where there is just one settlement in a civil parish (even one where they don't have the same name) is actually the clearest and least "mixed up" case. The other situations are more likely to be mixed up and confused. They seem to be the ones which cause the most controversy because of the lack of clarity concerning trying to force two conceptually different things together.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well yes there are many parishes that don't contain any other settlements such as Shelland or that don't contain any at all such as Stratton Hall. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

AS I think I have said, these are not controversial. It's when there are more settlements than just one (and especially where the civil parish is named after just one of the settlements), where problems occur. These situations do not seem to be dealt with satisfactorily in guidelines, and they can cause problems because of the different kinds of information in different categories that are then lumped together. I think you need to consider these situations specifically.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Chester Toy and Doll Museum

The above former museum is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Toy and Doll Museum. It's been closed now for several years. Does anyone know of any book sources? The web is unhelpfully coming up with an American museum. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD on Weaver Junction

Might be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaver Junction. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of article creation at scale

Project members might be interested in the wide-ranging discussions ongoing at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; discussions cover WP:GEOLAND, which includes settlements, geographic entities & heritage-listed structures. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)