Congratulations - another odd little story I knew nothing about until you dug it out. Just one point of interest - the photo of Manchester Museum is taken from the north, so the building right at the front (the brick and white stone one) actually wasn't part of the museum at that time as it was a built as a hospital and then was part of the the dental school until the 1960's or 70's (I can't remember when exactly). It was added on to the museum after that. Richerman (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit uncertain about that picture now. Beswick was buried in 1868, but it looks the museum in Oxford Road wasn't opened until some time in the 1880s. I wonder if there's a picture of the original museum in Peter Street anywhere? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Right well I might take a little breather and work on something else, but anyhow, what now is needed to progress the article further? I have added a bunch of text about the planning and funding of the canal, I also have a document from 1795 about the current status of construction. I don't entirely understand how things work from GA upwards. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the article is basically sound, well-written, and well-referenced, the three big differences between GA and FA are to do with the mandatory compliance to all of the MoS, not just the main bits, the sourcing has to be 100%, and the writing has got to be top notch, or as near as dammit. Once you've recovered your energy I'd suggest you make a start by splitting the current References section into Notes and Bibliography, as in this example, make sure that page numbers are included for every book referenced, and all web sites used as sources have publisher info included and so on. Attention to detail is really important. You'll be amazed at what FA reviewers will pick up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll do the dates, but I've inserted a bibliography section and changed just one reference - no.25, Bardsley. Have I done it correctly? What does the "Harvnb" mean in each reference, from the example in the pendle witch article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Great :) So any suggestions for sources (like the 200 year old documents I read today) that have no author information, but could be seen as 'books' or 'minutes of meetings'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the parameters for the {{citation}} template? If you have, and you're still unsure, then tell me what information you do have about those 200 year old documents and I'll make some suggestions. I'm always happy to suggest things for others to do. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, just wondering how I use the Harvnb template to put references to the old documents (the list of subscribers and also list of resolutions, committee, etc) when they have no author details? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The short answer is that you wouldn't use {{Harvnb}} in that case, you'd just use the citation temlate in the same way you'd use {{cite web}}, for instance. I've changed the first two Notes as an example. BTW, the MoS doesn't allow mixing template families in a document. It has to be either all {{citation}} or all {{cite}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Right well I've done a fair bit of work on it, just tidying up references and the like. Apart from one book whose research I cannot find (must have overwritten it on my laptop as I type things up in the library as I go) and therefore whose page numbers I have lost, I'm scratching around wondering what to do with it. Do you think it worth asking the copyeditors to have a look at it? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, getting a copyeditor to go through it would be a big help before it gets thrown to the wolves at FAC. Before then though, I'd suggest taking it to peer review. I think at FAC the Gallery might be a problem as well as the two lists, but who knows. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that (pr). The gallery and those lists are left-overs from much earlier versions, perhaps I could move some images around and have shut of them. The old images though I feel are of particular interest, unfortunately I can't see me getting them released for use in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The gallery depends on who's reviewing the article. Sometimes it gets picked up on, but not always. If there's a link to commons with all the pictures, that's considered enough. If it was me, I'd leave the gallery in unless someone at FAC actually says it should go (I did this with Warwick Castle). Good luck with FAC when you decide to go through with it. As has been said, it's a tough gig, but it benefits the article whether or not it gets promoted. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, I'd have put money on you saying "Go for FAC now, what's the worst that can happen?" ;-) But I do think this article's not quite ready for the wolves yet, needs a few more eyes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Who wants to be predictable ;-) Can more be found information be found pertaining to the lists? I don't think lists will go down well but if they could be converted into tables it's likely no one will bat an eyelid at FAC. Failing that, could they be removed? I don't know about the committee, but if the list of subscribers was removed a few could be mentioned, something like anyone who donated £1000 or more or any blue links. Nev1 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The schematic map dominates the top half of the article, and takes up space that could, for example, be used to put pictures of features like the crane and the staircases at their 'obvious' places next to the text. Is the schematic so useful that it justifies taking up so much space? Is there any mileage in putting the 'real' map at the top and defaulting the schematic to its shrunk form just beneath it? Mr Stephen (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm flying blind there - the waterways wikiproject is very quiet, and there are no similar articles to look to. Theres not a great deal of consistency, I did ask if someone could create an infobox template for canals but it hasn't happened yet. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the contributors at UK Waterways has written up an infobox template, which I have now inserted. There are a few bits missing from it but its much better now. I moved the schematic map down to the bottom, the trouble is that that section is now a little bit untidy, and I don't know how to prettify it. I also scrapped the gallery, and will be on the hunt for images to complete the history section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A vast improvement if you ask me! If there are no articles to look for as a guide, then I guess WP:GM will have to lead the way again here! I'll have a look at Flickr for some images we can use. --Jza84 | Talk 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a massive improvement! Something still needs to be done with those lists, and a couple of sections have very short paragraphs that need to be merged, but it's coming along really well now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Weeeeeeeell, I thought it may just get there in the end, but I was also aware it could get knocked off at any time in the tediously long process. As it had the joint lowest points on the page (but with no opposes) and would be the next to move to the bottom, I had begun to think that it may get knocked off right at the last minute. However, in the event the featured article director suddenly scheduled about six articles at once (while I wasn't looking) and the day was saved. This morning it was about five days away from the slot and then all of a sudden it's there. The good news it that there seems to be a consensus now to change the nomination process for a less divisive system, if they can ever agree on what it should be. I say "they" because I've given up arguing about it as I've been worn out by the whole business. All that for one day of glory - c'est la guerre! Richerman (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea for an article like this? I'm only suggesting it because I thought a list of ancient monuments in GM might be a good idea, but someone had already done it. Then I thought about a list of scheduled monuments, nope, already done. No list of parks though! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who started Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester, which isn't complete if anyone knows anything about Scheduled Monuments. For things that are recognised as nationally important, such as listed buildings (perhaps only Grades I and II), Scheduled Monuments and SSSIs I think there should obviously be a list, especially as some entries may not have their own article on wikipedia. Parks? I'm less convinced by that. What counts as a park? Who defines them? How long would the list be, are we talking dozens or hundreds? Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd assumed this proposal was for a list of public parks (i.e. publicly owned parks), in which I'd guess there would be probably be something between 150–200. I'm really not sure how much could be said about most of them though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Blimey it has got heated today. I was thinking of going through the list of people from Manchester and moving the ones from Greater Manchester into the right Boroughs but it looks like I've been overtaken by events. I thought Archangel had been persuaded when I put a message on his talk page but obviously not. It's a bit of a cheek to say he's created the page when it's all cut and pasted - especially when it was making a nonsense of the page Jza had already created. Personally I don't see a problem with having unreferenced names in as long as they come from an article that is referenced, but those who don't have an article of their own should be removed if they're not referenced. Any thoughts? Richerman (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Archangel has backed off, for now at least. The best thing do do IMO is to find references for the people in that list. Anyone who doesn't belong there should be put in the right borough if applicable or got rid of completely. Easier said than done though I'm afraid, that list is very long. Nev1 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
So far as referencing is concerned, my view is that the reference should appear in each article/list. Otherwise this article is dependent on wikipedia, which isn't a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. Anyway, if there's a reliable source in one article it's no hassle to copy it over. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never made the point that I created any list. I added the list from the Manchester piece so as the elevate a number of inaccurate additions on there. So accusations of "cheek" and "idiots" mearly incite heated responses. I'm not on here to argue with people I do not know. I'm here to contribute. I apologies to all concerned for any offence I may have caused and hope we ALL may have learnt something from the exercise. (Archangel1 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
(edit conflict) I asked elsewhere whether unreferenced names were a good idea if a link to a wikipedia article was present in which that linked article contained references verifying the entry in the article that contained the link. The relevant discussion on the reliable sources pages got slightly lost in the archiving, but the most relevant parts can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 18#Wikipedia as a source? and in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 18#Possible ambiguity in the guidelines in section 1.5.1. These seem to suggest that it is good practice to duplicate any verification (if it actually exists) from the linked articles in the article that contains the link. I can see that this might be the case, since we are less able to fix or to notice the state of the linked article to always be assured that the verification is maintained, and it is uncomfortably close to using one wikipedia article as a source for another. So since then I have always tried to operate on the principle that verification by means of citations is better if the citations are duplicated in such a list, converting the "unreferenced names" into "referenced names". I have tried to implement it in the case of Warrington (see Talk:Warrington#Notable residents for its implementation.) Look at it another way: if the article went up for FA status, I think reviewers would be of the opinion that the citations would have to be included, so they may as well be done at the point they are edited into the article. DDStretch (talk)23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"Will you at least accept that Manchester and Greater Manchester are not the same place for starters? " - I know they are not the same. Thats reason I was deleting people from the Manchester list but should have been in Greater Manchester one IMO (Archangel1 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
I did, but the abrupt terminology that some contributors use will always lead to conflict and I hope that they can learn that their action leads to a re-action. Anyway, onwards and upwards. Hopefully people will not start looking down from their Ivory Tower and make any futher inflammatory comments. Let us now look to producing a good piece (Archangel1 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).
Hey, you plagiarised my text from "Peterloo makes the front page for the 16th" above. You must have been really distracted by that DYK :) Looks like a long night - so I'm off to bed. Richerman (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Check the timestamps; looks like you posted a minute after you'd seen this. ;-) I wasn't around all day, but the level of vandalism doesn't appear to have been as bad as I'd expected. I hope that the same can be said of today's featured article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we posted at almost the same time really - but I was amused when I saw it. And talking of being amused - do a google search on "Manchester (New hampshire) Etymology" and click on the first link (the Cambridge Encyclopedia)- you will find it rather funny. I tried to post the link but the site is blacklisted - I can't think why. It does say at the end how you can rely on their material! Richerman (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information." I can't imagine what you mean Richerman. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Timber Wharf can go. I've seen articles about smaller shopping centres than the Fort survive at AFD. The list of shops needs to come out though. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Cant really see anything that separates Timber Wharf from tens of other developments to be honest. Not sure about the Fort. Would be inclined to say delete. Teesside Park (perhaps slighlty larger development), survived AFD earlier this year, however, I'm not really sure how. The article contain(s/ed) a fair bit of peacock term-ary such as an "eye-catching central building" (a public toilet), one of the biggest cinema's in the country (according to Durham University's undergrad marketing material), has "the majority of the big out-of-town retail chains and has a large Morrisons supermarket" (both according to the author). Pit-yacker (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd support the deletion of both. I've come across the entry for the Manchester Fort before, and each time I get suckered intothinking it will be something more interesting than a shopping centre. They both seem non-notable. And appallingly short. Nev1 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that Rudget has retired again, perhaps now is the time to reconsider the GM portal idea that Polishname raised a little while ago. It's difficult to imagine the North West Portal ever being worth spit as things stand, so someone needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't think I understood Malleus' post correctly. Well, I'd be happy to maintain the NWE portal and the GM portal (if it is to be created). I'm not much of big editor, so I'm not tied down with much. Are people up the GM portal then? There seemed to be some scepticism around before... —PolishName14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My fault for not being clear enough. I think it's likely that with Rudget's retirement the NW portal will become increasingly irrelevant and just fossilise into what it is now unless someone steps up to the plate. But, as Nev1 says, I also think now is the time for a GM portal. Let's face it, in the north west almost the only activity so far is here and in the Cheshire project. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, well, I'm pretty busy until about next Sunday, so as soon as I'm free I'll set up the GM portal (if we all consent to its creation, that is) and take over NWE maintenance. Don't forget that the blueprint for P:GM is in my sandbox: User:Polishname/test. Feel free to comment or make changes. I was wondering whether the 'Featured Biography' section should be changed to 'Featured Settlement' as we probably have more articles within this area available to showcase. —PolishName08:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Port of Manchester
I am writing an expanded version of Port of Runcorn (in my sandbox) and have come across references to the "Port of Manchester" as a customs port. They say that Runcorn was an independent customs port until the arrival of the Manchester Ship Canal and that in 1894 Runcorn lost this independence which "was abolished to become part of the new port of Manchester". I can find nothing in Wikipedia about the Port of Manchester as a customs port; everything seems to lead to Salford Docks, which is not the same thing. Does anyone have references to allow for writing a stub/short article on the Port of Manchester as a customs port? If so, it would make my redlink blue. (PS. Salford Docks needs some attention, particularly the addition of some history.) ((PPS Congratulations on Peterloo Massacre as an FA - and on the Main Page too!)) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus used "Farnie, D. A. (1980), The Manchester Ship Canal and the rise of the Port of Manchester" in writing about Trafford Park so he might be able to help. There's some useful stuff on the Port of Manchester in Kidd's Manchester if you can get your hands on it, around page 185-6. I had the Kidd book, but it will be next week before I have it again. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"The creation of the new port moved the Port of Liverpool's boundary 11 miles (18 km) to the west" - hehe, take that, scousers! ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should be thinking of DYK for this one, I'll see if I can find anything else. Would this map from 1933 be useful? There are two older ones available, although it would have to be stuck together like a jigsaw before it was uploaded. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think if we stitch the two inset maps in the top left together, that would be good. I've never done a DYK; how quickly do we have to build an article that's long enough? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorting out the map should be simple enough, but all I've got on my laptop is paint, so we might have to ask Jza for help. We've got about five days to expand it to 1.5kb of prose, so there's plenty of time. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) Definitely a DYK possibility here (Nev just beat me to saying it!). You need 1,500 bytes of "readable prose", Malleus—this excludes refs, anything in bullet points or quote boxes and things like that. I'll put it on my Watch list. DYK is one of my main hunting grounds these days, so let me know if you need any help with nominating etc. You have 5 days from today. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds easy enough, there's loads of material. I have an allergy to wikipedia's increasingly arcane and Byzantine processes though, so I'm quite content to let someone (anyone) else deal with any DYK nomination. I'll just try and help build the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It makes more sense than the today's featured article process ;-) You'll still be credited if someone else nominates it. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The today's featured article process makes perfect sense once you recognise it as a feudal space in which the serfs are magnamimously allowed to make (limited) supplications to their Lord. I'd better say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded that picture to Commons (nice find), and added it to the article. Let's see if it survives its interogation by the image police. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There is also a great website here with lots of really good amateur photos of Manchester liners and the Port of Manchester. Maybe the photographer would be willing to let us use some of them. Richerman (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded my expanded article on the Port of Runcorn sooner than I had planned. I have submitted it as a DYK under today's date, including a reference to the Port of Manchester. The "premature" upload is to give you an opportunity to expand your stub (if you so wish) and make it into a "double-nom" for DYK (you may have to move it from the 21st to the 18th). Knowing of the energy within your project, I suspect you will rise to the occasion! It would be good to have a Cheshire/G. Manchester double-nom. Best wishes and good luck. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to expand it now, anyone else feel free to help. We can't have those posh Cheshire bods getting one over us poor soot-breathing children of the Industrial Revolution. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be surprising if there wasn't. I'm planning to do what I can based on the Farnie book for now, to get this up to the DYK standard. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing Malleus was born in CHESHIRE, while I was born in a sooty town of the Industrial Revolution in Lancashire.....the ball's in your court now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of stuff in adverts from the Times, but so far I've not found much of use (then again my internet connection is painfully slow at the moment). Forgetting to sign may be an annoyance, but just think of the other end of the scale.
(outdent) The article is now long enough, although it needs some organisation and is heavily weighted towards the early 20th century (that's because the only source I could find was from 1908). Not sure about potential hooks for DYK since it should probably be something that ties in with the Port of Runcorn. Nev1 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Too late! I've done it. Double-nom for the 18th. The hook is Runcorn-biased - but it was my idea in the first place. You can always suggest alternative hooks of course. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
We did? Last time I was part of a DYK there was a message on my talk page if it made the front. Anyway, good news that it succeeded. I don't know about how anyone else feels, but if anything else similar occurs to you drop us a note and we'll see what we can do! Nev1 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Salford Lads Club
I did a lot of work on Salford Lads Club recently only to find this had been added today. It's not referenced, but it links back to an article on a self-styled "British film director" Aneel Ahmad. He seems to have written his own article and I can't see any references that aren't self postings, myspace, a webblog or other some unreliable source such as IMBD. I'm happy to remove the crap in the Salford Lad's Club article but do you think his own article should go up for AFD? Richerman (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Just done a quick sweep of the article. It's pretty much the "poster boy" of what not to do in terms of WP:RS (Myspace, IMDB and Wikipedia itself used as references). At best this is a breach of WP:V and WP:CITE, and worse a major breach of WP:BLP. Definate AFD. --Jza84 | Talk 01:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you and Malleus were both onto it pretty quickly, I don't suppose you can blame him for trying to up his profile but not in our neck of the woods thanks! Richerman (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I suppose we can give him some time to sort it out, but I suspect the result will be the same. I see it's been up for speedy deletion already in the last few days but that seems to have been lifted for now. Richerman (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in two minds as to whether there's notability here. The article as it stands is of course a self-promotional puff piece, but I've never had a film shown at the bfi for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah but Malleus, you're notable in your own right! My thoughts were exactly the same - lots of self promotion with a bit of notability. I think I'll just leave him alone for a bit and see what happens. Richerman (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually work in television. I see these things all the time. They're all guff, pure self-promotion. The only time I pay attention is when I see a terrestrial television credit, until you see that its all meaningless. The lack of any such credit says everything. Delete tbh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I rolled back the edit on Salford Lads Club as it was unreferenced and the information was put back, in a different place, by 62.254.16.47 who also seems intent on putting unreferenced (or unreliably referenced) information about Aneel Ahmad into articles. It makes you wonder doesn't it? Richerman (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
(<-) Going forwards, do we have a consensus as to what to do with this user and the Aneel Ahmad article? Anybody willing to try and win the user round, or failing that, take the article to AFD? --Jza84 | Talk 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of it IMO. The references are nearly all industry sites for the sole purpose of marketing freelancers. Until somebody puts in a reliable source or two I don't see how it is any different than a CV. The creator will be disappointed but hopefully learn from the experience if it is deleted. I have entered into something of a 'heated' debate with him/her on the subject, he keeps deleting parts of his talk page also. As an aside, if the standard of his English is indicative of modern education than I think this country has problems. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I just add that I have since discovered that the author didn't know he could put non-web-based material in as references. He says he has a lot of newspaper clippings, so I now would suggest leaving it for a few days to see what happens. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm leading towards keep, although I can't say I have strong feelings either way. I was hoping for something from at least a local newspaper, but the Manchester Evening News drew a blank. That said there is this source but I don't think it will satisfy Parrot of Doom though as the top of the page says "By Filmmakers, For Filmmakers". Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also struggling to decipher if this is suitable content, but as Parrot of Doom is an industry insider, I'm inclined to go with his instinct/insight. That said, it is likely to frustrate the user in question, who seems to be acting in good faith. --Jza84 | Talk 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also found this, although it only mentions Ahmad briefly. The article from moviescope is almost exclusively about Ahmad; since it's an article from a magazine, it means it (more or less) counts as reliable, third party etc, although this is open to debate. I think this shows that Ahmad (just) satisfies WP:N. That's not to say the article should stay, WP:N says that even then the subject might not be particularly notable.
If it survives, the article needs a clean, but it's not all fluff. If we take moviescope as a reliable source, Ridley Scott really did praise the guy. I think the editor is at a disadvantage for being so inexperienced. Nev1 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also leaning towards keep, and have been from the start. The article definitely needs cleaning up though, but as you say, that's probably down to inexperience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. I did a SVG version of the map a couple of weeks ago, it should be a bit crisper than the gif, and easier to modify (with a scale, what the symbols mean, etc). As it stands though, it's very much a straight copy of the gif. Gimme a couple of hours and I'll upload it for your consideration. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic, someone has already picked up on that :) I have tried a couple of times to get a reply from the author of that image (who did give me his permission), but he hasn't replied. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit short of time ATM. The upload pages seem to have changed - again - and I can't quickly find the right way to do it. I'll try again later. Pointers to the right wording & release license would be nice. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a great article. If I don't get round to it (a rather irksome sockpuppeteer is poking me in the side at the moment), I think the lists of "Notable subscribers" and "Canal Committee" would be better placed in tables. Great work though Parrot! --Jza84 | Talk 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that reference 121 doesn't work - I think its because 'Littlewood' is referenced twice in that format. Anyone know how to fix that? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I had a closer look at the map (not yours Mr Stephen, but the original), and it didn't quite seem right - which means you may have wasted your time Mr Stephen, and I'm terribly sorry about that :( The scale is slightly off, so I redrew it using a 19th century map as an underlay, and came up with . Unfortunately I don't know why it won't display in the window, it certainly works in the browser? One more thing, how does one rename the Wikimedia Commons category? The commonscat link no longer works. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Right well I've changed it anyway, figured out the problem - a jpg in the background that I had 'dimmed' to zero, deleted that and problem went away. Let me know if anyone thinks the map should be improved. New map inserted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So what's the next step? I'm guessing we'll need to replace all those links to P:NWE at the bottom of pages with links to P:GM. But except for that, I'm not sure. —PolishName20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know anything about this town? Perhaps someone has a couple of factoids they could add? For a high priority article, it's in terrible shape! :S --Jza84 | Talk 00:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Or Oldham. Hehe!... Which reminds me, I must get Chadderton off the ground some time soon!... Would be nice to improve the Heywood page though. I was horrified. :S --Jza84 | Talk 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen loads worse. Like Alsager, for instance. ( Yes, I know that's in Cheshire, no need to remind me ;) ) I've begun to wonder if we aren't starting to lose some momentum though, what do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, 6 GAs in July is a difficult standard to maintain. Plus it is the holiday season. I was planning on fixing up the newsletter again, there's plenty of stuff to keep people up to date with. Maybe the project would be interested in a collaboration of some sort? There are plenty of articles out there still needing work, maybe we could find something that interests a lot of editors? Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've breifly lost momentum owing to a small thorn in my side of late (!), but intend to pick things up asap. I think Joshii's loss hasn't helped, whilst Nev1 rightly also points out the holiday season. Certainly I think we need to clear out some of the inactive accounts from the members list (people might think we don't need any new help!) - that's been long over due. I still thing that the congestion charging in Greater Manchester would be a good one to get everyone involved. Failing that, Salford? --Jza84 | Talk 18:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Salford, the TIF et al might be too complicated, but it's worth putting it out there to see what people think. The congestion charge would probably be a bit easier to find sources for as they'll mostly be online. How about we move user that have been inactive for 3 months into an inactive participants list? Or remove them all together with a note on the relevant users' talk page. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer Salford too. The TIF's important, but it's just a proposal for now that may even come to nothing. Whereas it's ridiculous that Salford's not even a GA as yet. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Salford would work for me, there's little of it's history, nothing about St Stephens Ward. Considering it was once reputedly more important than Manchester I reckon it could stand improvement. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
(Ignoring thread jacking) I've added a demography section and have revamped the economy section, although I intend to add a bit more tomorrow. If we could get rid of the trivia section and prune notable people, we'd have the bare bones of a decent article. Although the history section is all over the place. Nev1 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a lot of references to the Heywood article, the demography and economy section (although formulaic) stand up to scrutiny. The history section needs a rewrite, I've found a 'brief history' online that helps a little but much of it will remain unreferenced. The geography, governance, and culture sections are stubs, although something about the parliamentary constituency can be added easily. I've torn out the list of notable people and stuck it on the talk page until sources are provided. The article's better than it was before the changes, but it looks a bit drab. It could do with some pictures and ideally someone with access to local histories. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There was a good local history book online here but unfortunately only the index seems to be available for some reason. If someone could get hold of the book there looks to be a load of info, if the index is anything to go by. Richerman (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Article traffic stats
I've just noticed that after months of being out of action the article traffic stats have been updated up to the end of August. It shows that when Peterloo was on the front page it got a lot of hits: 52,600 over 4 days and 22,500 when it was TFA [1]. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
