The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue VII - May 2008 April issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News The Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, and Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article. Ddstretch and Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page. Hulme Arch Bridge was promoted to GA. This was mainly the effort of Mike Peel who was also largely responsible for the promotion of Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester last month. Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in Saddleworth, Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over 19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included Jza84, Ddstretch, Malleus Fatuarum, Hassocks5489, Nev1 and Mike Peel. Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page: Hulme Arch Bridge, Peterloo Massacre, Bolton and Leigh Railway, Barnes Hospital, Denshaw, and Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it here. It gets the project noticed! WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC! Member News There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month: Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. Thanks A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself. It's no joke. Written by Basketball110 and Nev1 • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! New Aims Last month the project set new and ambitious aims for itself: Obtain FA status for Greater Manchester. Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Obtain FL status for List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Obtain GA and/or FA status for Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Obtain FL status for List of people from Bolton. Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs. It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome. Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process. Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash. Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable. Reminders... Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images. Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click here. Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do.

..as you did to the article Yorkshire, is considered a form of trolling. However, if you wish to go on the talkpage and express your stance with cited sources under the "Introduction (again)" section, you're welcome. Otherwise your edit is good for the reverting, "as per talk", thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since MRSC presented his rationale, his claim on the point on governance has been disproven undoubtedly with a reply. That is the whole point. If you can't be bothered to enter a discuss in that section, then don't revert by saying "as per talk". I'm well aware of the 3RR thank you, are you aware of WP:TROLL? Certainly what such an action appears to be. And you've yet to reply on the talk, I'm waiting for your "in depth" explination. You're supposed to write a message on the talkpage, before you troll an edit an say "see talk". Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing a report on your actions of following me to articles and intentionally trolling my edits, as you have done numerous times. Have you not learned how to act correct since last time, son? Do you really not have anything better to do than attempt to antagonise me? Do not make changed which you cannot back up with a source. Thank you.

Oh I only just caught the "and a Lancastrian" part, I don't know whether to laugh or what. Lancastrian is an abusive discriptive word now?? - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern.I addressed the message that you referred to to Yorkshirian. I was unhappy that he appeared to quote me on the Yorkshire talk page on statements that I did not make, then accuse me of POV edits.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one problem that Wikipedia may be experiencing at the moment is that the improvement of articles is being used as an "examination project" or course work. Without a knowledge of the editing process, the students run into multiple issues. My feeling is that some feel unable to accept improvements to their edits by others as they see this as "backing down" - not easy for people of certain dispositions. Examiners or tutors may fail to see the process rather than the product as being worthy. Obviously we are all aiming for a good product and the academic skills involved are important but the co-operation and discussion skills are also laudable. Just a comment from a retired "Mr Chips"--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just left Dmcm2008 a quick message about citations and things. I don't think there's any reason why you two can't collaborate on articles. I'm pretty interested in improving Liverpool and it's related articles and i see you helped work on Manchester which is a hell of an article now. I think if you adopt a more user:talk approach with Dmcm2008 you'll get things done better. I'm sure both of you have good ideas to contribute. I don't mean to sound like a dick but it's much easier to explain to someone exactly what they've done wrong rather than revert and watch them make the same mistake again. Any problems/ideas/general chat about stuff drop me a message on my talk page. Cheers! (oh and excellent work on Peterloo, i read that article about five months back but it's much better now!)Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wasn't sure how things turned out and was interested in working on the article. Good stuff and thanks anyway! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Re. our discussion last week, have you noticed the comment about the the Isle of Man articles not working? I don't know if it's due to the changes you made or not, but e.g. Douglas, Isle of Man the section on ambulance in the infobox is corrupted.

Just wanted to mention it in case you'd missed it. Cheers,

Chzz (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-now been fixed by Warofdreams, no worries Chzz (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been up most of the night and am extreamly tired. Thats why. Sorry about that. Christopher140691 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaz, Wikipedia policy says: "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

I am a well respected journalist who co-owns a major media outlet in Rochdale, I am perfectly capable of authoring a piece without bias. I also cited both reliable sources. Moreover, your suggestion of promotion is also inaccurate, if that were so why would I write about the main competitior to Rochdale Online, the Rochdale Observer?

It would also have been simplicity itself to hide my identity, that I chose not to do does not however give you the right to name me without my permission.

Who are you and what connection do you have with Rochdale? Please explain to me what gives you the right to appoint yourself the sole arbiter of what is of interest about Rochdale? MSJ1958 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear the user in question is likely to ever grasp the rules of wikipedia with regards to notability and external links. Constant reverting will solve nothing so we really need to take this further! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has now been blocked for 24 hours due to a request at WP:3RR so we have a day to try and work out what to do! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has just been blocked again as User:RochdaleMan, very original username huh? He's one to keep watching out for. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, what worries me is that he says Rochdale is not a town anymore and just a district in the borough, as is Milnrow, Heywood etc. Someone who thinks they are passionate about Rochdale should at least know some basic geography. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this? MRSC • Talk

More concering, Yorkshirian is making some very serious claims about you here and here. They appear to relate to votes you are accused of falsifying in 2004, based on an AFD in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ceremonial_county_of_Durham) To my recollection you were not editing in 2004? or capable of time travel. Futhermore the vote was actually tallied by User:Morwen. [1] I have commented on his talk page [2], but have no reply as yet. I really want to assume good faith and beleive this is a misunderstanding, but I'm not sure how one could conclude this given the lack of evidence for his stance. MRSC • Talk 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jza, you have said this source is not working[3] and removed it from an article, however it works perfectly fine for me, this is the screen shot Image:Screenshotsaddle.png. It is an article originally taken from a publication in the "Guardian Unlimited" and was published on "9/23/2004". So I'm going to re-add it as a source to the articles Yorkshire and Saddleworth White Rose Society, thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the mistake made in relation to WP:PLACE talk however since that vote is from 2004 when Wikipedia was not as established as it is now, I also do think a modern, new count should take place to give a better depiction of community opinion. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so what's the story? You haven't addressed any of the issues that I raised on my last point on the talk page. Either you've accepted what I'm saying (unlikely from what you've said earlier) or you're ignoring it. I've given a good half dozen reasons why the name Ireland is more appropriate in this crcumstance. If you could acknowledge them it would benefit the article in trying to improve it accuracy.Thanks.WikipÉire ^♣ 14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. --Jack forbes (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Enfield Chase is related? I will have a dig around when I have moment. MRSC • Talk 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in: my understanding is that a forest in medieval times was an area of woodland which had various officials and laws governing and managing it. A chase was usually a smaller area of forest, and reserved mainly for hunting. The problem is that I've inferred that from reading various sources about medieval forest management in Cheshire, and from various other sites dotted around the web, and it could also mean an area of common land over which various nobles have rights to hunt. What is needed is a dictionary of various official and semi-official terms used in medieval, earlier and later times, in which one might expect to find forest, chase (as in Cannock Chase, and all the other chases as areas of lands one sees doted around the UK. See here for some information, including the sentences: "In 1228 Henry III was compelled by want of funds to grant Charters of Disafforestation, whereby several extensive tracts of land, hitherto within the original forest bounds, were converted into common land, or land held in common by the various inhabitants of the parishes affected. The old Kingswood Forest was thereby reduced in status to that of a Royal Chase and its size cut down to some 4500 acres which extended some 6 miles north east of Bristol and covered the present day St.George, Upper and Lower Easton, Bitton, Hanham, Oldland and Brislington, together with parts of Stapleton and Mangotsfield parishes." It may help focus more targetted searches, I guess.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources also support this view although it is all implicit rather than a nice bold difinitive statement. MRSC • Talk 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki entry for Chase contains the sady unreferenced definition: "Chase, a geographical term (usually British) designating an area of privately-owned land for hunting, for example Cannock Chase". It just shows to me again the necessaity of insisting on citations and references at the point at which information is added.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horwich is described as starting as a Hunting Chase for Manchester Barons. I have copies of both books cited, so I can see what they say if that helps. Paypwip (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be useful. (Cranborne Chase in Dorset is another example which also states that it is an area of land given over to hunting). I will shortly be getting a copy of "A Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases" (2007) by Christopher Coredon and Ann Williams isbn=184384138X), and this may well shed some light on the matter as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] (re Enfield Chase) says : A chase was, like a forest, uninclosed, and only defined by metes and bounds; but it could be held by a subject. Offences committed therein were, as a rule, punishable by the common law and not by forest jurisdiction. Lozleader (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even better [5] "A forest... is an extensive territory of uncultivated ground maintained for wild beasts and fowls of forest, chase, and warren, the meers or boundaries of which are fixed, and known by matter of record or prescription, and to which are attached particular officers and laws. The latter clause is essential to make a forest, without it such a territory would be a chace only. The so-called deer forests now existing in Scotland are properly speaking chaces; and on the other hand Cannock Chase in Staffordshire was a Royal forest."

Interesting extract, although dating from 1884 the scholarship might not be up to scratch by today's standards. Lozleader (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this? Paypwip (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! So many of you to thank! That's amazing! I might even put an article together! Great work guys, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check your request on the graphics lab and see if it is done well enough? If so, it should be marked {{resolved}}. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you amended my newly created infobox on Laughton, East Sussex. As that was just one of the hundred I am currently updating I think I better agree my criteria with you before I continue.

I agree with the Postcode and "Boxing the Compass" change, its the official_name parameter that I disagree with.

Myself and another editor are having a drive on Sussex stubs by merging one line village articles into a larger parish based article, based on guidelines at WikiProject UK geography. This means that the Laughton article is about the wider ranging Parish of Laughton and not just Laughton village. To emphasise that, I used Laughton Civil Parish as the official name. In addition, the population and area statistics relate to the Parish and not just the village. I have done this on quite a few places now!

(Whilst writing this I noticed you just left me a message as well)

MortimerCat (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be pedantic, Ordnance Survey Explorer series of maps shows the parish boundaries and prints the parish name with a CP suffix. But as you said, it should be standardised, and reverting the ones I have done will be easier than changing the whole of England. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it a lot!--Esprit de corps (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84,

Thank you for your welcome message! I got it so quickly I wondered if it was automatically generated.

It contained a lot of good advice on how to edit, like, "be sure to fill in the summaries." I am a relatively new editor, but, I tried very hard to do all of the things that you suggested correctly, even before you suggested them. So, please let me know if I made a mistake in one of the areas you mentioned. That information will help me do better in the future. Otherwise, as far as I know, I'm doing fine so far.

Your welcome message came within 30 minutes of the first time I contributed to a Wikipedia "talk" page. (It was the "talk" page for the editors of "Internet TV" article.)

So you live in Manchester, Yorkshire, UK!

Though I've never been to Manchester, it is dear to my heart because of Manchester United. I can't say I'm a devoted fan because I spend all of my free time working (at MITRE) or studying mathematics and network security and a wide range of area in between. I'm 61 and will be retiring soon from the MITRE corporation where I am a Technical Lead for the Network Security Group in the Communications and Networking Department.

Are you a United fan?

One of my office mates used to play for them as a teenager - Scott Musmann. He's American, originally, but spent most of this teenage years in Manchester. Probably they have a junior league or something. Scott moved back to the US when he got married 15 years ago. (He's about 40 now.)

(I live in Fairfax, Virginia, USA.)

The main thing that motivates me to contribute to Wikipedia is that sometimes the text in the articles is garbled and it makes me feel like I am "doing my part" by applying a little word-smithing here and there.

Or sometimes, I will do extensive research to lock down some little elementary point that is not mentioned in an article. If I am really sure that I've got the "correct" answer, I like to share it with others.

That only happened once so far that I can remember. I did not know if the "p-adic numbers" were the same thing as the "l-adic numbers." (They are.) This is a crucial point for someone (like me) who is trying to work through the literature explaing Andreww Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. I added the following paragraph in the Wikipedia article's introductory section on p-adic numbers last year in an attempt to explain this. The article goes on to talk about 2-adic numbers, etc., so the explanation fits into the flow of the article.

"The p in p-adic is a dummy variable. Advanced articles in number theory often speak of the l-adic numbers without explanation. The l-adic numbers are the same thing as the p-adic numbers; the l is used to not conflict with other uses of p."

I get so much out of Wikipedia, I like to give a little bit back once in a while.

I'm 61, about to retire, and I have 4 grown and married children, and 6 grand children.

Oh, and "all of my free time" does not count my church work because I don't count that as "free" time. That is my vocation. My job at MITRE is my profession. I take it seriously and I loved it, but, it is still "just a job." And, it doesn't count my "family time." That belongs to me and my family jointly, not just to me. Technically, my time at MITRE belongs to MITRE, not me, but they give mew so much freedom to do what I want that it feels like it belongs to me. And I love it.

Cheers,

DeaconJohnFairfax (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only "reverted" twice and I didn't even do a third one. You shouldn't be telling me about this until I do a third revert. Secondly, I already said that I was going to use Manchester in it, and that wasn't a revert, it was an edit. I already ended the war and you don't need to be testy with me because we have two different opinions. — NuclearVacuum 14:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that I made an agreement with it. As long as you keep two images on the template, I will agree to have the second city be Manchester. — NuclearVacuum 14:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you think the stuff you removed here was a novel synthesis. It doesn't seem at all novel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox appears as coding. Can you please fix it? The Vandal Warrior (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! The Vandal Warrior (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I spotted the authority and it supports Country, however my impression is that the facts are less important than multiple political agendas in these discussions! --Snowded (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've just removed {{UK-geo-stub}} from Chase (land) for a second time - please do not re-add it! Country-specific geo-stubs are for specific locations within countries: towns, rivers, hills, etc. Something like River Exe or Dorset might, for instance, be a UJK-geo-stub. They are not for terminology used in the geographical naming of types of places within countries (which get geo-term-stub or topography-stub instead, as is the case with Dewey (hill), for instance). Grutness...wha? 01:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could do a labelled map - I would appreciate it if you could provide the underlying graphic (i.e. outlined lieutenancy areas, similar to the Ceremonial Counties one as I am not great at creating graphics).

Let me know when you've got the map and I'll stick the labels on.

Thanks.
Java13690 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jza84. Assuming that the anon editor, (who tends to be under the IP adress 86. etc) is the same editor. I think he/she has gotten out of hand, with his/her latest uncivil comment towards the people of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In otherwords, don't feed the troll; understood. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, but I thought I'd expand on yours.

I think that if the world was run fairly then you would have no problems at all in becoming an administrator, and deservedly so. You're a dedicated wikipedian who's done more than many ever will. I can't speak for Ddstretch's reservations about RfA, but for my myself I found the vindictiveness of the process to be shocking. You have to be prepared for anyone and his aunt you've had a disagreement with in the preceeding three millenia to come crawling out of the woodwork and oppose, just because they can.

If you feel that the time is right for you now, then go for it, I'll certainly be strong supporter. My only worry though is that if doesn't go the right way, then you may be discouraged by it. I didn't think that I'd be that bothered one way or another at the start of my own RfA, but as the opposes started to come in I began to feel differently, that my contributions to wikipedia were not valued, and so on, and I almost left the project as a result. I'd hate for the same thing to happen to you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've reverted two of this anonymous user's edits: [6], [7]. Please don't take this as criticism: it isn't intended as such, andI find that IP's contributions thoroughly unhelpful. But I would be interested to know the justification for removing his/her comments. I did wonder whether this IP was in fact this chap, but it seems the IP is outside of his usual range. — ras52 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]