Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 23 October 2007

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

Did you know: Royton

If we accept WP's definition ("A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning and weaving machinery") then Royton's claim to the last cotton mill built in the UK is probably incorrect. Carrington Viyella built a factory for spinning cotton in Atherton in 1978, see Holden, Roger N (1997). Stott and Sons: architects of the Lancashire cotton mills. Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing. pp. p 17. ISBN 1-85936-047-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help). Mr Stephen 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Though there are a number of sources that state the contrary. Perhaps a rephrase (in the article), that "sources suggest that....". I've added triva that I know of to get things going in that section - so it may appear a little NorthEast GM heavy which I apologise for whilst we get going. Jhamez84 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, does WP's definition of 'Cotton Mill' mean ... "A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning, 'and' weaving, machinery", or ... "A cotton mill is a factory housing spinning, 'or' weaving, machinery". In so much as, a factory which 'takes in thread, produced in a mill, and produces a cloth, by the process of weaving', is a 'weaving shed' and not a 'cotton mill'? 80.192.242.187 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Seems like the cotton mill article itself needs a little work. We could do with a proper academic definition of a cotton mill first and foremost! Any good textile historians around? Jhamez84 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FAs

Doesn't Manchester City F.C. count? Mr Stephen 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New infoboxes

A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The current outline map of Greater Manchester, which is being imposed by “Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greater Manchester”, looks awful. Many of the red dots are in the wrong place. The rest of the country have the UK map in relation where they are, but not Greater Manchester, it has to have its own map.
It's now being seen as a "City region" rather than a "County". I can see that Greater Manchester is going to be the northern version of London. There aren't going to be Wiganers, Boltonians, Rochdalians, etc., even Salford, which has city status, won't get away, they'll be seen as Mancunians whether they like it or not. Cwb61 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion. But you are a traditional counties advocate, who has demonstrated the removal of Greater Manchester against policy from articles simply because you don't identify with it. The name of our county is an unfortunate one, but it is verifiably true that it is here.

The Gtr M/c WikiProject is not imposing this new infobox at all (!) - a consensus was formed by members from accross the UK to develop an improved infobox, as the previous one had many failings.

Most city-regions (EU terminology), major conurbations or urbanised counties (whichever you like) of the UK are set to use their own maps once the programming is worked out. Some regions also have them - Scotland, Northern Ireland and parts of the North East use them, as well as Greater London. It is possible however we may have a UK map also.

If dots are in the wrong place, this generally means that the wrong co-ordinates have been inputted in the infobox and need correcting. It is possible however that they may be slightly out - just notify users at the template talk page and someone will attempt to recalibrate the map settings.

I hope this helps somewhat. Though this should be raised at the template talk page as the infobox is not within the remit of the Gtr M/c WikiProject. Jhamez84 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Article categorisation

Before this WikiProject was formed I tried to do a bit of work on tidying up the categorisation of Manchester related articles. At the time many weren't categorised, others werent categorised appropriately and the majority where just dumped into a couple of catch all categories with so many articles that they weren't really an awful lot of use for anything.

Now that there is a Greater Manchester WikiProject, I thought that there might be some logic to standardising the category framework across Greater Manchester. My thought is that it will make articles easier to find and logically group together articles on similar subjects in subjects. I have made a small number of changes and tidying up across Greater Manchester, which has also allowed me to produce the following experimental "Category grid" to give others an idea of what I am thinking about. (trancluded)

What do other editors think? Has anyone got any comments? Pit-yacker 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this page isn't yet terribly active. I'm certainly overjoyed (for want of a better word!) at this gridding system! Looks fantastic!

I'm considering putting together the first WikiProject Greater Manchester newsletter than can reinvigorate some interest in the project. I would be happy to include mentions of this in the letter! In the meantime, it looks like a suburb addition to the project that any other would surely be envious of. Jhamez84 00:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what the headings and entries in this category grid represent? :-) ---- Eric 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean what are categories and how do they affect an article; see Misplaced Pages:Categorization. If you mean something like what is the purpose of this grid and its content; its an attempt at standardising categorisation across all the articles related to Greater Manchester, seperating each topic (such as buildings) according to metropolitan borough. That help at all? Jhamez84 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did help, thanks. What about some of the existing categories that aren't represented in the grid, like Parks and commons in Greater Manchester for instance? Ought they to be incorporated into the grid or not? ---- Eric 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In my view, if we are to transculde this onto the Main Greater Manchester Category page, then yes, I think the other categories ought to be included. Jhamez84 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was intending to add further categories as I work through the articles. As well as on the main category page, I was just thinking this might be useful part of a Portal?Pit-yacker 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Jhamez84 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport Line

WP:RM to Styal Line. Simply south 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

Are there any guidelines on the general format of an article on towns/areas within the Greater Manchester area? I expect the answer will be 'No', it depends on the specific town/area, but I've seen so many unremarkable lists of pubs, schools, shops, local factories, leisure facilities .. that I just thought I'd ask. :-) ---- Eric 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Images and Commons

I was wondering whether we should be moving a lot of Greater Manchester related images to commons? The vast majority of images are only on English Misplaced Pages at the moment. Although, I cant speak any foreign language well enough to write articles, making images easily available to those who (are most likely) not to live in the UK may help them in the writing articles for other languages? I am currently in the process of moving my images, however, I'm wary of moving other people's images just in case they are not happy with it Pit-yacker 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to move mine - I've added quite a few self-made images, as well as some from geograph.co.uk. Jhamez84 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Trafford

Is it still the only UEFA 5* rated stadium in England? If so surely The Emirates Stadium and Wembley will also be rated 5* very soon. Just something to keep a check on I thought.

UEFA don't release information about ratings very often. The most recent UEFA list was published before the Emirates and Wembley were completed. So at the moment OT is the only English stadium which is ] 5 star. UEFA used to email a list on request, but it appears they no longer do so. Oldelpaso 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham

I take strong objection to the application of the 'Oldham' category to everything that is in the borough. There is an article called 'Oldham' which relates to the town and an article called "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' which relates to teh borough. Where is the logic in giving town article's name to artciles which apply to the borough? Why not just set up a borough category? People who do not know the geography will see 'Schools in Oldham' at the bottom of the Crompton House article and assume it is in the town of Oldha since the category name is the same as the town name and not the borough name. If you are going to insist on categorizing all borough articles I insist the category carries the same names as the brough article and not the town article. I will remove the Oldham category as it stands form all borough articles that do not relate directly to the town. 88.104.34.14 02:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here at last! I'm very dissapointed however that you didnt bring it to discussion until after you had finished what can only be described as a bloodbath of decategorisation. You have left articles incorrectly categorised and numerous articles completely un-categorised. Given the numerous requests I made for you to discuss it, I consider it nothing short of vandalism.

That is before I mention that had you taken such changes through the proper channels, the changes could have been completely automated. You have wasted several hours doing something a bot could have been set away to do automatically. As it is, you have made changing category names more difficult. To make any changes it will be now necessary to go through undoing your previous contributions to then go on and make the change.

For the record, besides the obvious mouthful that is having categories named "x in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" I have no idealogical objection to renaming the categories to such form. However, I feel the manner in which you have gone about the change was completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, this convention has been used in various categoires for some time. The categories also quite clearly state they are about the Borough and any article will usually state right at the very start were exactly it is. Pit-yacker 03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You should have done the job properly to begin with. It is just plain sloppy to give the category the same name as an article when it does not directly relate to it (especially when it directly links in with an already existing category. The borough category should carry the borough name. Please sort out the categories before persisting with editing, otherwise I will consider it willful vandalism. 88.104.34.14 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I admitted that it was perhaps sloppy to link to the wrong article in some of the new categories headings, in the actual naming of the categories, I was merely continuing a convention that had held on Misplaced Pages for sometime with regards to Oldham. Whilst different conventions hold in different areas (In some areas two or more of a parish, borough and town share a whole article never mind categories), I feel that is sensible to discuss such a major change in convention before changes are made, especially, where the changes have left articles completely uncategorised.

Finally, I would like to qualify what I said earlier. I believe that if "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" categories are created, they should replace the current ones in a direct swap. i.e. I consider the current categories to be relating to the borough and in effect they should merely be renamed. Anything else will lead to over categorisation based on the precedent of the town of Oldham has a category hierarchy - why not <insert smaller town> leading to <insert smaller town> has a category hierarchy why not <insert village>.Pit-yacker 03:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A straight swap won't work completely. Take the Michelle Marsh and Jack Wild articles for instance, both fom Royton. As per naming convention Michelle Marsh is from Royton, OMB etc, so 'the people from Royton category' in this instance can be a sub category of the 'people from OMB' category. However, Jack Wild was born in Royton in 1952 before OMB even existed and was part of Lancashire, and wiki conventions state that he is from "Royton, Lancashire" not from "Royton, OMB" like in Michelle's case. That would be plain incorrect so in Wild's case "people from Royton" cannot be a sub category of "people from OMB" because it would simply be incorrect if people click on the "people from OMB" category" and see his name there. To keep the categorisation correct and strict (which is the whole point of categorisation to maintain the integrity of information) then "people from Royton" cannot be a sub category of "people from OMB" unless you have a "people from Royton after 1974" category and make that a sub category which is getting to the point of ridiculousness. I would replace 'Oldham ' with 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' which stops the confusion with Oldham town and shares its name with the borough article, and I wouldn't bother categorising people because wiki uses historic locations rather than modern day geography and there is no way around that without categorising someone incorrectly. 88.104.34.14 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Having noted the repeated deletion and replacement of the Category:Oldham tag from the Standedge Tunnels article I though I would follow the editing links through and have found the above discussion. I agree with the anon user 88.104.34.14 that a Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham may seem more useful. I also agree that a huge amount of disrution has been caused by 88.104.34.14 simply deleting the category within from articles. However please note that such a borough category would also conflict with the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article and that the usage of Borough's in categories in general is not used. Take a look at Category:Boroughs of the United Kingdom to see why. User 88.104.34.14; may I respectfully suggest that you register as an editor. Having an 'Anon' login tends to make other editors associate such a users edits as potential vandalism, which is usually the case, rather than being constructive! Richard Harvey 10:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If having a borough category called the samed as the borough article is conflicting then what is it if you have a borough a category with teh same name as the town article? Isn't that conflicting as well as confusing? I notice how you haven't even attempted to offer a solution to the Jack Wild/Michelle Marsh wiki violations that such categorisation creates88.104.53.2 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It was perfectly fine as it was, that is with the Oldham category applying to everything in the borough. Check out Category:Wigan, Category:Stockport, Category:Rochdale, Category:Bury for examples of similar category usage. I propose we revert all the changes. Mr Stephen 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Stephen totally. As someone who has spent a few years in Royton (and my father was born there, and always considers himself an Oldhamer), I consider myself very much proud to be an 'Oldhamer' anyway. I don't understand these absolutely ridiculous changes. Rochdale, Bury, Bolton etc all have the same layout, and nobody complains about it. In all seriousness if nonsense like this continues I'm seriously considering not bothering with this site any more... I've spent a lot of my time creating / adding articles on here (as have many others) and for someone to just come along and change it all because they don't like it stinks in my opinion. DShamen 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is moronic to have a 'schools in Oldham category' tagging schools that are not in Oldham but in the borough. Royton is not in Oldham. Roytonians are not Oldhamers. Saying that Jack Wild is from Oldham or even the borough goes against wiki conventions, but yet you just want to overlook that slight cock-up! If you really want to declare that something is in the borough then have a category that makes that clear on the article page itself. If you look at some of the article pages, especially the Crompton House School article you will see there are quite a few editors that have been reverting the Oldham classification because they believe it is confusing. You can classify your articles as being in 'Oldham' if you wish if you mark them out but leave ours alone because we will decide whether a certain classfication is suitable and not you. Alternatively, we have a category name which we all agree on. 88.104.53.2 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My father considers himself an Oldhamer, as I said, not 'Roytonian'. Regardless of this, I think that what you have done (without consulting anyone either, I might add) is scandalous. As for 'leave OURS alone'... what the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you run this website? Thought not. They were totally fine under 'Oldham'... it works with all the other large towns in the Greater Manchester area. It made perfect sense, it even said at the top of the screen that Chadderton, Failsworth etc were satellite towns of Oldham (for the more fussy types like yourself). DShamen 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chadderton and failsworth are not 'satellite' towns becasue they do not belong to Oldham, they are neighbouring towns. 88.104.44.134 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to get on my nerves to be honest. It's your opinion against mine, and as far as I'm concerned, they ARE satellite towns to a much larger town bang in the middle, all of them run into Oldham at some point, other than the Saddleworth villages. If being associated with Oldham is such a burden for some of you, why don't you start a petition to have Royton removed from the borough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DShamen (talk • contribs).

Descriptions like "moronic" and "a bunch of numbskulls" (which you have removed, but see diff) are not helpful, and if you continue you are likely to get hauled over the coals for violating policy at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please stop using such language. Also, do not divide articles into "your" and "ours". On Misplaced Pages nobody owns an article, see policy at WP:OWN. If you think that the Oldham category should be called something else, then fair enough, try to get consensus (this page is probably a better place to do it than at talk:Crompton House). Boldness is encouraged, but mass decategorization has a whiff of WP:POINT about it. Mr Stephen 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of making an issue out of something I personally removed - doesn't it indicate that I realized it was inappropriate by my removal of it? The point is you have achieved no consensus to perpetuate this categorisation which goes against WIKI CONVENTIONS in attributing 'Oldham' birthplaces to people born before the borough was founded and still goes against intuitive logic due to the fact there is an ARTICLE called 'Oldham' which is about the TOWN. You have addressed none of these issues, and until you do there will be no solution. I have told you to rename the category to something to something that does not confuse the category with the town, and it has to be linked in in a way that does not corrupt biographies such as the Jack Wild one. 88.104.44.134 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I question whether we even need a borough category. If you check the borough article it has a section called 'schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham'. The category to all intents and purposes can be left as 'schools in Greater Manchester' (notice how it's not 'schools in Manchester' - you've just got to love the consistency for naming categories!) and link to the schools section on the article page. 88.104.53.2 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, however, there is a Category:Schools in Manchester. This category contains all schools under the juristication of Manchester City Council. I admit that I havent created all "Schools in..." categories yet. However, thats because a) I occassionally I have to do things away Misplaced Pages, which unfortunatley sometimes takes priority (shocking I know) b) creating categories and recategorisation of articles takes a long time and isnt particularly interesting c) I also wanted to get some feedback on what others thought before creating a whole structure. Pit-yacker 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the council's website, (note the URL is not metropolitanboroughofoldham.gov.uk - why?) they refer to themselves as 'Oldham Council' and, much like the majority its peers, it only uses its full title in formal contexts. We understand how those not living in the town of Oldham itself (especially those in Saddleworth) can take offence at being referred to as part of Oldham. However, "Oldham" is shorthand for area which the council serves and all articles in that category are part of Oldham in the local government sense. It's simply a definition with which 88.104.53.2 does not agree. It's unfortunate—for some—that the name was decided upon in the 70s instead of a vague location (for example: Tameside, Calderdale, Kirklees) to encompass the whole of the borough but it was and this is why these pedantic discussions continue to evoke such passionate debate.

Richard 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They are called Oldham council because that's the name of the council. The borough is called 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' or 'Oldham Metropolitan Borough' depending on which format is used. You have provided a link to the council which is called Oldham council, so I don't really see what point you are making. If you want to set up a category for the council then go and set it up and call it 'Oldham Council'. But these are geographic categories we are discussing so it's not much to ask for that we use the correct geographic terms, or at least terms that do not confuse the area which another geographic region which is identified by the same name on Misplaced Pages. Since 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' only includes one more noun that 'Greater Manchester' then why does it need to be abbreviated at all? Why isn't 'Greater Manchester' abbreviated to 'Manchester'? To avoid confusion, to remain integrity, to avoid sloppiness, and the correct usage minimises offence. There is simply no good reason why the borough can't be identified in a way that makes it clear it is the borough and not the town. 88.104.44.134 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the structure of the Macnhester articles, there is an article called 'Manchester' about the city, an article called 'Greater Manchester' about the county, and a category called 'Greater Manchester' which categorizes articles relating to the county. The category clearly carries the same name as the article relating to the same geographic region, and has not been 'abbreviated' to Manchester. Surely good categorizing should retain this precedent and keep things consistent by naming the category 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' the same as the borough article, as has been doen with the Manchester/Greater Manchester articles and category? It seem to me this is the corret way to approach the categorizing, and the onus in you lot to come up with a good reason to depart from this precedent which you haven't done. 88.104.44.134 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also note that as well as being a city, Manchester is also a Metropolitan borough but there is only one Manchester category. Despite the fact that some might not regard a place (especially on the fringe of the city) as being in Manchester. What you appear to be saying is that there should be 3 layers in the hierarchy i.e. Greater Manchester->Manchester City Council->Manchester or Greater Manchester->Oldham MBC->Oldham. I would oppose such a structure as it will lead to pointless over-categorisation - How long before we end up with Greater Manchester->Manchester City Council->Chorlton-on-Medlock - which incidentally the university of Manchester would go in because technically its in Chorlton-on-Medlock regardless of the fact that large numbers of people in Manchester dont know it exists never mind the rest of the world. Pit-yacker 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if you want to categorize something as being in the borough then the category should be called "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" after the borough article rather than "Oldham" which is the name of the town article, analagous to Greater Manchester articles which are assigned a category called "Greater Manchester" after the county article and not 'Manchester' which is the city article. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it really so difficult to appreciate that if you are going to set up a borough category that I want it to bear the actual name of the borough rather than a town in it? Why would I want to create a category for the council? Royton is not 'in' a council. The council administrates the borough and only administration articles should be assigned a a local government category. 88.104.44.134 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "hard to understand", and it's not "difficult to appreciate". Consensus is against you: consensus is that it is done in a different way to what you demand. The categories at Stockport, Wigan, Oldham, Bury etc have been populated by numerous Misplaced Pages editors who (as far as I know) saw no need to threaten WP with edit wars (see), insult other editors (see), or indulge in mass decategorization (contribs) to try and prove a point. Consensus can change but neither your arguments nor your methods impress me. Mr Stephen 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki precedent, consistency of information, and the principle of minimilization of confusion all go against you. 88.104.81.176 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point that. I friend of mine comes from Moston, which depending how you like it... you can say that Moston is a town of its own right, or a suburb of the city of Manchester. I've lived in Royton, the football ground was just around the corner, I've always called myself an Oldhamer. I know that some don't like it, but others do. I guess we'd better rename the football club 'Chadderton & Royton Athletic' eh? ;) DShamen 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Moston, but I do know that towns like Royton and Shaw & Crompton are legally recognized towns that are in OMB and Greater Manchester, and not suburbs of Oldham town or Manchester city. 88.104.44.134 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that while Manchester is a met borough, the met borough was awarded city status and named the City of Manchester, so the borough and the 'city' are the same thing here. OMB was never awarded city or town status, it is just a geographic region encompassing the various towns and villages in the borough. Therefore the term 'Oldham' can't be applied to describe the borough in the same way Manchester is because Manchester Metropolitan Borough was effectively renamed Manchester when awarded city status. MMB is called Manchester, and OMB is called "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham'. Take note I am not arguing against the existence of teh actegory, just insisting that it is given its proper name and consistent with the articles that already exist on wiki and which regions they apply to. 88.104.44.134 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Some questions:

i) Why do you insist on calling the OMB category 'Oldham' knowing full well that there is an article about the town with this name, and not calling it 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' after the article about the borough?

ii) If brevity is the criteria for naming, why haven't you shortened the 'Greater Manchester' category to 'Manchester' on the same principle?

iii) Wiki conventions state that historic geography has to be used in biographies if existing within that timeframe. i.e. Michelle Marsh is from Royton, OMB, Greater Manhester, while Jack Wild is from Royton, Lancashire. By making the 'people from Royton' a sub category of 'Oldham' that incorrectly labels jack Wild as coming from Oldham which goes aginst Wiki guidelines. What do you propose to do about this? 88.104.81.176 20:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat that I dont have an idealogical objection to a "full name". However, for what its worth, this debate probably reveals some divergence in what editors consider the purpose of categories to be. I see categories as a form a meta-data that sensibly organise Misplaced Pages into groups of similar articles rather than just having a big mountain of meaningless data called "Misplaced Pages". At that point, all the relevant information explaining the article and its location should be included in the article and not left to categorisation, geotagging, etc. Whilst categories with meaningful names can be used for human searching, the information in the category "header" explains what the category is about. IMHO the other (main?) uses for categories are for attaching "meaning" that machines can understand and/or mass editing. For machine processing it doesnt really matter if the category is called "Category:Oldham" "Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" or "Category:Misplaced Pages disputed zone 12432345245". For mass editing long category names are a pain as you need to type them out in full, get the exact spelling (including remembering odd quirks in odd categories where, for example "Of" might be spelt with an uppercase "O".

As for conventions on historic counties, I'm not sure whether what you say is the case or not. However, I do know that a) the use of "historic" or "traditional" counties vs modern counties is very controversial (There are many on Misplaced Pages will argue the whole concept of "historic counties" is a myth disguising POV and political agenda pushing - and the current consensus I have come across at least on Template:Infobox UK place is that traditional counties are not to be used). b) If we go back to categories only having a use as meta data, then it is doesnt really matter if "Joe Bloggs" died before Greater Manchester was created. The meta-data "Greater Manchester" merely groups him with other articles about a particular arbitrary area of the Earth's surface. At that point the use of different categories over different times actually takes "meta-meaning" away - because even though, potentially, Person A could have died the day before Person B was born, they belong in a different categories because of a change in the boundaries. IMHO, the choice of the modern boundaries vs "traditional" ones is purely because they are the current legally recognised boundaries. On the whole counties and boroughs are a much better definition of an area of the Earth's surface than towns, villages, and wards as their exact extent has a pretty unambigouus meaning including over the long term. That is, the exact extent of "Greater Manchester" and the boroughs have been pretty much fixed for 30 years now, the same cant be said about towns, villages and wards were towns grow. Also meaning of a town name becomes ambiguous when areas run into each other often leading to dispute of the exact name of the area. Pit-yacker 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• "I see categories as a form a meta-data that sensibly organise Misplaced Pages into groups of similar articles rather than just having a big mountain of meaningless data called "Misplaced Pages". ... the information in the category "header" explains what the category is about." I'd not seen categories in that light before, but I think you're right, they're metadata. Perhaps the problem with the Oldham articles therefore is that the metadata is readable by those who don't understand it. ---- Eric 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• This argument seems to me to centre around the fact that the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham has the same shortened name as the town of Oldham, after which it's obviously named. As is the case with other boroughs like Stockport or Wigan, as others have already said. So long as the category clearly states that it's a categorisation based on borough and not town, then what's the problem? ---- Eric 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear form the name of the category though, which takes it name form another article on wiki about another region 88.104.81.176 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Diggle, for instance, clearly isn't in Oldham town, but it's equally clearly in Oldham borough. The issue about biographies I just think is a red herring. ---- Eric 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute Diggle is in the borough. the biographies is not a red herring: according to wiki Jack Wild is from Royton, Lancashire not Royton, OMB because he was born before 1974. This has been hotly debated on wiki and that was tha format decided. To say Jack Wild is from OMB is not a red herring, it's just incorrect. 88.104.81.176 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. What I said was that your linking of biographies to this discussion about categorising Oldham was a red herring. Whatever is claimed about a place of birth in a biographical article has no bearing on present administrative boundaries, either of that area, or any other that may have the same name. ---- Eric 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is what's missing in this case an additional template like the one at the end of each Trafford article (Template:Trafford towns), that might help to make this distinction between what's in Oldham town as opposed to Oldham borough clearer and less contentious? ---- Eric 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What would make it clearer would be if the borough category was simply given the name of the borough rather than be shortened to the name of something else that already takes the name on wiki. 88.104.81.176 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• That would have the disadvantage though of being tedious to read. And if the wikilink goes to the right place then I simply can't see the problem. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to be both accurate and readable? ---- Eric 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• "It is not clear form the name of the category though, which takes it name form another article on wiki about another region 88.104.81.176 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)" Just read what you're saying. Are you really saying that Chadderton, for instance, is in a different region from Oldham? I find it hard to believe that many would agree with you. ---- Eric 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Oldham categories

Those interested may like to note that Albireo223 (talk · contribs) has today created a raft of Metropolitan Borough of Oldham categories. I'll leave a note on his page. Mr Stephen 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

... note ignored. I think there's a strong chance that Albireo223 is the anon that's been posting here. Mr Stephen 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• What's special about Oldham that's fuelling all this nonsense? Exactly the same point could be made about Stockport, Wigan, Bolton ... ---- Eric 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One person is fuelling it. He lives in Royton it would seem... and is hell bent on making sure that there is no association with Oldham in the categorizations. He may as well remove the football club and the rugby club from the Oldham category too then, as they apparently play in Chadderton/Royton. DShamen 02:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surely Misplaced Pages has got to be about a concensus view. I'm sure we've all sometimes disagreed with something we've seen, argued our case and perhaps not in the end got the result we wanted. But we didn't then go around vandalising every page because it didn't correspond to our world view. I'm of the opinion that if these changes to the categorisation of every article about anywhere in the borough of Oldham, except the town of Oldham itself continue, the whoever is responsible ought to be suspended. Because as far as I'm concerned I've seen no convincing argument this evening that there's a real problem with the current categories. They seem to me to be consistent with how other boroughs within Greater Manchester are handled. ---- Eric 23:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Now editing as 88.104.33.124 (talk · contribs). Request to stop & reach consensus left on talk page. Mr Stephen 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, editor has also been removing Category:People from Greater Manchester from categories saying that "If Shaw is made a subcat of Greater Manchester then they get all the Lancashire people. There are people here not from greater manchester". Which IMHO is really stirring the Hornet's nest that is traditional counties Pit-yacker 00:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks pit-yacker, this is exactly why we have a process here! Why we discus things. There is a very fine balance at the moment with the traditional counties/metro. boroughs and things were calming down and this is just going to inflame tension. It was fine as it was! If it ain't broke don't fix it. Out of interest, what about the categories that do pertain to the town of Oldham, are they included in both categories? These things just haven't been dicussed, and I'm quite annoyed about this. M A Mason 00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the unnamed user is pathetic. He thinks he owns the place for some reason though, but then again, he's being allowed to do so. He's created a ridiculous 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' page because he clearly has an issue with being associated with Oldham in any way, shape or form... every other town in England (not just those in Greater Manchester) has the same layout as the Oldham category did, and there is NOTHING wrong with it. DShamen 00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think I've messed up somehow. I spent some time this morning reverting an anonymous user who changed categories such as Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to Category:Oldham. My attention was then drawn to this discussion page (thanks to Mr Stephen for that) which previously I had not seen. My feeling is that my edits may upset some people in this discussion, which wasn't intended and I apologise for. Personally my view is in agreement that Category:Oldham is liable to confusion and persistence in the erroneous belief that all towns in OMBC are part of Oldham itself. This is widespread, not just in Misplaced Pages, but in other websites (store locators on retail websites are particularly bad for this). However ultimately all I'd really like is someone to settle on a concept and leave it that way and I'll have to live with it. What I can't contend with is constant reversion back and forth from category to category. I was present during the edit warring regarding Lancashire as a historic county and it almost put me off Misplaced Pages. Please let's not have another one. ~~ Peteb16 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What he said (see comment by Peteb16 above)! Casper Gutman 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming

This issue has come up before on Merseyside. As I understand it, the consensus was to use the short form of the title, rather than the Metropolitan Borough of in cats, to keep them short and consistent across the counties. I have restored the People from cats to template:England People Message to keep the hierarchy in place for the time being pending this discussion. Regan123 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC) addition There is now a mess with a mixture of cats. Can we at least restore them to how they were before this edit war started and then get a consensus and move them all in one hit. I have also raised this at WP:UKGEO as having wider implications. --Regan123 10:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put everything back before this all started. This really needs to go through WP:CFD but the mess of bits here there and everywhere has gone away. The now empty cats have been nominated for speedy deletion to clean them up - this does not stop a proper debate producing a rename.Regan123 23:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The reality is many people who come from these borough towns feel like their identity is being eroded, and to some being called an 'Oldhamer' when you are not one is offensive to them as what being called a 'nigger' is to a black man. Most of the articles state the school, station etc are in the "metropolitan borough of Oldham' not simply 'Oldham' in the actual text body, so it will better reflect the terminology of the articles if it is carried through to the categories since at the moment it is not clear that a school in the 'metropolitan borough of Oldham' as written in the article is the same type of data as the 'schools in Oldham' category. Boroughs and metropolitan counties are an emotive topic, and I think in such cases the proper names should be used because someone at least has to accept the official version even if they don't like it. WalterMitty 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see he has been on the rampage again with Oldham. The category scheme was devised to use 'most simplest naming', which is a Misplaced Pages convention. So London Borough Hackney is recorded as Hackney and Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is held as Oldham. As the scheme is hierarchical, it is clear that it is the boroughs in each case. MRSC • Talk 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Should you compare the two however? London Borough Hackney has districts and the districts could accurately be referred to as being in the town of Hackney. The Metropolitan Borough of Oldham consists of towns, including Oldham and none of them can be correctly referred to as being in Oldham town. Somehow when naming these categories we have to make sure people cannot confuse the towns listed in the category as districts of Oldham as I believe this is what people in those towns find offensive. I'm not sure writing it into the lead entirely solves the problem either. ~~ Peteb16 08:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Hackney, Shoreditch has a building identified as a town hall, so I assume it is/was a town. It's also in the London Borough of Hackney so it appears in Category:Neighbourhoods of Hackney. It used to appear in Category:Hackney, but was removed when the template {{LB Hackney}} was created; it went into the 'neighbourhoods' cat shortly after its creation on 12 April 2007. Mr Stephen 08:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stoke Newington, Haggerston, Shoreditch, Hoxton, Clapton, Stamford Hill etc. are all in LB Hackney but not in the "town" of Hackney. This is a nationwide problem which stems from the desire to create larger district areas for local government in the 1960s and 1970s. Every county has districts which cover a wider area than the towns they are named after. I am keen that there should be a uniform approach. MRSC • Talk 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Oldham category editor appears to be editing in four guises:

• 23-29 May - Albireo223 (talk · contribs)
• 27-28 May - 88.104.33.124 (talk · contribs)
• 28 May - 88.104.118.122 (talk · contribs)
• 29 May - 88.104.120.110 (talk · contribs)

This should aid any clean up. MRSC • Talk 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also (at least)

• 88.104.53.2 (talk · contribs)
• 88.104.81.176 (talk · contribs)
• 88.104.44.134 (talk · contribs)
• 88.104.34.14 (talk · contribs)

Mr Stephen 08:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Albireo223 is at it again,using multiple accounts to edit categories for no apparent reason other than to de-link Oldham from categories. DShamen 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a little unclear because of the variety of IPs used, has he actually commented here? MRSC • Talk 08:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've re-read this again. From what I can tell he stopped commenting on 27 May and his next action was to systematically change the categories, despite the lack of consensus for change and he has been doing this up to 29 May, with a final edit to blank comments from his talk page. I suggest we make moves to have him blocked. MRSC • Talk 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it to AN during one of his sprees. The silence was deafening. Mr Stephen 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking a range that large wouldn't be done lightly. It would require blocking 88.104.0.0/16, or 65,536 IP's - most likely the entire network of Tiscali IPs in the North-West, causing a lot of collateral damage. P.S. the incidents noticeboard generally gets more traffic than AN. Oldelpaso 10:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest only blocking the registered account. Blocking IPs can be reserved for any problems which occur after the block, and can be determined on an case-by-case basis. MRSC • Talk 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to Albireo223. I'm unwilling to block the account at this point, its several hours since the last edit so it would be more punitive than preventative to do so. Oldelpaso 11:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham has filled up again! Can someone empty it afd speedy empty it - I can't do it at the moment. If we do move it, lets do it properly not in some anon/sockpuppet campaign. Regan123 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the way forward. We can sort out the mess after we agree where we want to go. Mr Stephen 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Its not doing it properly if its edit warring. Oldelpaso 11:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If people see it as edit warring then I apologise. The mess everything was in meant that there were articles in two disparate and unlinked cats. Putting them back to one and then going through a proper CfD if required is the correct way forward and I will happily accept the consensus that is arrived at. What concerns me is the two anons changing things backwards and forwards every two seconds. Goodness knows how many articles are non uncategorised because of this. Regan123 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire, I can see where this is all coming from, and yes, in an ideal world, "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" would be sensible. However, what would then happen with places such as Manchester where the town is, if anything, larger than the Metropolitan Borough? How about "City of Salford" which would be really confusing as the City (local government) and the city (urban sub-area) cover two different areas? Whilst I don't much care for the apparent claiming that all areas within boroughs are part of the town that the MBC is named after, I can't see what we can sensibly do otherwise, except for ensuring that there is some preamble above the listing that clearly states (where there are multiple articles between the town and the like-named MBC) that the category covers "The Metropolitan Borough of x" or "The local government area City of Y". Fingerpuppet 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Whilst I don't much care for the apparent claiming that all areas within boroughs are part of the town that the MBC is named after ..." That claim is indeed, as you say, apparent though, not real. I really don't see why this can't be easily resolved by adding a header to the template saying that these are metropolitan boroughs, not towns, as I think you were suggesting. Similar issues seem to crop up at every level of administration, and there has to be a consistent way of dealing with them. Is Old Trafford a part of Stretford or not, is Timperley a part of Sale, for instance? People seem to be happy to use census data based on current boundaries, but I've hardly ever seen any warning that the census data doesn't refer to the town or whatever, as opposed to the ward. ---- Eric 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that a cross argument is being presented - why have a standardised format for two different types of geographies anyway? The analagous situation with Manchester is that you have Manchester the 'town' and various other towns that form the Manchester Borough. This is the same as Oldham and its neighbouring towns comprising the Oldham Borough. However in some cases, like with Manchester, the borough was assigned 'city' status. This means that the towns of such boroughs comprise 'districts' of Manchester (the city). You can say Mossley is 'in' Manchester (which would be implying that Mossley is a district within the city) or you can say that Mossley is 'in' Manchester Borough (meaning the town is in the borough) - one implies Mossley is part of a single entity, the other that Mossley is a single entity of a collection of entities. By making Oldham Borough carry the same categorising structure as Manchester or Hackney, it is actually confusing two concepts - by fitting it to one particular geography you are misrepresenting another. I think the answer to gaining a consensus lies in the answer to one question: Should wikipedia present towns in boroughs that are not disticts of a single geographic entity in the same way as those that are? If we accept that there is a fundamental difference between the two then surely a categorising structure should reflect that WalterMitty 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping you know that Mossley is in Metropolitan Borough of Tameside (Were you thinking of Moston?). I think you're right however, there seems to be more than one undstanding of what a metropolitan borough is (most likely because there is more than one definition set by the government). Maybe the solution to all our problems is not to have the categories at all for towns, as they're always liable to cause misrepresentation and confusion. ~~ Peteb16 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My argument would probably stand up better if I got the town names right, wouldn't it? I think you are spot on in the fact that most 'town' articles don't need to be categorised. There is actually no need for an intermediate level except where it serves a specific local government purpose - you probably only need the existing 'local government' category for articles directly related to local government which is a single body that affects a specific area stretching beyond town boundaries (such as biographies of councillors). There are some articles such as the Chadderton urban district council that is tagged with 'Oldham' but never existed as part of the borough (that's like tagging OMB as Lancashire!). However, for geographic articles such as Royton, Crompton, and Oldham itself, along with buildings and railway stations and sport etc, a borough category would be irrelevant because there is no need to organise these by borough categories since local government organisation is irrelevant here and the county categories provide adequate geographic organization. The categorisation is becoming too hierarchical and in an effort to keep it uniform the same set of categories are being applied to places with different geographical structures which is a bad thing. By categorising articles wiki is turned into a 'knowledge base' with multiple inheritance rather than just an online encyclopaedia, and in such a case categories are not just 'meta-data' (data that only carries information about other data) but data in its own right because it passes on data attributes to articles that are part of its class, so you can't have a single category that means different things in relation to different articles no matter how convenient it may be. The Hackney/Manchester counter arguments actually prove the categorisation is inadequate because an effort should be made to make things that are actually different distinguishable. WalterMitty 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. To continue your "multiple inheritance" analogy, there is presently a category called "Oldham". That category includes both the borough of Oldham and the town of Oldham. Oldham is, to pursue your analogy, the superclass of both the town and the borough. There is no question of data attributes being passed on to anything, anywhere. As the superclass of Oldham town and Oldham borough there is no question of the category "Oldham" meaning different things in relation to different articles. Wherever it appears it is the superclass of Oldham town and Oldham borough; there is no "multiple inheritance" involved. ---- Eric 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a class called 'Manchester' and mark Moston articles with 'Manchester', then this category defines a city-district relationship where the places and structures that the articles detail are actually part of Manchester. This translation certainly does not carry through to the 'Oldham' articles and its superclass, so yes multiple inheritance does apply in this type of categorization (in as much as it defines a relationship between 'Oldham' and other towns and allows us to assume certain things such as location, jurisdiction of government, and the structure of geography in the same sense that it is applied elsewhere) and is violated to the extent that it differs with the 'Manchester' class which I would say is more what the categorizing format was designed for. Ultimately, I'm not really a contributor to the borough articles so it's all academic to me since I'm not the one doing the work, but I do have a phd in Artificial Intelligence from Manchester U so I'm going to give the benefit of an informed opinion and it's my view from a purely knowledge structuring perspective that superclass/subclass theory provides good sound theory to hang knowledge classification on and the classification here is not sound. You are welcome to disagree on that point though since not everyone would agree that 'top down' integrity is that important, but you presumably do if you are building a categorization system. Academic theory may seem a tad overboard within the context of just Greater Manchester geography, but if you wholeheartedly subscribe to the view that Misplaced Pages is an international knowledgebase rather than just an online encylopaedia then it should be designed in a way that in theory categorization will not produce contradictions or misconceptions with regards to other UK geographical categorization systems, and ultimately should be integratable with any international geographical classification. Here we have categories that apply to just one county that carry dual inconsistent meanings and blurs the relationship between the name of the borough/city capital and other areas connected to it. Does the GM categorization serves its current purpose?: just about. But it's not well thought out, and will almost certainly cause clashes and confusion in integrating it into some international standard where bots will most likely be used. WalterMitty 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that you are thinking about the 'Oldham' category upside down - or at any rate I'm certain that one of us is :-) - which is why I don't agree with your multiple inheritance analogy. 'Oldham' is the superclass; what's been elided are the two subclasses - Oldham town and Oldham borough - which seems to me to be consistent with what happens in similar articles elsewhere in wikipedia. It just so happens that in similar cases like Trafford or Tameside there is no town of the same name to introduce any potential ambiguity or false cognates in readers unfamiliar with it. But if it's changed then it ought to be changed across the board, not just for Oldham. The present objection to the Oldham category seems to be rather a parochial one I'd have to say. ---- Eric 00:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Albireo223 is at it again,using multiple accounts to edit categories for no apparent reason other than to de-link Oldham from categories... he has in fact now decided to de-link a whole string of subjects out of pure spite it would seem, as well as removing any links that Royton has to Oldham and replacing it with 'Manchester'... using this account - 88.104.69.150 DShamen 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's true then I find it rather sad. I've seen no convincing argument for changing the present categorisation, which seems to me to be consistent with what happens with other metropolitan boroughs. Frankly I find the whole "Royton isn't a part of Oldham" argument to be unbelievably childish; and the pseudo technical argument about "multiple inheritance" to be entirely without merit. ---- Eric 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The final straw surely? He's shown a complete disregard for the rules of Misplaced Pages, once again he's undoing the work of others. I have personally undone most of his edits, but he continues to re-edit them. DShamen 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dshamen is the vandal here with his anonymous user identity 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs). If you take a look at this user you will see that 62.239.159.6/Dshamen has had numerous warnings from numerous editors, and has been blocked a couple of times. I have reverted some changes 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) has made but only because he is vandalising them first. I am simply only reverting the changes he has made (including where he adds information without references. It is obvious they are the same user or are in cahoots because they edit the same articles. I suspect he does his vandalising anonymously so keep his user ID clean. Here are some of the changes he has made to the 'Oldham' articles:

On "Category:Oldham" Dshamen changes the wording from "This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England." to "This category lists schools in the town of Oldham and the wider Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England." If this is a 'borough' category as argued above then why is he changing it into a town category? This reinforces the point that it is perceived as the 'town' category. If it is the borough category then "This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England" is the correct terminology.

This is the way it's always been, and it complies with all other boroughs in Greater Manchester. It CLEARLY states that it includes categories in both the town of Oldham and the borough. DShamen 13:52 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On Jack Wild DShamen keeps changing Wild's birth place from 'Royton, Lancashire' to 'Royton, Oldham, Lancashire'. This is incorrect since Wild was born before the boundary changes making his birth place 'Royton, Lancashire'. In any case, the Oldham Metropolitan Borough is not in Lancashire, it is in Greater Manchester. If you look at biographies "Royton, Lancashire" is the correct term since historical geography is used e.g. Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia (as opposed to Greece) and died in Babylon (as opposed to Iraq).

I never changed this. I simply undid your edit (as well as all of the other far more ridiculous edits you've made). You simply CANNOT justify the changes you've made to the vast majority of them, and I think you'll find that the 62.239.159.6 is a totally anonymous account, therefore there could be any number of users editing with that IP address. The only ones you can POSSIBLY justify are those linked to Royton, as YOU have an obsession with it not being connected with Oldham in any way. DShamen 13:53 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On Michelle Marsh, and numerous other articles he keeps adding 'Royton, Oldham' as opposed to 'Royton , the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham', or Crompton House is in "Shaw and Crompton, Oldham' as opposed to "Shaw and Crompton, the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham". Since the 'Oldham' category was added he has been going through all the article shortening the "the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" to just "Oldham" in the actual body text! Even if the category stands as 'Oldham' I strongly object to the phrasing in the actual articles being changed from "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" to just "Oldham".

If you look at the changes he has made, I think most of you will agree that reverting them was the correct course of action. I would appreciate any help in minimalising the damage caused by this editor.

88.104.69.150 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a comedian. I hope you really can justify all of the ridiculous edits you've made. Every one you've made will be listed on here, and people will realise that what you have done has been vindictive and spiteful... you've thrown your toys out of the pram because you didn't get your own way. For instance, how can you possibly justify removing the 'People from Oldham' category from Albert Walker? As for myself being a 'vandal'... I suggest you check some of the articles I've created and some of the contributions I've made on here before you start labelling me. DShamen 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you really are a different user to 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) (which I sincerely doubt because there is a lot of crossover between your activity going back months that anyone else on here can check) then I haven't undone any of 'your' edits have I? This user has plenty of other warnings from other wiki editors and has in the past been suspended from wikipedia. He persisted in eradicating the 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' and replacing it with just 'Oldham' in many of the articles, a clear case of vandalism. He has made numerous edits to biographies without providing any citations. Since there was a large amount of identifiable vandalism I thought it best to undo all his recent edits where there was no reason or reference given for the edit. I am clearly not being vindictive because I haven't reversed any of 'your' edits have I - in fact it is you that is reversing mine. I notice 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) hasn't complained, you are doing all the complaining and I haven't removed any of your contributions to wikipedia...hmmm...Why are you so upset about me reversing the edits of another contributor where in many cases the edits where wrong and/or unverifiable and unexplained, especially when the editor in question is an anonymous user who has received numerous warnings and a suspension from many different editors. Do you think a person with such a reputation can be trusted to make unverifiable edits to articles? 88.104.17.29 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring over Oldham categories is bad enough, but the indiscriminate mass reverts you have both engaged in are even worse, spanning a range of subjects from Scottish towns to football grounds to dance music. There's simply no excuse for edit-warring on this scale. Suffice to say if either of you do it again you will be blocked. I've protected the two most warred-over Oldham category pages until this Oldham / Metropolitan Borough of Oldham business gets sorted out. Oldelpaso 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at this anonymous user you will see that in a large number of his edits he has removed things from these pages without giving any explanation as to why he did it. He has many warnings, and about 50% of his edits were suspicious. I was just working on the 'Oldham' pages but when I saw the extent of his work I realized the vandalism was much more serious. I decide to revert all his recent edits so many of the 'reverts' were actually putting information back in that had been removed for no given reason. This isn't random - I made these changes to articles edited by just this untrustworthy editor 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs). I made absolutely no changes to edits by Dshamen or anyone else on here. Is it possible that 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) hasn't complained because he can't justify the changes he made and probably would have a lot of explaining too? Why would Dshamen defend an anonymous editor who had been REMOVING information from other pages without an explanation. Before criticising me maybe you should actually look at the changes 62.239.159.6 (talk · contribs) made first before they were reverted. No-one else's work was lost in the process. If you're fine with an anonymous editor with lots of warnings going around and removing text from articles without giving a reason then just let me know. 88.104.96.109 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that any user fails to fill in an Edit Summary for their changes has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on this talk page, at any rate non of the edits the user has made constitute being regarded as 'suspicous' let alone 'vandalism'. This user seems to be exercising their own free opinion on how the category headers should be written (which is only what was originally written there before the original discussion started). They're perfectly entitled to do this (and Dshaman is perfectly entitled to defend such edits if he so wishes) so long as we don't have a concensus on the issue, so let's get back to that shall we? Then everyone will be happy. ~~ Peteb16 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Futhermore I'd like to propose that we now archive this page and start over again as I've completely lost thread of who agrees with what. ~~ Peteb16 04:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are concerned this dispute has made the debate go off topic, Peteb16, but if you check the talk page of DShamen you will see he has a history of re-editing articles of people being born pre-1974 and changing their birth place to Greater Manchester from Lancashire, and replacing "Metropolitan..." with just "Oldham". Several editors have asked him not to do this on his user page, and at about that period is when this anonymous user started making those types of edits and he 'stopped'. So it is important to establish if they are the same person, since they have a clear agenda to blur the difference between the borough and the town - which neither of us want! The fact that the categorisation system plays into their hands doesn't help matters because it's bad enough that the 'Oldham' tag shares its name with an article about the town rather than the borough article making other proper towns just look like districts or areas, but also on the categories themselves there is an agenda to make them primarily town categories. Putting "Oldham and the rest of the wider borough" is not really appropriate if the category is a borough category. The wording makes it sound primarily like a town category as opposed to being the category for the borough of as a whole. 88.104.16.11 06:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please could we turn this talk page back into a civil discussion. The above heated discussion is completely against guidelines and not really on-topic. We're supposed to be discussing improvements to articles related to Greater Manchester, not engaging in a witch hunt to name and shame anyone who dares to disagree with someone elses edits. Please read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes for further guidence and stop this insane arguement, please. ~~ Peteb16 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, it's not helping to achieve any kind of concenus, which ought to be the only point of this discussion. So far as I'm concerned I can see no inconsistency in the current categorisation, and no reason to change it. Oldham just happens to be a metropolitan borough as well as a town, whereas Trafford, Tameside, Sefton ... do not. Big deal. Kearsley, for instance, is a town in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, and is quite correctly categorised as Bolton. In the same way that Royton is quite correctly categorised as Oldham, because in both cases the context is that of the metropolitan borough, not the town. ---- Eric 19:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

At least use some common sense and block this anonymous user... lies, lies and more lies. Still, I'm apparently at fault, so I'd like someone to delete my account as I simply have no time for this website any more. DShamen 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to move this on

As a result of what Peteb16 said about losing track, this is an attempt to summarise the original dispute that sparked all of this. Speak up if you think I've missed something of importance or misrepresented anyone's views. Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Summary of the original dispute
  • Articles relating to Oldham and the surrounding area, namely the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, are categorised using various categories in the format X in Oldham, all of which are subcategories of Category:Oldham. Some users disagree with this, and an alternative usage, X in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham was suggested. Several edit wars involving related matters have also occurred, widening the area of dispute.

The main points raised in favour of changing to Metropolitan Borough naming are: for applications outside the town of Oldham itself, the label Oldham may cause confusion due to association with the town rather than the borough. Some people from nearby towns get offended by association with Oldham.

The main points raised by those in favour of keeping the Oldham naming are: the current method works for similarly named boroughs, such as Category:Wigan and Category:Stockport. Because the categories had been in place for a long time without previously generating major complaints, there is a de facto consensus.

• Other related points raised
  • Metropolitan Borough of Oldham can be an anachronistic term in some cases.
  • Varying opinions over what constitutes a suburb and what constitutes a separate town, and also for districts and boroughs.
  • Disputes over traditional counties have invoked strong passions in the past.
  • Examples given of the methods used for Merseyside (the short form is used) and Hackney (not straightforward).

In general, the comments have digressed, moving into other areas than the original dispute. As for the initial dispute, I really don't mind which is used so long as people don't edit war over it, To me it appears that the people in favour of keeping the categories as X in Oldham are in the majority. If those in favour of changing it to Metropolitan Borough wish to persue the matter further, I suggest they take it to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion. Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My main point against the category 'Oldham' is that the title is used as the name of the article about the town. You have the same name applying to two different areas. The 'Manchester' article is about the City of Manchester which covers the same area as the category. I think it's madness to identify two different geographic locations by the same name, regardless of the proliferation of the usage. 88.104.38.124 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole like "it's madness" probably doesn't really help your case. Which I have to say seems to me to be both parochial and obsessive. Exactly the same objection that you raise about Oldham could be raised about several other categories; Marple, for instance, is in the Stockport category, but it is not part of the town of Stockport. The point is that categories have a context. The context of the Oldham category, just like the context of the Stockport category, is the metropolitan borough, not the town. It may be that the context ought to be made more explicit, but that's no justification for a proliferation of Oldham categories. ---- Eric 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category introduction

Due to the edit wars over the introduction, I protected Category:Schools in Oldham and Category:Sport in Oldham yesterday. The introduction was going back and forth between

• This category lists schools in the town of Oldham and the wider Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England.

and

• This category lists schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in England.

Likewise for the Sport one and several others. Any preferences for either, or any additional suggestions (other than listing it on WP:LAME)? Oldelpaso 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference is for the second one. It's simpler, and since fundamentally they mean the same thing, as of course the metropolitan borough encompasses Oldham town, we might as well go with the easier one. M A Mason 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Manchester 2

Some Wikipedians are planning a meetup in Manchester on 8 June. Oldelpaso 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell house

Unfortunately, I'm perhaps a bit young to know about the case described in the above article. Can anyone confirm the authenticity of the article? Having searched the Internet, including The Times archive going back that far, there is no mention of it anywhere on the Internet other than on Misplaced Pages. Nor is there any mention of the death of one of the accussed in 1999. If someone has access to an archive such as LexisNexis (any students/uni staff?) is it possible to get a few more references? Pit-yacker 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me. There is no Amhearset Road in the Manchester A-Z, but there is an Amherst Road in Fallowfield, which appears to be student lodgings see. I suggest you prod it. Mr Stephen 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham categories at Cfd

The 'Oldham' cats have been taken to CfD, see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Mr Stephen 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the result of the discussion was formally declared "no consensus" then that gives you no mandate to instute 'Oldham' categories over "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" categories. I recommend that these categories are removed or we have both categorization systems until there is a clear consensus either way. 88.104.121.24 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which categories do you mean to be removed? Fingerpuppet 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The ones that were up for discussion - Oldham and the sub categories. 88.104.121.24 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, in my limited experience a "No Consenus" result means the status quo (i.e. Oldham over Oldham MBC) holds for now, as it is also true that there is no mandate to move any articles. To achieve consensus, I guess it is necessary to go back to CfD at some point. However, in my experience an immediate return to CfD will yield no change. In other words, IMHO it is best left to settle for a while. Pit-yacker 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion was about a proposition to rename categories, as no consensus exists to do so, we simply don't rename them. No one has ever discussed having both categories so, again, no consensus exists to do so. Do it if you want, but if you do, you're just adding to the confusion you were supposed to be avoiding in the first place and you're just asking for someone to justifiably slap a deletion notice on it. ~~ Peteb16 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "no consensus" doesn't mean the same as "rename". Fingerpuppet 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no consensus has been reached that technically means that no decision was reached either way. If you don't want me to introduce an alternative system then you have to refrain from extending yours, and that means no further articles should be put in Oldham categories until the format is agreed upon. I won't remove any of the current articles from their current categories or introduce further ones, but only on the condition that you refrain from any further rolling out of a categorization system that you do not have majority support for. That's the only way the articles will remain stable until a proper consensus is achieved. 88.104.121.24 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, it means that there was no consensus in favour of your renaming proposal, therefore the staus quo stands. A decision was reached not to support your renaming proposal. Your use of the word "technically" is irrelevant and intended to mislead in my opinion. ---- Eric 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an option: rename them or keep them. There was no agreement on renaming them or keeping them. I'm willing to hold back with categorsation system until there is a clear decision either way, but only if the current system is frozen since there wasn't a consensus to keep it. I can understand your sour grapes since you were cocksure that the majority would back you Eric, but I put forward a good argument that many editors were convinced by, and you're going to have to just live with that. Since you have no authority to pull 'rank' on me now since your categorisation failed to win the necessary support, we are going to have to wait until the dispute is resolved. 88.104.121.24 23:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see no justification for your personal remarks. But the fact is that a nomination for renaming was made and it was not supported. Therefore the status quo remains. BTW, the present categorisation has nothing to do with me, and I have no "rank" to pull on anyone. ---- Eric 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't refuted either. That's what a "no consensus" means. Since it wasn't refuted then the alternative, to retain the name wasn't supported either. Since you have displayed no intention of supporting the impasse and waiting for a resolution supported by consensus then I will roll out a competing categorisation system next week. The vote related to renaming the current categorisation so the way I see it consensus opinion doesn't prevent me from doing this. If a motion is made for their deletion then presumably there would be another "no consensus" since roughly half the voters support using the proper name, and then we will have two catgeorisation systems and editors can use whichever their happiest with. 88.104.121.24 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No consensus means there is no agreement for any other category system or renaming. Any "alternative system" comes under WP:POINT and following comments like this I doubt you will get much sympathy for any of your arguments. Regan123 00:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's correct - the nomination was to rename them, and it was exactly this failed to achieve consensus. The policy therefore is to keep the existing categorisation. To maintain the otherwise goes against WP:POINT and WP:CON, and should be treated as such, for better or worse. Jhamez84 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, 6 supported the rename and 9 were against it. Not counting your second vote and a vote from an anonymous user whose vote was disputed due to their singular contribution to the site. I would personally concider any attempt to add to the categorisation conflicts as bad faith as it's clearly in retribution to people opposing you rather than for the good of the encyclopaedia. Furthermore I'd say that adding to the confusion for the reader by creating a conflicting category borders on vandalism. ~~ Peteb16 00:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm finding it really difficult to understand how someone can get so excited about a perfectly straightforward and simple geographical category. It beggars belief. ---- Eric 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'd expect this behaviour over actual important issues such as war or religion, but over this? Aren't there less trivial things to do here... Something to do with writing articles? I forget now, it's been so long. ~~ Peteb16 09:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I really love the way that he thinks he owns the place and keeps issuing threats that he can't possibly back up... still, I'll ignore his existence from now on. DShamen 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

People from Categories

A discussion has been opened at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London#Category:People from Ealing by district about upmerging local area categories for People from... into current local government boundaries only. This could have implications across the whole of England if carried through. Your are invited to join the discussion. The proposer is planning a massive merge by 22nd June if no objections are received. --Regan123 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User 88.104...

Can I bring to the attention of the project user 88.104___. Following his failed nomination of the recatagorisation of the Oldham Borough, he appears to be excerting a new geographic frame of reference on the Royton article.

He uses dynamic IP addresses, and has issued some minor threats.

From the evidence I've gathered, it is my personal concern and interpretation that he is a long-standing chronic troll and sockpupeteer who has been banned in the past. Community support and commentry is welcomed. Jhamez84 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it about Royton/Oldham that feeds such obsessive behaviour? Is it racially motivated? Whatever the reasons, the Royton article is starting to look like a mess IMO. ---- Eric 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal, humble opinion is it is racially motivated - and that is assuming good faith! Frankly, the borough of Oldham has a very poor council (verifiably so!), as well as a lot of underlying socio-cultural problems - which means some highly disgruntled Oldhamers who want to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. I've worked hard to combat this, but I agree, without support, some articles like Royton are messy. Jhamez84 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mid term assessment

Aims

By 2008, we hope to achieve the following:

• Bring both Manchester and Greater Manchester upto WP:GA standard.
• At least one settlement within Greater Manchester to have been a Featured article.
• Have at least twenty quality, active editors on-board the project.
• Feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester.

Other aims include the general maintainance, expansion and improvement of all Misplaced Pages articles concerned with Greater Manchester, including:

• Improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester, including its history, geography, people, constructions and buildings, etc etc.
• All relevant articles should be included in the Category:Greater Manchester or one of its subcategories.

So how are we doing? ---- Eric 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite bad I think is the answer! Though Shaw and Crompton is a featured article candidate (not even my nomination!), and these were always ambitious targets!

I have worked on a new, improved and standardised {{Greater Manchester}} navigation template, and I know we've had alot of work on the GM categorisation of late. Manchester is looking alot better, as is some of it's daughter articles (Culture of Manchester etc). It would be nice to get Greater Manchester up to GA though - it's surely something we can all relate to!

Some WikiProjects issue newsletters to their members once editting dries up a little - I think we may have to persue this idea to reinvigorate our efforts. Jhamez84 00:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a question I was asked on a time management course, years ago. The question was "How would you eat an elephant?" The answer is, of course, one bite at a time. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a standard format?

Is there a standard format for articles in this project? Information that ought to be included, sections, ordering of sections and so on? ---- Eric 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone else has the same question, the answer is WP:UKCITIES. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Hello project,

Just wanted to bring your attention to two new articles:

• Geography of Greater Manchester
• Demographics of Greater Manchester

They are only stubs at present, but with the help of the project we could get two very useful articles here, and would welcome input. These are also linked on our {{Greater Manchester}} navigation template. Jza84 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the message I left above, we also have two table's which would very much benefit from a collaborative effort to find and input the various figures needed to complete these. Once done, the figures on these could be used on hundreds of our project's articles. I've started us off, but I'm not so strong at maths:

I've inputted some figures from this source, with this signature. Jza84 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tables complete! Jza84 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:79....

User 79... (our second/third city friend) appears to gone off on an all out campaign of vandalism against Manchester related articles tonight prefixing any mention of Manchester with the "UK's third city" as well as removing sections of articles. Unfortunately the editor is IP address hopping so I have taken this to the Administrators Noticeboard Pit-yacker 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this second/third /fourth/... city issue hard to understand. Measured in different ways, different cities will have different rankings. What does it matter? Mentioning in an article about Birmingham or Manchester that it has been described as the second city on whatever basis is one thing, but having a whole article on the second city is ludicrous in my opinion.

So far as User 79... is concerned, all (s)he has done is to demonstrate once again how easy it is for anyone on a mission to take advantage of the wikipedia ethos of assuming good faith. Perhaps it would be less wasteful of limited resources to assume bad faith, and to ask that all editors are registered? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User 79... appears to be going aroung Manchester related articles and adding Manchester "the UK's third city". Whether Manchester is the UK's second or third city seems trivial to me, but the argument is spilling into other articles (such as River Medlock, Mancunium and Castlefield) where mention of Manchester's status as second or third city is irrelevant. Nev1 10:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Sheer vandalism. --Malleus Fatuarum 10:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started to block them, though its akin to playing whack-a-mole. Oldelpaso 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List any new ones on WP:AIV. Oldelpaso 11:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My experience with this user is one of bad faith. Just check the edit history of the main GM project page to find that he's tried to disrupt here. I think this pretty much sums up his mission - which is purely mischeivious. Jza84 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Peer Review!!

Hello all. The Manchester article is now up for peer review here in order to obtain comments on how to bring it up to Featured Article status. Anybody who could contribute anything to the review please do not hesitate to add your comments as they would be most welcome. Thank you all! _└┘talk 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchester certainly looks better than it once did!!! I'll certainly take a look at this article, and give a couple of interested parties a nudge about pushing towards FA. The references to me seem to be the biggest problem. Jza84 23:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Didsbury

Didsbury is currently a GA nominee but has been placed on hold whilst suggested improvments can be made. I'd appreciate any editors who would help me in instating Didsbury as a good article per the criteria on the talk page. Thanks. Onnaghar 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter?

I was looking at some other editors usertalks and seen some monthly newsletters. I was wondering whether the same idea could be applied to this project? To view the outline of the monthly see here. Onnaghar 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you can sign me up! _└┘talk 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool - Onnaghar 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Do sign me up too :) M A Mason 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Will start as soon as. Onnaghar 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too! A great idea! Jza84 12:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages ads

I have submitted a request for a wikipedia ad for this WikiProject as people have said they would like to see more members. Please see here and feel free to add anything on to my request going into any specifics you want on there. Cheers _└┘talk 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work - well done! GRB1972 16:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is truely excellent stuff! I think this project is becoming ever more pro-active and we're really starting to function as a team - even if I say so myself! Jza84 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate facts and figures

Are there any users of the project that have any idea where we might obtain climate figures at a more localised town or borough level? Manchester as a major city obviously has a weather station and well publicisised average figures, and thus has a beautifully rendered climate table for its article.

However, there appears to be nothing I can find from a cursory search of the web that gives figures for Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton etc etc, which to me is a great shame in furthering the articles our next tier of major settlements in the county. Any body out there with any suitable ideas/books/sources/solutions? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this list (warning, large page) of all the Met Office weather stations, there are stations at Manchester, Manchester Airport, Urmston, Bolton (several), Rochdale, Prestwich, Oldham, Royton, Altrincham, pretty much everywhere, though whether that data is available is another matter. You can get all sorts of data from the Met Office, but I think they charge for anything beyond the basics. As for non-Met Office weather stations, I've found this one for Salford, but little else other than school ones, which are used for education rather than long term data collection. Oldelpaso 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote the majority of the climate section on the Manchester article and created the climate table and when researching the data it all came from the Manchester Airport weather station. I am unaware of any other weather stations in Greater Manchester which data is published for. I think the best place to start would be to email Dianne Oxberry from BBC's North West Tonight as if anybody knows the weather of the North West it will be her. I don't see why she would not help us as she is a lovely woman and great at her job. If we found out where she gets her data from we could probably use it here although she may only use the major weather stations but who knows! _└┘talk 13:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect unreferenced article

I have come across an article that comes under Greater Manchester that appears to be based on a misconception. The article on Don Estelle says that he was born in Rochdale. He is then included in the Rochdale article (which also doesn't give a reference, and has a cleanup tag) under "Notable residents". However, I know two people who grew up with him in the Cheetham Hill area who tell me he lived on Founain St. which is either Cheetham Hill or Crumpsall (I need to check that out) both before and after the war. They didn't know exactly where he was born but were pretty sure it was in that area. He certainly died and was buried in Rochdale, and there is a BBC webpage herethat says he was buried in his "home town" of Rochdale but then goes on to say he was born in Manchester. I wonder if this is where the miconception, if indeed there is one, came about? A google search throws up a lot of sites that say he was born in Manchester, or more specifically Crumpsall, and only one or two that say he was born in Rochdale. I have put questions on the discussion pages for both articles but so far there have been no replies. I am tempted to just change the article and it's category but I'm concerned that the original contributor may know something I don't. I am trying to find out more information via a friend who's into genealogy but I am worried that an unreferenced article like this just makes us look amateurish - especially if it's wrong. I have even seen a web discussion where someone suggested a Rochdale Street should be named after him! I have put an unreferenced tag on the article for now and will change it if and when I get more information. Is there anything else I can do? Richerman 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to be bold! If you have a reliable source you are entitled to challenge and change the material. If there really is a conflict of sources, then there is no harm in saying this in the article. If you read the first section on the Gordon Brown article, one can find a simillar example of how to go about this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper obits seem agreed that he was born in Manchester. Independent - Don Estelle was born in the Crumpsall district of Manchester; Telegraph - Don Estelle was born in Manchester; Guardian - Born in Manchester; Times - Born in Manchester. Mr Stephen 19:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the Gordon Brown article example will be the way forward if I don't get any more firm information in the next few days. I used a similar ploy in the first lines in the Heaton Park article that I rewrote recently (which you may like to look at to see if it needs any improvement - maybe an infobox?). It makes it a bit difficult to get the right category then, but I would agree that the newspapaer obits are probably the most reliable sources. Richerman 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found the dispute tag now and put that on both articles. maybe that will bring someone out of the woodwork. Richerman 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad source

Could I bring to the attention of the project that www.manchester2002-uk.com is a self-published tertiary source and thus a breach of the reliable sources criteria. It's a lovely site, but contains alot of inaccuracies, point of view content, and doesn't itself cite its own sources.

I've seen it being used in a number of articles, albeit innocently, but it really is one to avoid. Local history books (secondary sources) are always a higher quality source for historical infomation, and would recommend all users to try to go for this kind of source. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good call, I'm sure I've used that site as a reference myself more than once, have to go back and check some time. On a somewhat related topic, I'm becoming a fan of separating the References section into two subsections: Notes and Bibliography. That way, for printed sources, it's much easier to point to the page number(s) in the relevant book/magazine. I've started doing it on the Stretford article, but before I go much further with it I'd appreciate any views comments on that structure. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been here before, see talk:Manchester#Featured Article. I'm for the name/page structure where there are multiple references to a single book, and we did once have it for most of the refs in the Manchester article. Mr Stephen 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so we have, I'd forgotten about that. Pity we didn't choose to go with the Johannes Kepler style of references. It works particularly well, as you say, when there's more than one reference to the same book. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's 128 links to manchester2002-uk.com as of now, see here. Not all are in article-space but it still points to a fairly big cleanup. Mr Stephen 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

127 now. Good call on this by Jza84. I saw two or three in that list that I thought might be down to me, so I checked the first of them, and blow me down it seems not to have been right. It wasn't a big thing, only the date of a park being donated to Manchester City Council. www.manchester2002-uk.com said 1914, Manchester City Council said 1919; maybe they're both wrong, but I changed the reference to agree with what the council says. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Our ad

Our ad is here:

_└┘talk 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Very Manchester United! -- Jza84 · (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the spelling wrong? Shouldn't it say "Hail from Greater Manchester?", not "Hale from ..."? --Malleus Fatuarum 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless one is referring to South Manchester/Cheshire? Heheheh ---- WebHamster 14:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with the concept of a 'pun'? Nev1 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Only in the context of an amusing play on words. :)--Malleus Fatuarum 14:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Touché. Nev1 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Manchester's more famous for rain than hail <groan> :P. Seriously though, I can't say I'm a big fan of that ad. ---- WebHamster 15:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're not a fan then there is no reason why you can't make a new one and post it here to see if anyone prefers it, it is only a simple gif file and there are plenty of free-to-use gif creators around. I agree that it is a little Man U'ish and has pixelated a bit from being stretched. _└┘talk 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this then? On the grounds that "less is more" and subtlety is never a bad thing.---- WebHamster 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lovely! Would be nicer if you could add maybe two more slides to it giving a little bit more information about what the project covers? Other than that it is a lot nicer. _└┘talk 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty classy. It's direct too, I like it. Nev1 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We're a talented bunch us sometimes! That's a great ad and a vast improvement - even if I am a Utd fan.... or not! I created the crest- it's probably my worst ever contribution to Misplaced Pages, and wish I'd spend more time on it. What about a few images of different settlements from the county? Maybe I'm getting too creative now, so I'll forget it. Great ad though, non-the-less! -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks folks :). I have to admit though that it's "to the point" as I didn't really know what else it needed to say, so I went with the basics. Tell me what else needs to be said and I'll add it, along with any other suggestions ---- WebHamster 22:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really are open to suggestions... as the Project is very much involved with furthering the articles about the settlements of Greater Manchester, perhaps some element of the county's cityscapes and townscapes? (I think) this ad for WikiProject Vancouver is a nice one - but is it too technical? And does anybody else agree? And can you get suitable imagery? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's not particularly difficult at all, the trick is, as you say, getting relevant images. The text and text effects are simplicity. I'm sure I've seen a Manchester skyline somewhere but I'm buggered if I can remember where I saw it. And yes, I'm totally open to suggestions, but I don't want to appear to step on anyone's toes. I only produced the above ad in response to And-Rew's suggestion. ---- WebHamster 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's this one

::::::<

that you might be able to crop/resize. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I like WebHamster's version, it's nicely Zen, and as Nev1 said it looks pretty classy. I'd suggest just changing the text a bit, to be more like the Vancouver ad. Somethimg like:

• Interested in Greater Manchester?
• Want to see wikipedia's coverage improved?
• Join WikiProject Greater Manchester/Click here for details

--Malleus Fatuarum 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Here's MkII. Is fading preferable to scrolling do you think? ---- WebHamster 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's beautiful to me! Certainly has my vote! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even better. I wasn't convinced by the skyline, I thought it would be too strong and make the text difficult to read, but this looks very good. Nev1 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! That's certainly got my vote. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Loads nicer than the current one, we should have done it all ourselves straight away! Would have been quicker! _└┘talk 01:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Now all you have to do is tell me how I replace the old one with the new one (and without pissing anyone off :) ). Do I just upload it as a replacement for the old one with the same filename? That way it will maintain its place in the ad rotation. ---- WebHamster 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the only way you can do it, uploading under the same name, you need to upload to commons. _└┘talk 03:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, it's all done now...I hope <g> ---- WebHamster 10:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 2.0

Did anyone see the article on the future of wikipedia in New Scientist recently? You can read it Here They're talking about making wikipedia more reliable by having edits invisible for 30 days unless they are from a trusted editor - i.e. one who has a good history. It sounds ike an excellent idea to me. Richerman 13:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the link's broken. Nev1 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it works on my pc. Try going to www.newscientist.com and searching for Misplaced Pages 2.0 Richerman 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Misplaced Pages:Stable versions and the links from there. Mr Stephen 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The link works fine for me too, but I think the idea is completely arse-about-face. Everyone should start out "trusted", until they demonstrate that they can't be trusted. And I can't even begin to imagine the problems any editor would have in trying to make changes to an article with invisible edits in it that are scheduled to become visible at various dates in the future. Bad idea, and one that I hope the English wikipedia doesn't adopt. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester!

I think the time has come for us to start developing Greater Manchester and bring it up to WP:GA ASAP. I would love to start bashing something out for the Economy section as I am very interested in that and know a fair bit. If people would assign themselves sections or topics I think we could accelerate the article development and could tell each other any extra bits of information relating to their section. This needs to be a great collaboration between the editors here and the, hopefully, newbies joining soon. If we get activity going while the project is growing then it will put the article right into focus and it will look great in no time! Any thoughts on how we should go about doing it please add. _└┘talk 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! It is a really terrible article. I have alot of material about the evolution of Greater Manchester. And some stuff about the textile history of GM. There's a few books we could do with getting hold of - "Who's who in Greater Manchester" is one which would tell us about notable inhabitants at a county level. There's another series of books called "It Happened Around Greater Manchester" which may also help.

User:Fingerpuppet, though not a member of this project, is very knowledgable about Urban Area's and land use. I'd be happy to produce any maps for the article that people requested. Has anybody got access to the original Radcliffe-Maud report? Or anything about the SELNEC era?

Perhaps also we could look at other county articles, and try to find strengths in them for ideas? I'm conscious that we also need to agree on the headings, their order and what goes into them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The trick with such a large topic isn't so much what one puts in, it's choosing what gets left out that's gonna be the real bitch! ---- WebHamster 01:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this proposal. Isn't Greater Manchester a ceremonial county? In what sense has it "evolved", or ever had a textile industry? I'm very much with Jza84 on this; let's agree on the structure of the article before diving in. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county, but also a metropolitan county, and prior to that a PTE area under SELNEC, and prior to that an area full of county boroughs, and prior to that Salfordshire (though I know you know this, so apologies for any patronisation!).

What I meant is the "term" Greater Manchester has been in use for various divisions of land centred on Manchester from 1914 (which I can produce maps of!), and that the textile history is anachronistic of the county, because it's pre-1974 history. I should've said GM has textile (and other industrial) "heritage". But I think you raise a valid point - we need to consider Greater Manchester very much as a modern, statistical, administrative unit, rather than a settlement or a historic county. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd disagree with that series of historical events as being any kind of an "evolution", although I'm not doubting that the term "Greater Manchester" may have been in use before 1974. But if it was, then I'd suggest that's a part of the Greater Manchester article's History section. Of course, as always, your mileage may vary. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 02:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

True. Having re-read it, I think the key elements of Greater Manchester's history are covered quite well in the article as it is. I think that section just needs strengthening and tightening a little. We perhaps need someone with access to and knowledge of the Local Government Act 1958, Local Government Commission for England (1958–1967), and Redcliffe-Maud Report. It's the other sections which are much weaker, in my view. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Partington, Greater Manchester

Can someone have a look at this article?? I'm not exactly sure how to fix it and all advice is appreciated! --Solumeiras 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little as to what you mean? Do you mean how would you go about furthering the contents of the article? If so, WP:UKCITIES is probably a good page to review. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Biographies

I was just looking at the article on Elkie Brooks that comes under the Greater Manchester remit and it's a well-presented Biography about a living person but has only one reference to a short newspaper article. It has been given a rating by the Biographies project but in common with other biographies I've looked at, had no comment about the lack of references until I added one myself. Am I missing something here or should I put a comment on their discussion page to say they should be tagging articles and removing them where necessary? There are dire warnings about unreferenced articles about living persons - aren't the Biographies team the people that should be watching for this? Richerman 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As a geography related project, Elkie Brooks doesn't fall quite under the this project's normal remit, but we're always willing to help. Be mindful that as Mrs Brooks was born prior to 1 April 1974, it is convention to say she was born in Salford, Lancashire, rather than Salford, Greater Manchester.

In short, Misplaced Pages is very much work-in-progress; there are alot of gaps in chasing up reference material and maintaining quality articles. There are alot of weaknesses in articles, and they only flourish into quality entries with collaboration with other users. A member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography has probably identified that article as part of it's family of to-do articles, but not acted upon it as he/she is unfamilliar with the subject matter..... You can help though! If you visit the standard welcome page, as well as the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography main page, you'd probably gain some insight as to how to take your ideas and concerns further. Does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jza,

I had read the two pages you mentioned and on the wikiproject Biographies page, one of the first things it say under "tips on writing Biographies" is "research the available literature to find reliable sources" then "cite your sources" and then "check your sources again". I would presume that the original contributor (I know they don't exist really!) probably didn't understand the principles of citing sources and just went ahead with the article. If someone had put on an "unreferenced" tag at an early stage they could at least have had the chance to go back and find them, if they were so inclined. However, with a reasonably large article like this it's impossible for another editor to add references at a later date without rewriting it completely as you don't know where the original information came from. To me, the whole point of having wikiprojects is that someone puts you straight, as politely as possible, at an early stage, so you can make changes. Although biographies aren't really within our remit I think there is a general point we can all learn from here. Just recently, you pointed out very politely, that I'd used a tertiary source in some of my contributions and because of this, I'm going to eliminate them as I find alternatives and will not use them again. However, if someone had mentioned it a year down the line I would be spending the rest of my life trying to find them all. What concerns me is that when someone googles a subject and a wikipedia article comes up they usually don't understand what wikipedia is all about and will take what they read at face value. If there is a tag saying that it's unreferenced it does at least flag up that it may be unreliable, although I think there should be something in the banner that comes up to make it clear that you shouldn't rely on unsourced material. I know it says something along these lines, but I think it could be a lot stronger. Ian Hislop was sniggering about the "reliability" of wikipedia on "Have I got news for you" only last week. Perhaps we should agree on a message to be sent to any new editors who come under the Greater Manchester project just reinforcing the right way to do things and pointing to pages such as what wikipedia is not etc. When I first joined the project I was a bit surpised that I wasn't contacted by someone to at least say "hello" - although when I've asked for help since it has always been forthcoming. I know some of this stuff isn't totally relevant to this project and should be taken up elsewhere but I'm just trying to get an idea about what others think, after all making wikipedia more reliable is what we're all here for. Rant over for now! Richerman 12:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Scale

Could we sort out an assessment scale for Greater Manchester related articles?, it came across my mind when seeing ]. Ta, Rudget _{Contributions} 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. United Kingdom Census 2001 (2007-01-17). "2001 Census; Key facts sheets". manchester.gov.uk. Retrieved 2007-07-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
2. United Kingdom Census 2001 (2001). "Greater Manchester (Health Authority)". neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk. Retrieved 2007-07-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
3. United Kingdom Census 2001 (2007-01-17). "2001 Census; Key facts sheets". manchester.gov.uk. Retrieved 2007-07-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
4. United Kingdom Census 2001 (2001). "Manchester (Local Authority)". neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk. Retrieved 2007-07-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)