Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 27 May 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)

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)

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)