Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

WP:PLACE

I'm struggling for wiki-time, so I'm giving the project a nudge about User:88.110.116.73, an editor removing any and all mentions of Greater Manchester in at least two articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to Wikilink the contributions log, but this is an external link to it. I'll keep an eye on. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, {{user|88.110.116.73}} gives 88.110.116.73 (talk · contribs). Mr Stephen (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Stephen! No more changes since Jza's note, encouragingly. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he/she's back (88.111.19.172 (talk · contribs)), and must have Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Milnrow

I'm currently working on expanding the Milnrow article. I've had some success, but I'm struggling with source material. Does any body have anything to hand which might help? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Rochdale Canal passes less than a mile from Milnrow, could be worth a mention as it would have been important for trade. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a breif note on this, and will try to expand upon it. I've since learned that the canal was the statutory boundary between the former Milnrow Urban District and County Borough of Rochdale (and have a source for it!), and so I'll mention this too, soon. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Music of Manchester

I just came across this and it has some good information for the Music of Manchester article but I really posted it here hoping you will all vote for our city as the most musical in England! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's been raised before, but while we're on the subject of music in Manchester, what bands/musicians come under the scope of the project? For example Oasis is very strongly associated with Manchester as is Madchester and so are currently tagged by the project but should smaller bands etc be included and what should the criteria of inclusion be? I think this may be a similar issue to one about footballers playing for Manchester clubs that came up a few months ago: if we indiscriminately include everything none would probably benefit.

I voted by the way :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

List of schools in Greater Manchester

The List of schools in Greater Manchester article was too long with over 214 kilobytes, and so I've split it into articles for each district's schools. The List of schools in Greater Manchester article now acts as link page to each article. cwb61 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would've thought they'd be titled in short form, i.e. List of schools in Tameside, or List of schools in Rochdale. That'd be in keeping with List of people from Bolton and List of people from Southwark etc. I think there's a convention on it somewhere. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The long form is more correct. List of schools in Wigan is a smaller list than List of school in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan as the latter would include towns such as Leigh and Atherton. The former would only include Wigan and its recognised districts such as Pemberton, Orrel and Ince.--TimTay (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I realise the difference here, but it seems, at very least, there is a practice to use the common or short name for list articles. I'm all for making the distinction in the lead, but in the title I'd be inclined to keep it snappy. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84, and what about Trafford and Tameside, there's no chance of confusion there. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tameside and Trafford - no chance of confusion I agree. Probably the same could apply to Manchester. But this is an encyclopaedia and in the case of the other boroughs, they are not the same as the town so the title should be factually correct and accurately represent the content. Keeping it snappy doesn't come into it. --TimTay (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does to an extent (i.e. it's United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). It would be List of schools in the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester by the same logic. The "description" of "metropolitan borough" is just that. Simillarly, we don't disambiguate places in full, in the same way. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Found something: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles, which says they should be short. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But there aren't two entities called Greater Manchester and Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester. There are two entities called Stockport and Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. It is a simple matter of avoiding confusion and being factually correct. --TimTay (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's the Greater Manchester Urban Area. But, we categorise to this convention, (see Category:Sport in Oldham), we list according to this convention (see List of people from Croydon) and we disambiguate to this convention (see Scholes, Leeds or Cadeby, Doncaster). These new articles are out of snyc with the rest of England. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Where are we upto with this? I'm keen to use the "standard" title still at this stage. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to me changing these articles? I found another local example in Coat of arms of Wigan. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week, and no objections. I'll move the articles back inline. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladyshore Colliery

A few users have added a fair bit to Ladyshore Colliery, I wondered if the rating still applied? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not a start class as the WP:GM tag has it, at first glance it might even pass muster at B class. I think the important thing is how the article can be improved further. For example, twice in the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal section the prose is a little vague. "Former collier Sid Dyer described his role and how he worked the horse-drawn boats when he started working at the colliery" and "Alex Waterson who was the last of five generations of Ladyshore canal boat builders described the building process in his book"; it feels like something's missing, ie: the descriptions.

Perhaps the Trade Union disputes section should be worked into the history section as it's a little short and is certainly part of the history of the colliery. Could the Women and children in the mine section be expanded to include working conditions in general? Also I think as it stands now it needs more references. The Mines section is very short, could more be added on when there were opened or closed, their importance within the whole of Ladyshore Colliery? If this causes duplication of material, perhaps the section should be integrated somewhere else. I'm not quite comfortable with the Terminology used section, I understand what's trying to be done here, but I think explanations of specialist terms should be included in the main body of the article rather than in their own section. Hope this helps. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Nev1's said, and I too think that it just about passes muster as a B-class, so I've made the change. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, that's some quick editing! Myself I know little beyond the original article although I did manage to get the photos. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on mines as shown in the terminology refers to the actual coal seams, Lancs coal miners called the seams mines. I have more info on them but it tends then to put things in the realm of geological rather than mining as there is not much you can say about coal seams without getting technical. I could expand it to include the actual types of coal and what they were used for, but I don't want to go too far into geology unless folks here think it is appropriate. Thanks for all the improvements and additions......Phil aka Geotek (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has more information on the closure? It has a line or two but little else, did it become economically unviable, did the market for it's coal disappear? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Rock and Ice climbing club

Not sure if this is the right place to include this, but the link on the main project page didn't work so here goes... The Rock and Ice climbing club, which some sources call the Manchester Rock and Ice Club, is currently at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock and Ice climbing club) and on current form is heading for deletion. Your participation would be welcome, particularly if you have any references to hand about the history of UK climbing. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Denshaw

Hello team,

I just came across this and thought we might want to give Denshaw a boost. A print version of that article is likely to appear in the Oldham Advertiser today. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A football pitch sloping at 35 degrees? - seems rather unlikely! Richerman (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the less productive editors has been blocked for a spell. I have removed the sloping football pitch. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Less productive? - looks like they've been hard at work Richerman (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was sat in Salford Central railway station today reading the story in the Manchester Evening News and was laughing to myself. lol. Good job nobody else was at the station as they would have thought I was slightly strange. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems they also sell people into prostitution in Wigan according to this story about Wigan's little-known rival bid for the 2012 olympics. Do you think our resident Pemberton troll would like it if we cited this one? Richerman (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that article is supposed to be comedic but do Southerners really find any of it funny anymore? Wigan is hardly heaven on Earth but I have seen much worse places within London and who actually keeps pigeons nowadays?! Just more dross that very few people will find funny. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the MEN too yes! Same story at this link. I'm going to try to improve Denshaw (the article) this eve and would welcome assistance of any kind. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did somebody say "WPGM publicity stunt"? Sounds like a great opportunity for the community to show what we can do, who knows, maybe even encourage a few people to join up. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's made the national news! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too excited, mass coverage can equal mass vandalism. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be on North West Tonight too (BBC1 6-30 to 7-00). Mr Stephen (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Why does some simple vandalism to wikipedia get the headlines, whereas the good content here gets ignored by the media?</idealism> Mike Peel (talk)

Bit of vandalism just sprung up. I'd be interested to see the stats for today when they're published tomorrow. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere there is a template that says 'this article is in the media, please keep an eye on it'. Blowed if I can find it. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to semi-protect the page, but I'm optimistic: maybe one of the anonymous editors will have something to contribute to the article. Any opinions? Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you after {{High-traffic}}? Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs semi-protecting! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect until the view count dies down in a couple of days; we'll be showing wikipedia in action, trying to make it a more reliable and academic place. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in better shape than it was, that's for sure. I'd be inclined to watch the article for the 10:30-45 slot on NWT which might lead to unwanted edits. I've added a link to NWT's coverage too. Feel free to chip into the article guys, I'm running low on source material myself. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You've all done a terrific job with this article, it looks "proper" now. :-) Let's hope the next news report compares the present article with the vandalised one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course they will, right between the piece on the new terminal at pig airport and the weather on the moon. Nev1 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we still thinking of going for a DYK entry with Denshaw? Three seperate editors have mentioned this on my talk page though DYK is not an area of Wikipedia I'm experienced with. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, this hit the London papers and Metro! Must've been a slow day for news eh. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's a good idea, we're about ready, we've got the right size of article (~5x expansion), a nice picture (from the infobox), now we just need to decide our fact. And compile the names of the editors who helped so we can all be included in the nomination. It's practically a project nomination, but I'm not sure if that can be done. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) How about this, which I’ve condensed form the suggestion by user:Bpeps on the Denshaw talk page?

…that the village of Denshaw in the Greater Manchester (pictured) achieved national notoriety when spoof information added to its wikipedia entry was reported in local and national media? Article expanded fivefold in a collaboration by a number of editors from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester; Nom by Richerman (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The main editors could be listed as I did for the Peterloo Massacre nomination but there are quite a few. The main contributors seem to be User:Jza84, User:Ddstretch, User:Malleus_Fatuarum, User:Hassocks5489 and User:Nev1      Richerman (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I was thinking about perhaps a hook regarding the objections to a new wind farm near the village, but that's rather like saying the Titanic was notable for having 4 funnels. Mr Stephen helped with reverting vandalism and Mike Peel made some good content suggestions on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, once you mention some names where do you stop? It should really be editors who contributed to the content of the article who get a mention. Also, there was quite a concerted effort by a number of editors to revert the vandalism, so it wouldn't be right to just mention the one who's a member of the project. Maybe if we included User:Mike Peel for his research and awarded User:Mr Stephen a barnstar to add to his extensive collection. Richerman (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair compromise. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I contributed alot to the Denshaw page, but don't feel obliged to include me as a nominator for DYK; I'd much rather see someone who's experienced in that section of the site take my spot. :D --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say that I'd made any significant contributions to the Denshaw article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The nominator doesn't have to be a contributor so I'm happy to do that as I've been successful with a couple already, but they ask you to mention the main contributors as a matter of courtesy. They then get an acknowledgement on their talk page if it's successful. If there are no other suggestions I'll nominate the hook below at Template talk:Did you know under; Articles created/expanded on April 18. If anyone thinks of something better they can always make an alternative suggestion under the nomination.

…that the village of Denshaw in Greater Manchester (pictured) achieved national notoriety when spoof information added to its wikipedia entry was reported in local and national media? Article expanded fivefold in a collaboration by a number of editors from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester including;User:Jza84, User:Ddstretch, User:Malleus_Fatuarum, User:Hassocks5489, User:Nev1 and User:Mike Peel; Nom by Richerman Richerman (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoof needs dabbing, and we need "Denshaw (pictured) in the Greater Manchester". I think... --Jza84 |  Talk  23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, you don't miss much do you? It originally said "in the UK" but I changed it. I've fixed it now and added Mike Peel in too. Richerman (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've made the nomination here under; Articles created/expanded on April 18. Richerman (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats: it's on the main page at the moment. That probably means that vandalism will spike again for the next ~ 5 hours... Mike Peel (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A new day and the story's gone international see here. With this new information, found by Mike Peel, I've updated the hook on the nomination to "international notoriety". Richerman (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know we had over 3k visitors on the 17th and nearly 4k on the 18th, per stats. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Nearly 9k on the 23rd! Must've been the DYK? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely: DYK always has a huge effect on an article's stats, and more so (often to a factor of x5 or more – OR alert there!) when they have a picture on the front page. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm going a bit over the top, but could Denshaw make a realistic GA candidate? Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was secretly thinking this myself!... I think it's lacking a bit of depth that only a local history book or two could help with, but I don't think it's that far off GA. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's improved immensely, of course, but I think it's still a bit light for a GA nomination. Nothing on economy or demography, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of interesting factoids again today, but I'm coming to my Endgame in terms of my growing library of books!... However, I'm not sure if User:Richerman has open (and free!) access to University journal databases like [www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald].... Do you Richerman??? :P --Jza84 |  Talk  00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: a demography section. I've searched online for census data for Denshaw and drew a blank. The closest I can think of is using the figures for the electoral ward it's in and stating that the figures will probably be similar. It's not a perfect situation, maybe it's just something that can't be adequately done. Nev1 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out Denshaw's relationship to a parish named "Friarmere" - I think, historically, parish numbers might be recorded and given according to that parish. I know User:M A Mason had some books on Saddleworth, but, he doesn't seem to be active anymore. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With reference to Jza's previous question, I may have access but I'm not in work till next week due to the dreaded flu. I'll have a go next week. Richerman (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Due to my Michael Jordan like retirement, I request that another user add the finishing touches on May's newsletter and sends it out. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Being  Done by someone, nevermind. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got it covered, hopefully it should be delivered on the 1st May. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Denshaw-gate needs a mention? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Waaaay ahead of you :-) Nev1 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the letter out yet? 'Cos I haven't got one... :( —PolishName 09:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not yet it seems, Basketball110 said he'd take care of it so I'll get in contact with him and see if he's still going to do it. Sorry for the delay. Nev1 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Cheers. —PolishName 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be May 1st (2nd in some parts on the world, but not in Manchester yet). I'll get it out soon (before midnight GMT). Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ye olde images

I wonder if people may be interested in this chap - http://www.geograph.org.uk/statistics/breakdown.php?by=takenyear&u=796 - who has amassed a huge number of ye olde pictures of various canals and towns around the country. There are too many for me to sift through, but other contributors especially for the Rochdale Canal, may be interested (there are many more besides). All the images are compatible with commons licences. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This one could be used at Fallowfield Loop railway line or maybe Hyde Road railway station. This one at Stockport Branch Canal or Ashton Canal, but I'm not sure the view is very different today. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be there on Sunday as some mad people are pulling a boat up the canal with a horse, and then legging through Standedge tunnel, so I want to go and film them doing it :) I'm sure the bridge over the Stockport branch junction is much the same - it can be confusing because the peak forest canal has a similar junction but with a narrow bridge. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From the junction with the Stockport Canal to Standedge tunnel is a good way, even with a horse ... Have fun! Mr Stephen (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done it many times, its a pretty easy route only the damn fishermen get in the way :) They won't be happy when a horse comes trapsing up, they'll have to shift then! Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

2002 Commonwealth Games

After reading the project newsletter I had a look at articles needing cleanup and found the 2002 Commonwealth Games and thought what a pity it is that one of our top priority articles is in such a poor state. It's generally well constructed and has potential to be a good article, but is completely unreferenced and until an hour or so ago was full of POV comments and peacock terms. I've spent some time removing as many as I could but I've now found that the whole section on the closing ceremony is copied word for word from the BBC sport website listed in the external links section. Should I just delete the section for now? Also I wonder if the "memorable Events" section isn't in itself POV as it's debatable which were the highlights. Is there any chance of some others pitching in to see if the article can be improved? Richerman (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in collaborating on it, what with having got the related City of Manchester Stadium to FA a while back. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things in the "memorable events" section could be reworked into a "Records and firsts" section, as a more objective measure. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of something along those lines myself. Sport isn't something I know a lot about - although I did watch the games at the time, but I'm happy to have a go at rewriting some of the article and sorting out some references as I've already done for the legacy and impact section. Any help gratefully received - thanks for the offer. Richerman (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. Rudget (Help?) 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If its of interest, I was filming with an Australian company during those games. They were there to film everything that went on behind the scenes, interviews with athletes and officials, etc. Basically they wanted to know what we were doing right, so they could do it 'righter' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fire station images

Hello team,

I've come across a collection of photographs depicting various GM fire stations in various towns. Thought they might be handy for the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service article, and for Public services sections in "place" articles. Hope they help, --Jza84 |  Talk  15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Free to use images

Hello again (!) team,

I've managed to secure some more photographs for us from Flickr. This lady, has kindly agreed to upload some images to WikiCommons of the Salford/Manchester/Trafford area. If there are any in her collection you would like for articles, feel free to give me a message on my talk and I'll e-mail her for permission (which she says she'll gladly give). Hope this helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

City of Salford

The City of Salford article has been greatly expanded and I think is approaching the stage where it could pass a GA review. Help would be very welcome in finally getting it to that stage. Priorities are expanding the transport section, doing the same for geography, and fleshing out the history section (ideally to be done by someone with local knowledge and access to sources). I'll sort out a 'landmarks' section myself, but once it's done I appreciate someone who know the area taking a look to see if there are any omissions. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That article's looking great now! I'm wondering though why we have both City of Salford and Salford, when we don't have City of Manchester and Manchester? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the explanation is that Manchester and City of Manchester have the same boundaries whereas Salford is a city in the borough of the City of Salford, if that makes sense. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, broadly. The difference between the pre-1974 City of Manchester and the current borough (which has city status) is so small as to not be worth the grief. On the other hand, the pre-1974 City of Salford only forms a part of the current borough (which also has city status). I think. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Salford (proper) doesn't have city status I'm afraid (don't shoot the messenger!). All ceremonial borough and city bestowments pre-74 were abolished outright; the new districts had to apply for city status again.

Also, Salford and City of Salford are seperate in the same capacity as Carlisle and City of Carlisle, and even Barnsley and Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley; separate territories. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are ceratinly right about the city status of Salford and Manchester being abolished c.1974. Boundaries make my brain hurt. I suspect they involve holding two positions at once (is there a name for that?). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember now :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do some work on the Transport section this weekend. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the newly expanded transport section, good job and thanks very much Hassocks. That's one step closer to GA. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just occurred to me, should Eccles cakes be mentioned in the article? And if so where, culture? Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article is now up at WP:GAC. It's not quite finished, the history section needs completing and the lead needs expanding, but given the backlog at GAC I think there's enough time to give it the finishing touches. Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting, although not extensively as I had one eye on the snooker :). All typos should be out now, anyway. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1990 Strangeways Prison riot

The editor who creater the 1990 Strangeways Prison riot (One Night In Hackney) has retired from wikipedia. He had planned to get the article to GA class but left before this could be accomplished. I think it's fairly close as it is, what are other editors opinions? Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks rather good from a glance! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks very promising, but what's a "Rule 43(a)" prisoner? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from a bit of googling it appears to be a prisoner that has been segreagated for their own safety. Since changed to rule 45. Richerman (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rochdale

Hi all,

We've got a semi-new user adding material to the Rochdale page which I think is inappropriate (see diff). A glance through their IP history (here) shows they've been blocked for adding linkspam to Rochdale in the past, whilst this diff suggest they work for the company they're promoting. Could we have some input at Talk:Rochdale please? --Jza84 |  Talk  09:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Infact, on second thoughts, the letters of the user name (MSJ - from User:MSJ1958) indicate he is Malcolm Journeaux! --Jza84 |  Talk  09:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'd really appreciate some input on Talk:Rochdale --Jza84 |  Talk  11:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)