Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Hans Island

Somebody put a reference to the band Hans Island in the River Irwell article and today tried to wikilink it to a new article about them. Having gone to look at the article Hans Island (band) it's the most blatant piece of undereferenced self-promotion I've seen yet. At the moment it hasn't any categories and, if it was to stay, it would end up partly under this project as they are from Greater Manchester. I don't want to WP:bite the newbies so I'm not sure whether it should go up for deletion or if it just needs all the unreferenced stuff taking out - which was obviously put in by one of the band or one of their friends. Could you others take a look?

It looks to me like a self-promotional puff piece, so I've flagged it for speedy deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hans Island article has been deleted now, so I've take the liberty of also removing that Irwell in popular culture section. That River irwell article is looking pretty good now btw. Any thoughts about going for GA with it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Jza had suggested going for GA a couple of weeks ago. I've found another book on the Irwell in the Salford History Libary but the book is reference only so I'll have to nip in a few luchtimes and make notes. Luckily I only work about 500 yards away so it shouldn't be a problem. I think we'll also need a map of the Irwell for the article too so I'll have to think the best way of going about that. Unfortunately our ex-colonists across the pond show us up as they have access to proper maps they can use, unlike us with our crown copyright OS maps Richerman (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dialling Codes (proposal)

I would like to propose the inclusion of local exchange codes in the 'dial code' field of the UK place infobox on articles where this might be appropriate. For example, in an article like Withington, 0161 could be expanded to 0161 434 or (0161) 434 to include the exchange code(s) specifically for an area such as this. It would make the information more specific and add additional information to the box.

What are people's thoughts? I have also raised the subject on the infobox discussion page, here.

-- Fursday 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping this discussion in one place [1]. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Joseph Studio

I'm trying to track down the history of the old chapel that the University of Manchester now calls the "Stephen Joseph Studio", which sits next to what was the Geography department, located at 53.463738°N 2.23437°W / 53.463738; -2.23437. I'm pretty sure that this was purchased by the university some time between 1951 and 1977 (the former date because it's not mentioned in Charlton's "Portrait of a University", the latter because that's when the Geography Department was built, and I think it was on land associated with the chapel). The biggest problem I'm having is to find the old name of the chapel. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hartwell, Manchester (2001), p 119: "a former German Protestant church, a small low-key affair of stone with lancets probably of the mid or late 1860s". I don't see it in Pevsner, South Lancashire (1969). Mr Stephen (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This website has this: "The former German Protestant Church on Wright Street, Greenheys. It's now part of the Manchester University campus. SJ 840 969", and has a picture. I haven't had much luck Googling using various combinations of "German Protestant Church" and "Manchester", though. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Slater's Manchester & Salford Directory, 1895, but it only says "German Protestant Church". Mr Stephen (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all! I've put a stub article together about it, at Stephen Joseph Studio, although I haven't managed to find out much more about it... :( Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

North Tower (Salford)

Hello team,

A strange situation - I've been assured that if a North Tower (Salford) article is created, the List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford will be promoted to FL.

I don't know where to start, and still struggling for time this weekend following a WikiBreak. Anybody willing to help? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can create a stub. Give me a couple of hours. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to go for WP:DYK, perhaps using something like: "The North Tower in Salford, England, was formerly owned by the Inland Revenue, who moved out in 1995 in an early example of a Private Finance Initiative, described as the most complex to date?" (although that may be a little long). Mike Peel (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This might be a better version: "The North Tower in Salford, England, which was formerly owned by the Inland Revenue, was an early example of a Private Finance Initiative, which was later described as the most complex to date?" Rudget. 12:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's better, but there's now two "which"'s in there. How about: "The North Tower in Salford, England, which was formerly owned by the Inland Revenue, was an early example of a Private Finance Initiative, later described as the most complex to date?" Mike Peel (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. Try that. Rudget. 12:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now submitted. Mike Peel (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Centre

By request from User:Jza84 I am just sharing this map with you [2]. It shows the boundries of the Manchester City Centre business district which Jza was unaware of so it's just for future reference when talking about the city centre. The boundry is the Manchester Inner Ring Road (not to be confused with the M60/Manchester Outer Ring Road). It just shows that some of the City of Salford is included in the city centre and includes Salford Central railway station and the North Tower which is what brought it up. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds is this map considered authoritative as to defining the boundaries of the Manchester City Centre? It is produced by Manchester City Council, but includes an area under a different local authority.... --Jotel (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's problematic, but I guess it's the only source we have at the moment. I've toned down the claim on Manchester City Centre and elsewhere, by stating that it is an area defined by Manchester City Council. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The council seems fairly determined, eg from the Manchester City Centre Strategic Plan. Chapel Street is the historic core of Salford and a key part of the city centre. The increased importance of the area reflects the expanding economic boundaries of the city centre which are creating opportunities to strengthen development linkages to Salford. See also the map on p20 of that document. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why anybody could think this was problematic? I thought it was common knowledge but I guess not. The only thing the boundries of the city centre really mean is a place to focus commercial and retail developments and I think there is a city centre police response unit. Hadly causes any problems for anyone and is a good thing if anything as it allows MCC and SCC to work together more on bridging the gap. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 05:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Murrays' Mills

Hi, I've started an article on the Murrays' Mills complex in Ancoats, as an offshoot of the Grade II* listed buildings list. The complex has a number of Grade II* (and Grade II) listed structures and seems to be quite a notable and interesting complex, thats why I looked into it a bit more. Does anyone else know anything about this, as I only currently have what I can find on the net Pit-yacker (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Region History Review, scroll down to Ancoats Special Edition (1993). Without looking, I think there must be something in there to help you. Also your 'further reading' has some information. Mr Stephen (talk)

Thanks, will look into it. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have access to A&G Murray and the cotton mills of Ancoats, one of the books in the further reading list and should be able to help expand the article. Have you got any ideas of how you'd like to do it? Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Surely Withington and Withington, Greater Manchester ought to be merged? I'm thinking the latter should be a redirect to the former. What do others think? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I prodded Withington, Greater Manchester for deletion yesterday, but another editor removed the tag. I could live with a redirect though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much of an article and its main point could be addressed in a subsection, so either AFD or redirecting seems reasonable. Rudget. 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The only article that links to Withington, Greater Manchester is Withington. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have separate articles for every ward in the land. Merge anything worth keeping & redirect.

While we're here, the OR/fairy story that is Withington cotton house is still around. Does anyone think it has any redeeming features? FYI the linked picture is of another building, and once upon a time the fields in the area were known as 'Cottonfields'. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've actioned the redirect per the discussion in this section. I also think that the cotton house page ought to go. There may be a sentence, perhaps two or three, worth keeping, but nothing that wouldn't help the main Withington article. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is Category:Manchester City Council Wards. Does it make sense to redirect these piecemeal? Jfire (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about wards e.g. Gorton North, Gorton South. Why are they not merged into the Gorton article as they contain little info. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

City Centre (Manchester ward) is another. Surely a candidate for a merger in to Manchester City Centre too? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that they should be merged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem pointless having lots of little stubs which will never grow. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A Wards of Manchester article might be something we could consider, although this could/would probably form an itegral part of the Politics of Manchester article. I don't know, just throwing that one out there! Certainly, "ward" only articles seem pointless where they could be merged into much needy settlement articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We have multiple possibilities, and I'm not sure that there is a single solution.

1. the ward is the same name as an area, eg Withington
2. multiple wards are made up from an area, eg Gorton North and Gorton South both from Gorton
3. the ward has no named geographical equivalent, eg Manor
4. the ward is made up by combining multiple noteworthy areas, eg Ancoats and Clayton
5. the ward is made up by combining multiple areas - and then splitting them again, eg Heatons North and Heatons South (not the best example).

I've pondered on this from time to time ever since I created North Reddish and South Reddish. Case (1) is easy, and Withington fitted it; but the rest - I don't know. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I think the way to resolve these difficult tricky cases is to think about either a separate article called Wards of Manchester, or else a major section within a larger article (like Politics of Manchester.) This was suggested by Jza84. My own preference if my view mattered, would be to have a Wards of Manchester article as it allows redirects to usefully be set out as I outline below. The advantage of this approach is that it allows information about each ward to be added to a subject that is notable overall, but where an article on each ward separately would probably not achieve notability by itself. Redirects can be created for each ward that point to the relevant section (this would only probably work if there was a Wards of Manchester article.) If a particular ward contains enough information, it can be split out by over-writing the redirect with little additional effort. This "top down" approach to article-writing (i.e., starting with having the most general instances or classes as articles) seems in this instance to have advantages that would be difficult to achieve with a more "bottom up" approach (i.e., starting the most particular instances as separate articles, and then wondering how to merge them at some future stage.) Not the least, because it solves a large part of the problems brought about by the difficult cases outlined by Mr Stephen.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach to me too, but that is not how Wikipedia has moved in the recent past. The tendency has been for multiple articles. (Not butting in at all, BTW.) Mr Stephen (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing multiple articles can be good, but it can be unhelpful too. It is really an issue about how to best envisage and, thus, model what we are writing about. But that takes us too far away from the specific issue of this section. All I will say is that the "multiple articles" approach (bottom-up) may be necessary in order to be able to frame the best top-down approach to use, and that, at some key time, a switch from bottom-up to top-down may well be required to better organise the articles one has already written and plan articles yet to be written. In this, I'm merely carrying over my own experiences in how to approach research as well as modelling and theorizing within various scientific disciplines from there into the realm of writing an encyclopaedia like wikipedia. (Using George Polya's books, like "How to Solve It" would be a useful source for a similar approach to this in mathematics.) I think it is of some use. I certainly think now that a body of articles on a variety of subjects within a certain "realm" has been written, some useful thought can often be given to how better organize them by merging, (re-)categorization, writing more general articles, etc. This is what I have proposed in one small way. So, I would say that the key time to switch from more multiple articles is fast approaching.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that often a big dollop of common sense can go a long way, especially if we start getting too bogged down in bureaucracy. I think Mr Stephen hit the nail on the head; this is something we really have to play by ear on an article-by-article basis. In this instance it seems to me thoroughly ridiculous to have the two articles, but there may well be other instances in other articles where there is a much better justification for a split. I certainly think that when it comes to this particular matter, consistency for consistency's sake isn't necessarily a good thing. -- Fursday 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Belle Vue Zoo

I found a reference in an old fire brigade magazine - 'In 1958, the Grand Ballroom which had been built in 1856, burnt down. Manchester Fire Brigade fought to save the ballroom by pumping water from the Great Lake but the fire eventually destroyed the building. During the fire, many animals had to be evacuated, one lion who was distressed could not be removed and had to be shot' - anyone know anything more that can be used to make it worth adding into the article ? Geotek (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that story somewhere before. Can't remember where for now, I'll see if I can find it again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New ethnicity maps

I just caught the end of a piece on radio 4's PM tonight about new maps of ethnicity being produced using surveys of surname distribution. They said it can be more accurate than census information. You can read about it here Richerman (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If only they would come to a conclusion like "Manchester: occupied by Mancunian"... (as in: what does it matter?) Mike Peel (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I mentioned it because the ethnicity of the population of a town is information that we use in articles. Also it's interesting to see patterns of migration. For instance, I have a Scottish name and my wife's maiden name is Welsh. In the 1881 census neither of them were seen much outside their home countries but now they are both much more widespread across the UK with odd little pockets of high frequency in some counties. Richerman (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Education

I just added a table of high schools with GCSE results to the City of Salford article (see City of Salford#GCSE Examination Performance 2007) which I "borrowed" from the London Borough of Harrow article. It would be nice if the table could be carried over to all of the GM boroughs as it is a nice informative table and doesn't take too long to make so if anyone wants something to do... ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 08:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave it with me; I like tables :). I'll make a start this evening. Hassocks5489 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to get out more :-) Richerman (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not very nice! Nothing wrong with being intrested in tables. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 10:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And as for my other weird interests...! Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now tables groaning with food, that's interesting - and as for the other self-confessed weird intersts - beers but no lagers I can go along with. Richerman (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do sometimes wonder why I put myself through labours and strains like walking from Kensal Rise station to Kensal Green station on my day off work, in the sleet, just so I can buy some tickets (from newly-installed ticket machines) to put straight in my collection. (That was yesterday, by the way.) Anyway, just to advise that I corrected Salford's position to 75th (from 76th), as the BBC website had sneakily slipped in the "England average" in 72nd place but had not highlighted it in any way; and I have started working on MB Bolton on my Greater Manchester scribble page. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There probably needs to be an explanation as to why they bottom part of the tables are red, is this because they're below average? Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Below the average of the LEA rather than England, yep. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

←Bolton is done; I've made some minor changes to the format used in Salford, but overall it's pretty similar. On to Bury...! Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's clear what points mean, how were they earned and are there any prizes? A better explanation of that is probably needed. Maybe the second column isn't even necessary? Nev1 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree it probably should be clarified. This is the explanation: "The average total point score provides a fuller picture of the achievements of students of all abilities. [...] [It] is calculated by dividing the total number of points achieved by students at the end of Key Stage 4 by the number of students on roll at the end of Key Stage 4. The average point score published here includes all of each student's GCSE (and equivalent) qualifications, not just the best eight." [3] THen you have to dig around to find out how many points each grade gets: this shows it fairly simply, while this goes into a lot more depth. What do people think about including the points average? Personally, I don't really mind either way (and a one-column table is easier to type!). Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The average points score is becoming a more important measure of how well a school is doing as many schools now have non-GCSE qualifications. My school was certainly keen on the average point scores and many other urban schools seem to be going the same way so a two column table would be my preference. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point: because the points score encompassses all Key Stage 4 qualifications, rather than just GCSEs, it provides a better comparison in cases where you have schools which use exams other than standard GCSEs. For example, in Bury there is the anomaly of the Boys' Division of the Bury Grammar School sitting at the bottom of the A*-C league table simply because the GOvernment doesn't recognise the exams it uses; whereas when points are taken into consideration, it accurately receives a high ranking. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

List of schools in Greater Manchester

I’ve converted the List of schools in Greater Manchester into tables + other edits, however, the article is now a massive 221 kilobytes long. It might be best to create articles for each metropolitan district. The List of schools in Greater Manchester article then be curtailed with just secondary, further and higher schools and colleges. Cwb61 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In connection with this, see the recently-added Education sections on City of Salford and Metropolitan Borough of Bolton to see what has been done with secondary schools. I was going to provide similar tables and sets of stats for the other 8 boroughs, but am happy to wait - it may be a good idea to incorporate parts (or all) of Cwb61's work into the individual borough articles as well or instead. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done a good job created those tables. Perhaps they could be included in each "List of schools in X" article. Cwb61 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that could be a good alternative. Then the detailed information would be in a dedicated schools-related article, leaving the "Education" sub-section of the Borough article to deal with more general, high-level stuff. Sounds good: what do other project members think? Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with that. I wonder what article title to use for these metropolitan district schools. If it was just schools "List of schools in X" then that would be fine. With Hassocks5489's additional tables the article's title could be "Schools in X" or "Schools in the Metropolitan Borough/City of X". Cwb61 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a new article for each borough called "Education in X" or "Education in the Metropolitan borough of X" so it can deal with all educational establishments and maybe some history e.g. first school established, significant school/college mergers etc. Or would this leave some smaller boroughs with repeated information? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fog Lane Park

Fog Lane Park has been created. Anyone know of any notability for it? Pit-yacker (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Council has a page on the park here, but to be honest I can't see why it's notable. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

According to my GM street atlas, it's a fair size (48 acres, according to this), but looks much the same as any other park in a large city. More would need to be done to establish notability from a Wikipedia point of view, I think. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a challenge! I like challenges. Sadly though I don't have the time right now to do anything other than watch the article get deleted. Which is what it deserves in its current state. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think the article is pretty accurate: it's a park, in the south of Manchester, with a play area and some football pitches. A few trees too, and a pond, a 'no dogs' zone, a pavillion of some sort ... I can't really see the need for an article. Perhaps the creator has some plans for it? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

John Amaechi trained there according to [4] (see summary on [5]). There's a few mentions in some books - [6] - including a fiction book. Purchased some time in the 1920s. Mike Peel (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When Mr Stephen says "the creator may have some plans for it" we must remember that He does work in mysterious ways. Maybe we should wait a bit and see what they are.Richerman (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know FLP really well, and isn't that notable in my opinion. If Didsbury Park isn't suitable for an article neither is Fog Lane. Rudget (review) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)