![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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. └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 00:05, 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)
Can someone have a look at this article?? I'm not exactly sure how to fix it and all advice is appreciated! -- Solumeiras talk 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Could we sort out an assessment scale for Greater Manchester related articles?, it came across my mind when seeing this. Thanks, Rudget Contributions 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the last few weeks, both on the screen and pounding the pavement getting pics, and I'd be grateful if anyone could have a nosey with a view to pointing me in directions I should be going in, as well as any directions I've gone in that I shouldn't.
I'm currently in the process of finding out, or at least attempting to, about the history of the baths and the library. I also intend sorting out a section on the local schools. I'm also continuing to get more images of the local churches and other notable buildings(I was out today but was stymied by some duff spare batteries!). What I lack is any knowledge on the night entertainment scene of Levenshulme so I don't really know what direction to go in there, or even if I should be doing anything on the pubs/clubs.
One problem I've been having is that the history of Levenshulme prior to the 1920s is exceptionally difficult to get at. Apparently there are only 2 books (that aren't just image collections) in the GM Library system that cover it in any depth and I've read both of them (being cheeky and having a duff memory, I now also have them in PDF form <cough>. I plan on making a trip to Central Library soon to see what I can come up with, but until then I'm struggling with a titbit here and there. For example I just found out yesterday that we had a cross channel swimmer from the area, Sunny Lowry, who was linked to Levy. She didn't have an article so I put that to rights :).
So any takers to point an obsessive-compulsive in the right direction? Cheers ---- WebHamster 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) and Crofton, H T (1904). NS 52 A history of Newton chapelry in the ancient parish of Manchester. Manchester: Chetham Society. (I forget which one of the two). Have a browse of Ekwall, E (1922). NS 81 The place-names of Lancashire. Manchester: Chethams.. The brooks are mentioned in Geoffrey Ashworth, The Lost Rivers of Manchester, Willow Publishing, Altrincham, 1987,
ISBN
0-946361-12-6. That should see off your lunchhour, and if you find anything modern about Reddish, let me know. I have some vague memory that the tripe factory was famous, too ... Regards,
Mr Stephen
22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see the recent creation of [[Image:WP-GM-LOGO1.png]] and I am going to use this instead of the writing on the white background for the Newsletter starting November 2007. Just thought I should tell you! Regards, Rudget Contributions 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I realise this page is a hub of activity at the moment, with no less than thirteen headings posted here since the 19th October (!), but I wanted to raise two things:
Hope these two points help us more! Once all (or most) of our content is assessed and rated, I'm curious to know how the project is doing in terms of quality vs. quantity of articles. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting confused now, but that's not unusual! Most places started off as villages, some grew into towns, then districts and so on. Now most of them are part of the general urban sprawl with no real defined boundaries. However, they become less important on the scale as they get bigger i.e. districts are low importance and villages are medium. How does that come about? Also some places are classed as towns e.g. Prestwich and some are districts e.g. Broughton. What makes one a town and the other a district? Prestwich, for instance, once had a town council and town hall but no longer has either and is now administered by The Metropolitan Borough of Bury. Also the centre of Prestwich is known as Prestwich "village" as is the centre of Didsbury. And why is say, Norden, still a village when it just seems to be an area on the edge of Rochdale? I feel a geography lesson coming on! Richerman 10:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well as there are 114 districts that will get a "low" rating for importance and "officially" there should only be 10, it makes the importance rating seem rather uninformative. Richerman 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's my point, that a smaller area should not have more importance than a larger one. The one I know about is Broughton. In the article it says it covers Higher Broughton, Lower Broughton, Broughton Village and Broughton Park, which is a pretty large area, but it's categorised as a district. Then Lower Broughton is also listed as a district. I'm sure there will be more examples in there but I don't know the areas well enough. Do you ever feel like you've opened a can of worms? I do think changing it to "localities" may be better as it's a word with a less specific meaning. Richerman 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree there's got to be a ranking, it's just a case of getting them in the right order. I really don't have any axe to grind about any particular place, I just think a larger area should naturally be higher up the scale. I do think merging the Broughton articles together would be sensible as the article would come together better. The main Broughton article needs a lot of work and I intend to do some on it's history as soon as I get time. Richerman 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to make a proper welcome message for new members! As somebody stated above we do not greet our new members and although sending a copy of the newsletter is great I think we need a proper welcome. I think the EU Welcome Message is very nice and it would not be hard for us to make one. I am posting here first to get ideas of what we want it to say/what images to use etc. to save the embarrassment of the Wikipedia ad! Thanks in advance for your comments. └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me too. I won't be able to help with the logo though, my degree is in psychology. :) -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've lost several hours sleep for this, but I just had to draw these! The following are images which we could use as part of our ever developing WikiProject:
Positive, negative, constructive or other forms of feedback or further ideas are very welcome. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I applaud you. Fantastic work! └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
After I created the assessment project on here I went thorough all the boroughs of Greater Manchester and was appalled! For a start none, except the cities, had the GM Project banner on the talk pages and the infoboxes which are being used look harsh (apart from possibly Oldham's). I propose that we create out own Greater Manchester boroughs infobox like they have for London. Anybody got any suggestions on how to implement this? I wouldn't think ours would be too dissimilar from the London one so should not be too hard. Also am I right in thinking that City of Salford should have the same infobox as Manchester and Salford should have the same as Manchester city centre or is there some problems with Salford's arrangement? I know City of Salford is the borough but Manchester is a borough and city article. I am really confused now! └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Salford does have its own particular problems as it doesn't have a city centre. These disputes about where towns belong go back a long way. When it was proposed that Broughton become a part of Salford in the 1840's the people of Broughton said they didn't want to "assimilate the cotton of Manchester or the filth of Salford" as they felt they were superior to both places and would soon be big enough to have their own corporation. Of course the well-to-do residents there had all made their money in Salford and Manchester factories and mills anyway. Richerman 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
At the expense on working on articles, I've been trying all this week, like others, to get this WikiProject upto a world-class project, I've made some graphics and templates etc, but I still don't think our page is striking enough.
Now, I may have gone totally mental, but I've produced this mock up of how exactly I'd like to see our main page. It's very bold, but to my tastes and sensibilities at least, it really works. The theme of course being, a continuation of use the GMC coat of arms as part of our corporate identity here. I think it's striking, memorable and adds an element of identity and proffessionalism that other projects just don't have. If it makes people have seizures, or think this is OTT, please just say. I won't be that offended! -- Jza84 · ( talk) 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Blimey, certainly hits you between the eyes, no ignoring that. But I think there's a colour problem with the blue against red background though. I can't recall what the real term for it is, but I call it eye-pumping. Because the colours are at the opposite ends of the visible spectrum it can be difficult to focus on both of them simultaneously, so there can be some strange 3-d effects.
I like the general idea, but I'd be happier with a toned down background. -- Malleus Fatuarum 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you got any gold tippex? Richerman 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow WPGM members! I'll have to break the bad news first, unfortunately. So, here goes. I won't be able to deliver the newsletter for November because of the extreme amount of work I have got and an unfortunate case of the flu. My ETA is around 10th Novemeber. However, the good news is, that this project is moving at rocket speed pace and so I'll be able to comment on many new characteristics of the project and so will hopefully be able to distribute a well-informed newsletter. Thanks everyone for the support on the last edition (which was a bit uninformative!) and I look forward to working with you in the future. And one last thing, I've set up a new archiving system here, I'll let the archive bot add 15 sections to each archive, as any more would be mind-boringly long and arbitary breaks are a must do!, and then after that I'll set up a new archive. Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made a new template for the participants list hoping to make it easier to join but I may have made it more complicated? I strongly believe that the current system of including interests and location is great as we know who to direct specific questions at and it is a system some projects do not use. Any thoughts on how easy/hard I have made things for new members? I also think the table looks better now and with the new logo I though fitting the colour scheme should be red and yellow :) └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say hello :) Thanks for inviting me. Parrot of Doom 10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we add some text to the welcome template to say something along the lines of;
“all editing should be done within the wikipedia editing policies. A list of some useful policies can be found on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester page under the heading “useful Tools”. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced from the start, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about British settlements is the UK Cities guideline document". Richerman 15:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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. └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 00:05, 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)
Can someone have a look at this article?? I'm not exactly sure how to fix it and all advice is appreciated! -- Solumeiras talk 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Could we sort out an assessment scale for Greater Manchester related articles?, it came across my mind when seeing this. Thanks, Rudget Contributions 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the last few weeks, both on the screen and pounding the pavement getting pics, and I'd be grateful if anyone could have a nosey with a view to pointing me in directions I should be going in, as well as any directions I've gone in that I shouldn't.
I'm currently in the process of finding out, or at least attempting to, about the history of the baths and the library. I also intend sorting out a section on the local schools. I'm also continuing to get more images of the local churches and other notable buildings(I was out today but was stymied by some duff spare batteries!). What I lack is any knowledge on the night entertainment scene of Levenshulme so I don't really know what direction to go in there, or even if I should be doing anything on the pubs/clubs.
One problem I've been having is that the history of Levenshulme prior to the 1920s is exceptionally difficult to get at. Apparently there are only 2 books (that aren't just image collections) in the GM Library system that cover it in any depth and I've read both of them (being cheeky and having a duff memory, I now also have them in PDF form <cough>. I plan on making a trip to Central Library soon to see what I can come up with, but until then I'm struggling with a titbit here and there. For example I just found out yesterday that we had a cross channel swimmer from the area, Sunny Lowry, who was linked to Levy. She didn't have an article so I put that to rights :).
So any takers to point an obsessive-compulsive in the right direction? Cheers ---- WebHamster 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) and Crofton, H T (1904). NS 52 A history of Newton chapelry in the ancient parish of Manchester. Manchester: Chetham Society. (I forget which one of the two). Have a browse of Ekwall, E (1922). NS 81 The place-names of Lancashire. Manchester: Chethams.. The brooks are mentioned in Geoffrey Ashworth, The Lost Rivers of Manchester, Willow Publishing, Altrincham, 1987,
ISBN
0-946361-12-6. That should see off your lunchhour, and if you find anything modern about Reddish, let me know. I have some vague memory that the tripe factory was famous, too ... Regards,
Mr Stephen
22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see the recent creation of [[Image:WP-GM-LOGO1.png]] and I am going to use this instead of the writing on the white background for the Newsletter starting November 2007. Just thought I should tell you! Regards, Rudget Contributions 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I realise this page is a hub of activity at the moment, with no less than thirteen headings posted here since the 19th October (!), but I wanted to raise two things:
Hope these two points help us more! Once all (or most) of our content is assessed and rated, I'm curious to know how the project is doing in terms of quality vs. quantity of articles. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting confused now, but that's not unusual! Most places started off as villages, some grew into towns, then districts and so on. Now most of them are part of the general urban sprawl with no real defined boundaries. However, they become less important on the scale as they get bigger i.e. districts are low importance and villages are medium. How does that come about? Also some places are classed as towns e.g. Prestwich and some are districts e.g. Broughton. What makes one a town and the other a district? Prestwich, for instance, once had a town council and town hall but no longer has either and is now administered by The Metropolitan Borough of Bury. Also the centre of Prestwich is known as Prestwich "village" as is the centre of Didsbury. And why is say, Norden, still a village when it just seems to be an area on the edge of Rochdale? I feel a geography lesson coming on! Richerman 10:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well as there are 114 districts that will get a "low" rating for importance and "officially" there should only be 10, it makes the importance rating seem rather uninformative. Richerman 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's my point, that a smaller area should not have more importance than a larger one. The one I know about is Broughton. In the article it says it covers Higher Broughton, Lower Broughton, Broughton Village and Broughton Park, which is a pretty large area, but it's categorised as a district. Then Lower Broughton is also listed as a district. I'm sure there will be more examples in there but I don't know the areas well enough. Do you ever feel like you've opened a can of worms? I do think changing it to "localities" may be better as it's a word with a less specific meaning. Richerman 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree there's got to be a ranking, it's just a case of getting them in the right order. I really don't have any axe to grind about any particular place, I just think a larger area should naturally be higher up the scale. I do think merging the Broughton articles together would be sensible as the article would come together better. The main Broughton article needs a lot of work and I intend to do some on it's history as soon as I get time. Richerman 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to make a proper welcome message for new members! As somebody stated above we do not greet our new members and although sending a copy of the newsletter is great I think we need a proper welcome. I think the EU Welcome Message is very nice and it would not be hard for us to make one. I am posting here first to get ideas of what we want it to say/what images to use etc. to save the embarrassment of the Wikipedia ad! Thanks in advance for your comments. └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me too. I won't be able to help with the logo though, my degree is in psychology. :) -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've lost several hours sleep for this, but I just had to draw these! The following are images which we could use as part of our ever developing WikiProject:
Positive, negative, constructive or other forms of feedback or further ideas are very welcome. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I applaud you. Fantastic work! └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
After I created the assessment project on here I went thorough all the boroughs of Greater Manchester and was appalled! For a start none, except the cities, had the GM Project banner on the talk pages and the infoboxes which are being used look harsh (apart from possibly Oldham's). I propose that we create out own Greater Manchester boroughs infobox like they have for London. Anybody got any suggestions on how to implement this? I wouldn't think ours would be too dissimilar from the London one so should not be too hard. Also am I right in thinking that City of Salford should have the same infobox as Manchester and Salford should have the same as Manchester city centre or is there some problems with Salford's arrangement? I know City of Salford is the borough but Manchester is a borough and city article. I am really confused now! └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Salford does have its own particular problems as it doesn't have a city centre. These disputes about where towns belong go back a long way. When it was proposed that Broughton become a part of Salford in the 1840's the people of Broughton said they didn't want to "assimilate the cotton of Manchester or the filth of Salford" as they felt they were superior to both places and would soon be big enough to have their own corporation. Of course the well-to-do residents there had all made their money in Salford and Manchester factories and mills anyway. Richerman 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
At the expense on working on articles, I've been trying all this week, like others, to get this WikiProject upto a world-class project, I've made some graphics and templates etc, but I still don't think our page is striking enough.
Now, I may have gone totally mental, but I've produced this mock up of how exactly I'd like to see our main page. It's very bold, but to my tastes and sensibilities at least, it really works. The theme of course being, a continuation of use the GMC coat of arms as part of our corporate identity here. I think it's striking, memorable and adds an element of identity and proffessionalism that other projects just don't have. If it makes people have seizures, or think this is OTT, please just say. I won't be that offended! -- Jza84 · ( talk) 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Blimey, certainly hits you between the eyes, no ignoring that. But I think there's a colour problem with the blue against red background though. I can't recall what the real term for it is, but I call it eye-pumping. Because the colours are at the opposite ends of the visible spectrum it can be difficult to focus on both of them simultaneously, so there can be some strange 3-d effects.
I like the general idea, but I'd be happier with a toned down background. -- Malleus Fatuarum 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you got any gold tippex? Richerman 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow WPGM members! I'll have to break the bad news first, unfortunately. So, here goes. I won't be able to deliver the newsletter for November because of the extreme amount of work I have got and an unfortunate case of the flu. My ETA is around 10th Novemeber. However, the good news is, that this project is moving at rocket speed pace and so I'll be able to comment on many new characteristics of the project and so will hopefully be able to distribute a well-informed newsletter. Thanks everyone for the support on the last edition (which was a bit uninformative!) and I look forward to working with you in the future. And one last thing, I've set up a new archiving system here, I'll let the archive bot add 15 sections to each archive, as any more would be mind-boringly long and arbitary breaks are a must do!, and then after that I'll set up a new archive. Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made a new template for the participants list hoping to make it easier to join but I may have made it more complicated? I strongly believe that the current system of including interests and location is great as we know who to direct specific questions at and it is a system some projects do not use. Any thoughts on how easy/hard I have made things for new members? I also think the table looks better now and with the new logo I though fitting the colour scheme should be red and yellow :) └ and-rew┘┌ talk┐ 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say hello :) Thanks for inviting me. Parrot of Doom 10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we add some text to the welcome template to say something along the lines of;
“all editing should be done within the wikipedia editing policies. A list of some useful policies can be found on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester page under the heading “useful Tools”. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced from the start, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about British settlements is the UK Cities guideline document". Richerman 15:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.