Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:GM
WikiProject Greater Manchester Talk Page
Welcome to the Talk Page of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Please remember to remain civil and to treat all users with respect. Please only use this page to discuss the project, to learn more visit the Main Project Page
  
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
About archives • Edit this box


Contents

[edit] AfD section?

I cam across an article Cheadle Bleachworks, that is being considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheadle Bleachworks, it looked like it should be part of your project so I added that, and I came here to see if you have a listing for project articles that were in an AfD and found this link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester#For_Deletion but it does not seem to go anywhere other than your main project page. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milnrow

Hello, just a note that Milnrow has been placed on GA-hold. It's an article I broadly helped to expand to it's current state, but I'm still likely to struggle for editting time for another week. Any help and assistance given at the page would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the review and I'm slightly shocked that the reviewer has said that the article may be too detailed. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If nobody else steps up to the plate and deals with that daft review then I will. But it may not be a pretty sight. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've already left (carefully chosen) my thoughts. Nev1 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. You're obviously better at dealing with children than I am. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so he's being immature ;-) Nev1 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit phased by the "too detailed" comment. Of course this article is going through GA with FA in mind. :) Hopefully I should resolve the single "citation required" issue shortly. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Too detailed my arse! Have you thought about adding something about the Milnrow brass band? There are some interesting facts at http://www.milnrowband.org.uk/history.html such as them giving one of the first brass band concerts on the beeb in WW2. Richerman (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I had considered it, but wasn't sure where to slot it in. Any suggestions? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would just put it towards the end under its own heading Richerman (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of a "Culture and community" section, but it would only comprise of the brass band AFAICT! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I've just tightened up a few issues, including a solitary [citation needed] problem. Anybody willing to proof-read the article? There are "flow problems" with the prose, which is certainly a result of my writing style. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a quick, first-time look in my lunch hour. Am doing some copyediting as I go along, but I have a few other points to raise (in a stream-of-consciousness fashion):
  • A few instances of ", with" connecting two clauses; thinking ahead to a possible WP:FA push, they don't like that, but I am reluctant to change at this stage (I must admit, I have no objection to using it as a conjunction!). Not sure whether it raises eyebrows so much at WP:GA, though.
  • There is a one-off use of a different imperial/metric conversion template in the second para of Geography ("Milnrow's highest point..."): is that intentional?
  • In Geography, "open moorland" rather than "open moor", perhaps? Not sure. Also "named-places" is an unfamiliar construction to me.
  • In relation to where or what is Kingsway "one of the largest developments of its kind"—within the borough, GM itself or beyond?
  • Transport: I expected to see New Hey railway station mentioned as well, but don't want to add a sentence without checking it does indeed lie within the boundaries of Milnrow/Newhey (from memory, I think it does, but station names are notorious for not always correlating with the places they supposedly serve!). I'll check my GM street atlas later.
Just some early thoughts there, then. Having read many articles to which Jza84 is a major contributor, I feel that his writing style is quite similar to mine in many respects, so I recommend more eyes doing a systematic check as I've just done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Got the same problem with the same reviewer here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys for this, it's looking much better. Not sure where this leaves us for obtaining GA now - it's been six weeks since I posted its GAC! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester congestion charge

... is likely to see high volumes of traffic owing to the latest news. Definately warrents some collaborative attention by us to ensure the article is of a befitting quality. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A very poor article! Only one line of the article even mentions the public transport "The reason for introducing the charge (apart from reducing demand for road space in central Greater Manchester and congestion) is to help pay for improvements to public transport.[4][5] especially the Manchester Metrolink expansion." and doesn't say anything about the extra trains, train stations, station revamps, buses, park and rides, cycle lanes and much more. The media has done very well at reporting the whole scheme in a very biased light, it's always seen as a congestion charge, they usually play down the fact that we will get £3bn of public transport improvements, this is why a referendum is unsuitable! ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the charge, but I am a social authoritarian afterall. It's worth it for Metrolink alone in my eyes, but, anyway... onto the article! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think will happen if we get the charge and all the improvements, how will we pay for Metrolink phase 4? Our transport network is very eastern, Wigan must feel left out. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
...along with Bolton whose only 'benefit' will be a bus lane on a road that can't handle the traffic on it already. I am personally strongly against the charge as it assumes that drivers have a choice which does not exist. I work just inside the outer zone so will have to shell out £700 a year but will receive no benefit: I experience ZERO congestion inside the zone. All the congestion I experience outside the zone is not caused by traffic entering Manchester. Some is even caused by traffic heading away from Manchester coupled with poorly designed road junctions. The charge will therefore not reduce any of the congestion I experience,and I will be paying out for no return. As for public transport, I could get the train to work with one problem. The station next to work has a virtually non-existent service and I have a written reply from GMPTE that they do not intend to rectify this. The WCML into Manchester cannot cope with the current Public transport traffic levels. Far more than £3bn would be needed to rectify this. Since £1.4bn (almost half) is being used to extend Metrolink for a small minority of those affected by the charge, there is a lot of bitterness in areas that will not benefit from the congestion charge. </rant over> Paypwip (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much against the charge, but then I've never trusted any government with any tax collection scheme. It will result in higher prices as businesses pass on the charge to their customers, who will in addition themselves be paying this new tax long after the improvements are paid for. I do agree though that the article is poor, although not as poor as this congestion charging idea is itself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it really a tax collection scheme though? Obviously it's taking money from people for the government but after the loan has been paid where will the money go? I've heard it will end up in the public purse but Ruth Kelly today said it was a local revenue collection system for public transport, which is great. Do you have a non-bias source which does say it will revert to central government? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just using bitter experience and common sense in my judgement. IIRC income tax was introduced temporarily in the early 19th century to pay for the Napoleonic Wars. So far as I'm aware those wars ended in 1815. Once you allow government's hand in your pocket, you can never get it out again. Ruth Kelly is a straw in the wind; whatever she says will not bind any future government. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's more Middle Eastern! Take that as you please! ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand why they don't just put a local tax on parking spaces in the city. It would have largely the same effect and produce a large portion of the money they'd get from the congestion charge without the cost of all the infrastructure needed for collection. And I have to say I agree with Malleus, do you remember when the prescription charges were brought in at a "nominal" 50p per item? Now it's about £6.50 Richerman (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is about geographic locale too. I mean, to me, at the fringe, this is great, and an opportunity to invest and improve the third world rail system in the area. However, I can understand the concerns of those in say, Failsworth or Eccles where if they want to travel by car, they are likely to incurr a regular cost. Also, in Trafford, they already have Metrolink of course, so the same incentive for the charge isn't there. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been caught out with these daft congestion charging schemes in the past. On one occasion I drove down to London early on a Sunday morning, arriving at my hotel before the charging period started. I paid £25 a day to park my car at the hotel, never used it even once during the week I was there, and got landed with a £40 bill for driving out of the charging zone before 7:00 pm on the Friday evening I left London. The same thing will happen here. Although I live in Stretford, within the proposed outer charging zone, I often have to travel to Bolton, and occasionally to Oldham. So I'll be charged for driving out of the supposedly congested zone. This is just another tax. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. Anyone who wonders why I didn't take the train down to London ought to look at the price of a ticket, and actually try to get a seat on a train from London to Manchester on a Friday evening. And perhaps also take a look at the times of the trains from Manchester to London on a Sunday evening. If public transport were better than private transport, then we'd all no doubt use it in preference. Until then I remain a devout sceptic of these new ways the government has dreamt up to take even more of the money we earn away from us.</rant over> --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no way public transport can ever be "better" than, or even as good as private transport. With your own car you don't have to wait for it to arrive, you can get in at your own door, drive to where you want to go and not have to share it with scallies and oiks. All that can be done is to make using your own car less attractive and public transport more attractive. They managed it in Stockholm (I think it was) where they gave trams priority at every junction so they sailed straight through without stopping, and as more people used them they reduced the price. Eventually, it was so inconvenient to use the car and so cheap to use the tram that most people preferred to use public transport. The problem in Manchester is the trams are too expensive and they don't have priority at junctions. And with the congestion charge, as you said, once they've got their hand in your pocket the price will keep going up. Richerman (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely against the charge here. Totally unjustified, most of the congestion is due to poor design on the M60, M602, M61 and M56/A556 junctions. If they proposed re-instating some of the many closed railway lines around G.Manchester I might be more sympathetic - they won't though. I see theres no mention of the M62 relief road either, that would solve many problems (although I wouldn't be keen on the destruction of more of the Irwell Valley through Prestwich). Leigh not having a station is a disgrace, it used to have seven, and the route from the line next to the M602, through Worsley and up to Leigh, is more or less completely unbuilt over. I pay enough to drive my car as it is, I have no option, with my job public transport or cycling is not possible. Total scam. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER)

This one may run for a while. I've not had a deep look round the site as yet, but it looks like good up-to-date stuff. See it at http://www.manchester-review.org.uk --Mr Stephen (talk)

Probably a good site for expanding the new Manchester City Region article. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grade I or Grade II*???

The St Michael and All Angels' Church, Ashton-under-Lyne, has been put on the Grade II* listed buildings page saying that it's been downgraded from Grade I to Grade II*. Images of and England and Tameside MBC both list it as still being Grade I (here and here). This church is not to be confused with the St Michael and All Angels' Church in Mottram, which is Grade II* (here and here). In the article on the Ashton-u-Lyne church, it cites here, which is church in Mottram, saying that the church in A-u-L is now Grade II*.

Is it just me who's confused or is there a real problem here?—PolishName 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So sorry, that's my fault, I'd completely forgotten there were two St Michaels et al. I've reverted it. Move along, nothing to see here ;-) Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June Newsletter

Just realised that no one had written this month's newsletter so I threw this up.

Delivered on June 12, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Posted it here first for typo checks etc. I'll try and get it sent out tonight or tomorrow morning.—PolishName 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold, as they say, and done a small edit for typos. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's out now.—PolishName 11:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester congestion charge (again!)

I just wanted to enquire about the opinions of the article name Manchester congestion charge. Why is it called that? The congestion charge is only a part of the much larger Transport Innovation Fund bid. I think the name is a little biased. Would anybody support a rename to Manchester TIF scheme or something a little less biased towards the c-charge part of the bid? Ruth Kelly didn't call it the Manchester congestion charge and she's pretty much the number one expert. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to reflect real-world practice - i.e. follow the conventions used in the media. I'm sure I've read "Manchester congestion charge" (not sure about the capitalisation) a number of times.
That said, could this article perhaps be an FAC target for us (and thus moved to top priority)? I think we are all affected by the material in that page, and all have some familliarity with what it entails. Could be one of our super-collaborations? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's not a bad idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it definitely needs to be more balanced, there is too much weight on the charge and little on the benefits this scheme will bring for the city region economy. Quite a lot of WP:OR there too, there was some rubbish about a satellite tracking system coming in the future which is just Peel Holdings scare tactics. If Peel hate the c-charge so much, why won't they offer to pay for our tram themselves?! Anyway, yeah, WP:NPOV. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 01:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody in full possession of their faculties would choose to take the tram back home on a late Friday evening if there was a cleaner and safer alternative. Vomit on the seats, fighting ... who needs it. Manchester is a fairly small city, there could easily be a much more personalised transport system put in place, if only people opened their minds up to some alternatives. I think I may have to excuse myself from this article in case my politics start to show. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Most people know it as the Manchester Congestion Charge. The only people who use the term 'TIF bid' are those wishing to put a positive spin on it, so it's not surprising that Ruth Kelly would want to play down the cost to the average motorist.
It is going to be difficult to keep a WP:NPOV in this article as any 'official' figures quoted by either side can be construed as biased. I've got to admit that I chuckled when I saw 'Ruth Kelly' and 'expert' in the same sentence. Paypwip (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I still think we could make a good job of this as a collaboration. It's likely that this will be a high-traffic (sorry for the pun) article on a regular basis from here-on. I think we have a sensible enough team here to simply report the facts as we find them and put our perspectives on one side. Any thoughts? Where would we begin? What would be the intended layout and content? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester Mummy

This is my latest offering to the corpus of Greater Manchester articles, perhaps the best referenced stub that wikipedia has ever seen. Does anyone have any more information to add?

I'm starting to worry myself; first the Pendle witch trials and now this. Still, at least it adds a bit of colour, even if that colour is black. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)