Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 5

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 3

Hoole x2 ?

Have just attempted a long overdue cleanup of Hoole, Chester (created 1 March 2007). On adding the Chester District template, I noticed that there was also a Hoole Village article (created 7 November 2007). I then wondered if these articles were genuinely separate places or just duplication. Inclined towards the latter assumption, I was going to merge these articles. Having made mistakes in the past regarding same-name places in Cheshire, I've left them separate in the hope that someone can clarify my confusion. Cheers, Snowy 1973 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My memory is that (a) Hoole Village is a civil parish that does not cover the same area as Hoole; and (b) Hoole is within the unparished area centred on Chester. When one looks at an OS map (I have Sheet 266 of the 1:25000 series: "Wirral and Chester/Caer") one can see that they are adjacent to each other, with a common boundary running down the middle of the A41 road. Although they refer to different areas, I suspect that the opportunities for confusion between the two are such that, it might be better to merge them and have separate sections within the article dealing with each of them where relevant. However, it could lead to tricky issues in how to write the article: one problem might be whether to include particular infoboxes, how to deal with the split coverage of the combined area by a civil parish, and an unparished area, and whether to include the civil parish infobox in any section dealing with Hoole Village's governance. The various sections dealing with governance, demography, and history may have to be given some care in writing, but I don't think it would be insurmountable. It might be an idea to ask at WT:UKGEO for any ideas of how to proceed: probably this situation has cropped up before, and although I know of cases like Mow Cop, this isn't exactly the same. DDStretch (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire Portal

I'd like to suggest that we aim to move the portal from monthly updates, which rely on articles being proposed ahead of schedule and then an editor remembering to do the update, to the random portal component system. This change would not only make administration considerably easier, but would also be a step in the direction of (eventually) applying for featured status for the portal, as the default at the featured portal review now appears to be random selection. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I will work towards implementing random selections for the start of June. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this means, but if it works and saves trouble, it's OK by me. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained better. Most of the featured portals use a system where there is a pool of selected content (article, biography, picture, DYK, sometimes other sections) and when the portal is viewed, one of the pool is shown at random in each slot. The viewer can see other selections by clicking a link. See, for example, Portal:North West England.

It would be quite a lot of work to set up, but once working properly the portal would not need any regular maintenance (apart from the news section, as there is no relevant wikinews feed). New items could be added to any section at any time, and would appear immediately. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Still sounds good to me. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good move (back after 2 days without a PC) DDStretch (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started implementing this for the articles (8), biographies (8), pictures (8) and DYKs (15x3), though it isn't yet live (waiting till end of month). The system makes it relatively easy to add new items, so new suggestions and further comments on the current set of suggestions at Portal:Cheshire/Suggest would be useful. Also, if anyone is interested in updating the Cheshire news, that would be useful as I don't follow local news much. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Frodsham content

It would be good to have other views about this article from any position, and specifically about the claim it contains that Frodsham is the only place with that name in the British Isles. The problem began when an editor edited out "British Isles" from a sentence for some reason, thereby making a verified claim from Frank Latham's book "Frodsham" incorrect. I replaced it with more targetted verification, and in the attempt to deny inclusion of that sentence which includes "British Isles", the question of the unique nature of the name arose. The full debate can be seen on User talk:Bardcom#Uses of British Isles, with the more specific name issue transferred to Talk:Frodsham. More views on Talk:Frodsham#Other possible uses of "Frodsham" would be good. DDStretch (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Map question

Re this map:

What is the grey area to the east of Sandbach (just across the M6 from it) and south-west of Congleton? The rest of the grey areas represent towns/cities/villages. I can't figure it out from my maps. Is this map wrong? Neıl ☎ 13:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The map was uploaded by Jza84 so if you think anything's wrong, you should probably take it up with him. Nev1 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask him, but I think it may not be wrong. I've highlighted the mystery place. Can anywone help with what this town/village is? Neıl ☎ 13:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it does look strange. I first thought it might be Alsager, but its a bit too dfar north for that (Alsager should be closer to the border and more south). It seems to be near to (but not on) Smallwood, Cheshire, but there's nothing there on the 1:25000 OS map to justify it as far as I can see. Thanks for pointing it out. I suspect it should be removed. DDStretch (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(I think it is a misplaced Alsager, now.) DDStretch (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Alsager is actually right on the border, directly east of Crewe and south-east of Sandbach, so the grey is either in the wrong place or there's an error. The blue blob just by our mystery grey area is Rode Pool, which is north-east of Alsager, not south-east of it (see [1]). I've left a note on Jza84's talk page. Neıl ☎ 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This map was the hardest map to draw and line up out of all the county maps. I had real difficulties getting this right (due to a lack of source material). It is more than possible that this is a complete and utter mistake on my part!.. I can remove the urban area from the map using a graphics editor - that's no problem. --Jza84 | Talk 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The area just needs moving down so it is in the right place - it's the same shape as Alsager, just a bit too north. Use the google map link I provided as a guide. Thank you for the swift response. Neıl ☎ 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, please leave this with me. Might be a few days before this is actioned. If it's not done by say this time next week, give me a nudge. Hope that helps, and, well spotted! --Jza84 | Talk 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Numerous small categories of "People from..." being created for small places within Cheshire

An editor is creating numerous small categories for small villages and places within Cheshire. See editors action of around May 22, 2008 for examples. I do not think this is at all helpful, as some of the categories contain just one entry, and I would like a wider input to discuss this matter.(probably on WT:UKGEO#Numerous small categories of "People from..." being created for small places within Cheshire.) Any opinions? DDStretch (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. In addition the editor is deleting long term residents, who come into this category, retaining only those born in a place. I have informed him about this and hope he will comply. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Churches in Cheshire

Hi I've just created these navboxes and added them to all the Churches in correct categories and have done a lot of work on other Cheshire articles and so i was wondering how do you join the Cheshire wiki project?

ARBAY (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've been doing. You can join the Cheshire project by merely going to the main project page (this is its talk page) and adding yourself to the list of names at WP:CHES#Participants. Welcome, and happy editing. DDStretch (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou I wasent sure and did want to offend —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBAY (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added details of all the Cheshire churches for which I can find details to the navbox but this has made it large and maybe unwieldy. In addition, having a separate navbox for Roman Catholic churches means that some articles have two navboxes with duplicate entries. If we continue with this model, where will it stop? United Reform, Unitarian, Elim......! Perhaps we should have just one navbox with subdivisions (as is done with for example {{Cheshire}}. If we do, how should it be subdivided? A suggestion has been made that it should be on geographical divisions. I should personally prefer division along denominational lines. This would mean one box with a disproportionally large section for the C of E, but that's how it is. I have no experience of creating navboxes but, provided it is not perceived to be too enormous, perhaps one box for all Cheshire churches, divided into denominations, might be the best solution. Or, with the coming splitting of Cheshire, a geographical approach might work. What do participants think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello I think that separate denominational Navboxes For RC and CoE would be most effective, with the CoE split along geographical lines eg[2]. I think separate denominational would not work for some denominations were there are very few churches and so we could have a Cheshire with separation of the smaller denominations eg[3]. I think they should be based on the in place categories.ARBAY (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think consideration ought to be given to splitting the Church of England churches not so much along geographical-location lines, but along religious-entity lines, and suggest archdeaconries as the divider (there are two in the diocese: Chester and Macclesfield). These could be further divided into deaconries (see the map given here.) If we decide not to do this, we need to perhaps be very clear why we are doing it on purely geographical lines, as opposed to using the pre-existing church administrative divisions, since the navigation boxes seem to me to more obviously a matter more closely allied to religion than geography. (I intend to add a drawn version of the map the link shows, marking the archdeaconries and deaconries, together with some more maps in the Diocese of Chester article at some point, so eventually some links there may help.) In effect, what I am saying is that surely these navigation boxes ought to have a religious-entity foundation, rather than a geographical-location foundation. Now, these are the arguments against it, as far as I can see: (a) the boundaries of the archdeaconries are similar enough, but not exactly like, the new unitary authority areas of Cheshire to perhaps increase confusion, (b) the area covered by the Diocese includes areas now outside Cheshire. Of course, if the navigation boxes were more correctly (in my opinion) viewed from the point of view that they supplement the Diocese of Chester, Religion in Cheshire, and related pages more than the geographical ones, then the two objections I gave no longer hold. Think of the hierarchy of related areas we could draw up for the project: I would argue that the Church of England churches would be better placed within the Religion branch than the Geography branch, and so the structure of how the navigation templates are constructed for them should reflect this. DDStretch (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. I agree that it would be better to divide CofE churches into religious admin areas rather than secular ones, with divisions into archdeaconries and sub-divisions into deaconries. Not sure what we should do about non-CofE churches. But then I wondered if we need navboxes for churches at all. We have a category for Churches in Cheshire and I have just created a new sub-cat for Diocese of Chester. Do navboxes just duplicate these? Or are they of value as separate entities? I'm not sure. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Methodist churches have "circuits". From what I recall from my own involvement, many years ago, and from my chapel-going relatives these are a bit like a "fixed mini grand tour" around which methodist ministers go (see Methodist Church of Great Britain#Organisation for details.) I'm still not sure about Roman Catholic Churches, or any of the other denominations, except a bit about the Society of Friends or Quakers: some of all these are largely self-governing, I think. Of course, eventually, we would have to cover non Christian religions, too, where, unless its about Buddhism, I would be completely stumped. I don't think there is such an immediate priority to have these, and some of them don't have meeting places called "churches" anyway. Perhaps we need to be guided by the relative size of the adherents in developing a priority for what to try to write about first. As for whether we need navigation boxes at all, I can see no harm in them, and they could be organised in a hierarchy like the local governement adminsitration ones in Cheshire currently are, and the navigation infobox has different purposes than the categories. Whether we could do them for all representative religions is another matter, since I'm not sure just how many of their religious buildings or meeting places would be notable enough to have separate articles, which is one of the main reasons for having a navigation box in the first place. For these cases, perhaps a solution similar to the one we discussed, and you, Peter, adopted for schools in Halton would be a useful model to apply? (That is: have an article dealing with them all, with separate sections, if appropriate, for each meeting place. If the content of any section about a specific meeting place becomes too large, or is notable enough, split it off into a separate article.) DDStretch (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note with the worry over other religions not being covered i understand a decent amount about Islam and Judaism to help with some input, but I am not sure that they are big religions in Cheshire. I used geographical lines as i am totally unfamiliar with the archdeaconries etc of the CoE. Roman Catholic Churches in the County are often in the archdiocese of Shrewsbury, i gather. Also I do think that if Navigation boxes are made based on Borough then they would all have to be redone upon the Unitary authorities entry to power. Also just wanted to ask an opinion do you think the RC Navbox is Fit for purpose or should it not be used until all this is sorted ARBAY (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Warrington

Hello team,

I've expanded/re-written the lead, and upgraded the infobox in Warrington's article. Other major problems with this page aside, there are a couple of gaps in the new infobox which require attention, whilst the lead may also benefit from a once-over by you good folks. I hope these changes are well received. --Jza84 | Talk 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Merseyside

I've started a sub page at User:Jza84/Merseyside for all those users who want to declare their interest in getting a WikiProject:Merseyside off the ground. Feel free to post a link to the aforementioned subpage to the necessary talk pages, and log your interest. :) --Jza84 | Talk 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

HELP to Save an Article

Ive just created Primary Schools of Sandbach could someone please help expanded to prevent deletion thanksARBAY (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but you may well be onto a loser with this one: there are even occasions when high schools are deemed not to be notable. Although it isn't wahat you wanted, can I make the following suggestion? Immediately start a new article called "Education in Congleton Borough" that would deal with all levels of education. Place a few templates on it indicating that it is in the process of being written and expanded, and transfer the information in Primary Schools of Sandbach into it. That way, the coverage increases, and the education policies of a administrative division can be easily defended. A similar strategy was used in Secondary education in the Borough of Halton, though what I'm suggesting has greater coverage (all education rather than just primary education), and so should be relatively immune. You would need to include sections dealing with pre-school provision, primary, high school, and further and/or adult education facilities. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but people are pretty quick and ruthless in dealing with school subjects that they consider are not notable enough to justify an article, and so the skill is in knowing what type of article to write that will "defeat them": having a general education article covering all aspects seems a good way to proceed. DDStretch (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with what DDStretch has said. It's very rare that a primary school topic survives an AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created the article what Templates should I put there????? ARBAY (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and perhaps it doesn't need one just yet, since there's already more in the article than I thought there might be at this point. (Good work!) I wonder, though, whether organising it primarily along level of educational institution (primary, high, further) rather than place would make it flow and fit more together with the main title of the article? I think a note about what you have done would help on the AfD that is open. It might help, if only to make the original article be almost a sacrifice for the latest, more general one. DDStretch (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Can't Find the AfD ARBAY (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't gone to AfD, it's just been prodded. Not sure the redirect was a good idea though, better just to restore the original article and let it be deleted I'd suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. My mistake. I agree that it might be best restored and then quietly deleted. In fact, what would be the arguments in favour or against me just doing that (deleting it quietly) now, since it has been superceded in sort order? Hmmmm... would it be an abuse of admin powers? DDStretch (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If the only significant author doesn't object, then it's a clear cut case of G7, no problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ARBAY? DDStretch (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Fine with the article being restored to be deleted but a i don't know what G7 is ?21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) G7 = point 7 of section 1.1 (General Criteria) of this page: WP:SPEEDY. DDStretch (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Last chance, I'll delete just after a minute from now. DDStretch (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. DDStretch (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reworked the article Still got a section education in Middlewich due to the ambiguity of it (it is from the miidlewhich page) , I cannot decide whether its talking about a High school or a primary through most of it !!!ARBAY (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Chester weir

I have received a query about the ownership of Chester Weir here. Can anyone help? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester

Hello folks,

Just a nudge that your cousins over at WP:GM (now why don't we have a shared North West newsletter so we get better coverage of our work????), plan to nominate Greater Manchester for WP:FA status shortly. Your input in assisting its development towards that goal would be appreciated. --Jza84 | Talk 01:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. I think that shared newsletter/noticeboard is one of my best ideas ever, including real life!...

Merger proposal being discussed

There's currently a proposal being discussed to merge Cheshire Cat and Cheshire Cat in popular culture together, to which people here may be interested in contributing: Talk:Cheshire Cat#Merger_proposal. DDStretch (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Churches in Cheshire again

There has been a discussion about the navbox at Template talk:Churches in Cheshire. The current navbox is enormous and not comprehensive. I hate to contemplate the size of a comprehensive navbox, which is in my opinion impractical. I have had a go at starting a List of churches in Cheshire here and even the Anglican churches are making a list of considerable side. I think the list format is practical but even this may have to be split by denomination. In my opinion it is worthwhile to continue with list(s) in this sort of format. What do others think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is useful, and, if the size of each list for each denomination becomes too large, it could always be split off into its own article. It isn't too large when compared with, say, List of places in Cheshire, which could be said to be the geographical counterpart to the ecclesiastical one. I suspect the template may be in need of attention in order to make it sensisble, given the likely size it may attain, however: possibly changing its name and limiting it to only Anglican churches, split up and collapsible by deaconry, may be a way forward, but even that may need to be reconsidered. The definitive list of churches you have begun is necessary to properly inform any decision about that, so I would keep on with it for now if you have the time and inclination to do it. DDStretch (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have written List of churches in Cheshire. It is, as expected, enormous, and not as it stands, suitable for a navbox. I think all the major denominations are pretty comprehensive and accurate - if not please amend. I have included a section on redundant churches which is not easy to complete without local knowledge. Additions by project members (and others) welcomed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to this page from Religion in Cheshire. It made me think, do we needs "Lists of" for other religious sites (Mosques etc?) Pixie2000 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm not sure how easy it will be to get comprehensive information, or to keep it up to date. Anyone like to have a go? A title could be difficult too. List of non-Christian religious buildings in Cheshire is a bit cumbersome, but is there a better non-ambiguous title? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal

Just wondered if this was an article you may be interested in, since I have been slowly improving it and would appreciate any help offered? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cresswellshawe

I need some other opinions about Cresswellshawe. I have large concerns about this article, since the place doesn't seem to exist, and some of the facts mentioned in the article are not correct. See the points I have given on Talk:Cresswellshawe. I'd welcome some comments, though my feeling is that it could be speedily deleted, since there is no real content to merge with whatever would be the most appropriate article (the grid reference places the hamlet in Betchton, though the nearest actual hamlet may be Lawton Heath End in Church Lawton). Comments welcomed. DDStretch (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Although a google search produces some hits a search of the Congleton borough website produces nothing. It looks like there's something out there, but it could just be a road. I think if the borough doesn't have anything on it, it probably doesn't satisfy notability criteria, so I'd go for a speedy delete. Nev1 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Having just read through DDStretch's comments on the talk page, I support a speedy deletion even more strongly. I would regard the OS survey maps as the final word in this case. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Northwich

I would be interested in what people think needs to happen to the Northwich article to get it upgraded from its classification as B-class.

There were some improvements suggested back in 2006 on the Talk pages but I think these have all been sorted now. Pixie2000 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions on the talk page. These may seem daunting but they are the sort of matters that I and other editors had to address before GA status was awarded. Good luck! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have given it a re-write - not sure how it looks to people. I have removed an awful lot of "notable" people for not being notable or uncitable for having much to do with Northwich. I have tried to cite as much as I can; added some more content, images etc. Not sure what anyone thinks? Pixie2000 (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few suggestions of my own. Keep up the good work! Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MERSEYSIDE

Hi folks, just a nudge that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside is now up and running. :) --Jza84 | Talk 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Cheshire

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing geographical coordinates

Many Cheshire articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.

It is now possible to get lists of Cheshire articles that have no geographical coordinates via Wikipedia:CatScan, for example:

Cheshire articles missing geo-coordinates.

Alternatively, if CatScan is down or very slow, you can find them by looking through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data.

The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox).

There are about 162 articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make Cheshire articles more visible on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Update. Articles needing coordinates have been placed into a category. 16 articles in Category:Cheshire articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Cheshire is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Three more blocks of changes being proposed to categories concerning (civil) parishes in the UK

I have just noticed that today, another three blocks of changes have been proposed for (civil) parishes within the UK. They are Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28#Subcategories of Category:Civil parishes in Cheshire, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28#Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28#Subcategories of Category:Category:Parishes of Wales. Members of this project may wish to comment or express their views, once way or the other, about these changes. DDStretch (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Portal update

For those who don't watch the portal talk page, I've just made a very belated update. Does anyone have any suggestions for news items for the portal? The ones currently highlighted there date from May last year.

It would be very helpful in future if people notifying the project about DYKs could include the final version of the hook with the notification. That way whoever updates the portal DYK section doesn't have to trawl through the DYK archives to find the hook. Thanks.

Also, I was trying to automate the portal before my wikibreak last year and have set up some subpages but have forgotten how to use them to automate -- if anyone is clued up in this area, help would be appreciated! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how it works, but if User:Polishname is still around, he may be able to help as he set up Greater Manchester's portal. User:Joshii is also experienced in portals. Nev1 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nev1. I took a look at Portal:Greater Manchester and figured out how it worked (it's really very simple), and I'm proud to announce that we now have randomised content for the article/bio/picture! The archives are still static -- I think that was probably what I couldn't figure out how to do last year. There are eight items for each (seven previously featured plus the ones slated for the next update), but there are now unlimited slots so please do (1) suggest new articles/bios/pictures at the portal suggestions page & (2) comment on the existing suggestions. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton at AfD

A recently created article on this grade II* listed property is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Hotel, Halton. It would be useful to get a strong consensus on whether such buildings are sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Push for featured portal in 2009

I'd like to propose that the project work towards getting the Cheshire Portal featured in 2009. There's lots of work to be done, but I do think that it is now achievable. The featured portal North West England is a good model, though obviously we can't hope to have as much content!

There's a lot of cosmetic work needed, but the major content deficiency I perceive is the number and quality of the Cheshire biographies. A minimum of 15 items per section (it seems to have gone up since I last looked) is suggested, with a suggested target of 20. We currently have eight (1 FA, 3 GA, 4 B class) and I have just proposed another (GA). It would be ideal to improve at least some of the four B-class articles (Adrian Boult, Lewis Carroll, John Douglas & Michael Owen) towards GA status. Lewis Carroll is perhaps the closest to GA currently; it failed one GA review in 2006 and there are numerous suggestions for improvement on the talk page. Michael Owen is also in fairly good shape, if there are any football fans who'd like to have a go?

We would also need to develop some more biographies to GA standard or at least a very solid B class. I propose to this end that we develop a list of biographies of reasonably major Cheshire-associated figures to work on. One suggestion might be Elizabeth Gaskell, currently Start class, but easy to source and improve. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any takers? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else needed apart from biographies? I think it would help if we had a wider range of biographies to choose from to appeal to a wide group of editors. If people could suggest some more, that'd be great. I'd be willing to help out with copy editing (although there are many better than I) and sourcing where I can. Nev1 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nev1. See my detailed response to Malleus below on what else is needed. I'll start a list of bios in a new section to encourage people to make suggestions. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That Lewis Carroll article looks like a bit of a mess to me. It's one that I'd like to work on, but it needs loads of work IMO. What other sections are there needing attention? Any quick wins in there? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole portal could do with a look over from someone more technically competent and more familiar with the standards than I am. A number of a static sections need work; I've been working on improving the topics box -- there's a draft in my sandbox that I was working on before my wikibreak last year, but looking at it now, I'm not sure the format is ideal. The categories would probably need to be done as a tree, which I have no idea how to implement. The introductory text hasn't been edited since DDStretch created the portal, and could probably use a nice map.

In terms of other content, we definitely need more news (still stuck in May last year!) and more quotations (currently only 6). The DYK section is looking good, thanks mainly to Peter Vardy's tireless efforts, with 13 sets of four each with a picture; all but one (on Gwyneth Dunwoody) have been on the main page. There are 10 GAs which haven't yet been added to the selected articles -- see the suggestions page to comment or suggest other material -- and in addition there's Peter's Runcorn listed buildings, which (fingers crossed) should shortly be promoted to FL. I haven't yet investigated the picture situation -- there are currently 8 old suggestions at the suggestions page, which could use some feedback from someone other than me -- but going out and taking a decent picture seems trivial compared with getting an article to GA, and I can't be the only person in the project with thousands of photos on my hard drive awaiting upload! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Would Lindow Man count? A bit like the situation with Manchester Mummy, although there's less biographical information. Nev1 (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Manchester Mummy, now there's an article. I'll have a ferret around and see if there are any other Fortean topics that take my fancy. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already suggested Lindow Man, referencing Manchester Mummy on GM portal! (That's the GA I mentioned that I'd already proposed.) I adored the Mummy article. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been negligent of this project for a while - other admin-related matters that I'm now tiring of preoccupied me. I do think we may need to spend some time getting some settlement articles up to a higher standard as well. Given the project, I think Cheshire and Chester could be usefully improved. There is also the matter of the new administrative structure due to happen on 1 April, to consider: if we could spend some time improving the articles concerned with that, I think it would make a good item for the news section as well as one or more potential DYK items. DDStretch (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree more GA/FA settlement articles would be great, though I don't think it would be a requirement for the portal to become featured. I keep meaning to put some finishing touches to Acton, Cheshire and see what the GA reviewers think of it, but I'm put off by the hellish possibility of getting a review which failed to understand that some of the information available for cities/towns simply isn't available/appropriate for places with 311 inhabitants!

Can you come up with a news suggestion relating to the upcoming reorganisation that we could put up now? Any last-ditch opposal plans afoot? We would certainly need to time our applications for portal peer review and featured review to be after the reorganisation changes had been rolled out at least to our major articles, plus all content directly linked from the portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tidying

Because the talk page was getting way too long, I've moved about 150kb of old discussions to the archives. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we prune the main project page? Some of the "new stubs" and "new articles" aren't so new any more. Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me! If we could restart it so that new articles were added either at the top or at the bottom of the list, instead of one for stubs and tother for articles, that would make the portal update easier! Espresso Addict (talk)

Ok, I've had a go at giving the section a new format. It's now just new articles and includes the article class and the date it was added to the project, rather than created. The information is taken from here, but I've not extended it back 4 weeks in case someone raises objections. Any opinions if this is ok, or any way to improve it? Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we limit already existing Articles that have been substantially reworked or expanded to the 10/15/etc most recent? Nev1 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I did the original structure when the project was first started, and it seemed roughly all right as a first step, but now, we should move on, I think: I never thought it would be any kind of fixed structure anyway, as it was all preliminary. DDStretch (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the look of the new article list, but could we somehow retain a marker relating to whether it's been added to the new articles box on the portal -- it's quite time consuming already formatting, alphabetising & archiving without having to keep checking whether something has already been added or not. Perhaps bolding them when they first go up, then debolding when the portal box is updated? Several of the ones that were listed & hadn't been put on the portal seem to have got lost in the wash.

Alternatively, we could just ditch the portal box? I've not seen something similar on featured portals, so maybe it would be up for the chop when we go for peer review anyway.

Trimming the expansions seems fine, and could even be limited to those expanded in the past month or two. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the list to the most recent, but because it's been pretty much just Peter I Vardy updating it, it's seven items over the past four months. The new articles section is now complete (I only actually had two more to add); I'll try to keep it up to date. I think maybe the reason other portals don't have a new articles section is because it would be so much effort to maintain. If you want I can do as you suggest with the bolding, I'll check against the portal list. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Does anyone know the file name for the B-class symbol? I've completely forgotten it. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nev1. I've just checked and added the missing ones that weren't stubs or otherwise unsuitable to the portal. If you could bold new items when you add them, then I'll debold them when they've been reviewed for the portal. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.

Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)