Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Some suggested biographies

Per discussion about the idea of going for featured status on the Cheshire Portal this year, please add suggested biography articles here, for people to consider working on. To kick things off, my suggestions, with comments, are below.

This list was generated when I last updated the portal last summer from going through the project-tagged articles Start & above -- there may well be many more suitable candidates who haven't yet been tagged for the project. (I have noted women as we currently have no selected biographies of women, and this is a common oppose at Featured portal review.) Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently on portal but not yet GA/FA

Although I don't have any sources to write about Carroll, this one may be the highest profile one we could work on. It does need to be balanced against the controversial content (and edit-warring that occasionally breaks out concerning his claimed paedophilia.) Overall, it may be a millstone if we attempt this one, which would be a great pity.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Carroll obviously deserves better than this sad offering, but as DDStretch says, it's a potential millstone. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Michael Owen -- B; long article, looks in decent shape
  • John Douglas -- B ; biographical part relatively short with long list of buildings which might need splitting off
Agree. Would like to expand this when I can get hold of a copy of his biography. Then the buildings could be made into a separate list. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Adrian Boult -- B; biographical part relatively short; needs a free image
I have Kennedy's biography of Boult, so I could potentially contribute to this. My only concern is that I have little or no experience of working on biographies, and there are quite a few active projects which also have an interest in him, and what strengths I may be better aimed at other kinds of Cheshire article.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have amassed a fair amount of biography-writing experience, though little in music where I am enthusiastic but untrained, and have no sources at all, beyond what's available online at Groves, ODNB etc. (Post book? Meet up?) My fear with someone prominent such as Boult is that to get a GA the article would need to be genuinely comprehensive, well written and expert in tone, and so would need input from someone experienced in writing about classical musicians, rather than just listening to them. I could ask at the classical music project -- I've posted there a few times regarding deletions and some members have been friendly. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry, I only just realised I hadn't replied to this. I'm certainly happy to let you borrow the book (and perhaps a hand-over at, say Chatwins, in Crewe over a coffee, etc might be an idea) if this was a person whose article we chose to work on. As I said, I'm inexperienced in working on biographical topics, but a quick glance at the article and througnh the book tells me that the section on his early life (before his professional work) is quite abbreviated (for instance, he was born in Chester, and then the family moved to Blundellsands in Liverpool: Boult only "moved" to London because his parents wanted him to attend Westminster school, but his mother thought being a boarder would be unsuitable, and so they bougtht a small house in London where his mother looked after him as a day-pupil.) In truth, his stay in Chester was quite brief (up to the age of about 2) and so perhaps a different person would be a better choice.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other

  • Wayne Rooney -- B with previous failed GA review; Cheshire resident; seems to have improved a lot since the last version I looked at and could well be worth adding now
  • John Prescott -- B; connection a bit tenuous

*William Gaskell -- B; connection a bit tenuous and not widely known (Espresso Addict has sources to improve)

Very tenuous - his birthplace was at the time in Lancashire; did he have any other connection with Cheshire - other than Mrs Gaskell? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I might be misreading the sources, but he was born in Latchford, at a time when I believe it was in Cheshire. He's also buried in Knutsford. It might be a better one for Greater Manchester, though they have lots of articles! Espresso Addict (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

*Thomas Hazlehurst (chapel builder) -- B; relatively short and notability seems low; some nice historical pictures

Agree; locally notable, but not enough I fear for this purpose. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

*Hall Caine -- B; nice article with good pictures, but connection tenuous

Cheshire connection very tenuous; born by chance in Runcorn; probably lived there for no more than a few days. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Potential for a good article here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is probably the one I'd go for. A nationally known figure with a bit of mystery attached. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I like this one too, but in my experience adding citations is harder than writing the article from scratch. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Emma Hamilton -- B/Start; long with lovely pictures, but no inline refs; female
Again considerable potential. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I like this one too, and it has the advantage of filling the "at least one woman criterion", but see my comment above regarding citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

*Beverley Hughes -- Start; connection might be a bit tenuous; has picture, needs more refs; female

Too tenuous, unless we can find more connection(s). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could be a good candidate. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hugh B. Cave -- Start; image poor quality; needs expanding, references
  • David Roberts (engineer) -- Start; needs image and inline refs
  • Mansun -- Start; needs references & image
  • William Bowman -- Start; connection with Cheshire a little tenuous, but another scientist would be interesting and has an image (Espresso Addict has sources to improve)
  • Ranulph Crewe -- Start; has an image
  • Alan Garner -- Start; as yet very short & needs image
  • Harriet Shaw Weaver -- Start; as yet very short & needs image; female
Has potential. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Russ Abbot -- Start; very short & needs references & image
IMO, the one with the greatest potential there is Emma Hamilton, but there are a lot of other good candidates. It might be best to choose one article and all focus our efforts on it (à la collaboration of the month). If this were to happen, it would have to be someone nationally notable so sources could be found online or in non-local libraries so as many people could get involved as possible. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest we each pick one or two that appeal to us, that the project agrees are potentially suitable for the portal, and try to work on it alone, rather than having collaborations. In my experience, that type of collaboration results in a lot of argy-bargy about what to pick, followed by half the project members not being able to contribute. For instance, I'd be utterly useless on the footballers & pop musicians. We can always collaborate informally, eg by peer reviewing or copy editing each other's work. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A few more

Any idea why this got rated Start? Unless something is missing, it looks B class to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes please reassess. I can't; I wrote it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Now B-class. I don't think reassessing an article should be a big deal (GA and FA excepted of course). People might not always reassess it for you, so if you do it yourself, it prevents the article statistics from becoming skewed. Nev1 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Another artist would be good, but this might perhaps be better for featured picture, possibly with (the green cast should be possible to remove) -- assuming that is his version? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that it is - it carries the inscription "HARE" - not safe IMO. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet more

All present/former Cheshire MPs who were not project tagged; some have other connections additionally.

Add more here

  • Tim Hunt -- Start; we have our very own Nobel prize winner; has image; expansion needed
I might have a first stab at him, if no one thinks that's a bad idea? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

General Question: Are there any reasons why writing about people currently alive should be different, and in particular, any more or less tricky than dead people (I know about WP:BLP)? If so, might that be used to help us decide? (It's not all black and white, however.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead people can't sue, simple as that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c reply to Malleus) Well, I can't argue with that, but I was thinking more about the potential for drama: outraged relatives (it does happen) or the fact that they are sufficiently recent that the events that made them famous are sufficiently new (or "raw") that greater controversy could surround them. I know there are exceptions (like Lewis Carroll), but I imagine a person like Noddy Holder (not know for certain, just as a possibility) could attract loads of fans or anti-fans who would hold strong views and be a bit of a bind dealing with. Same for footballers.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I don't know which would be easier, but there are the different types of sources; for instance, I would imagine that most information on John Romney would be in print, whereas more modern people are more likely to have information on the internet. Also there's the issue about sstaying up to date. Once you finished an article on a dead person, it probably won't change much, but someone like George Osborne would require updates every so often. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, less well known people who've been dead long enough to get into ODNB are much easier to write about, as someone else has done all the hard work for you. They'll also have Times obits filed, which are useful. I've found writing on living people who aren't well enough known to get a long biography can be a complete pain, but it's rewarding as the final result is most comprehensive biogaphy available on the internet. On the other hand, articles on living people who are well known will attract a lot of editors, and can improve (and deteriorate) quickly. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire's Year of Gardens 08

I have proposed deleting this article. It was created by the single edit of an editor back in 2007, and seems to have the goal of promoting this event. It contains no non-peacock content to speak of. The website linked is now dead and so are the links on places such as Visit Cheshire. If anyone wants to make this into a decent article with references on the event, please do deprod, but otherwise I think this content is best forgotten. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks non-notable IMO, maybe could be added as a footnote to an article on say Tatton Park, but does not deserve its own article. Nev1 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, articles on individual gardens that were featured could mention it, if references could be found (eg via the Wayback machine). Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree, delete. An event of not particularly great importance which has gone. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal topics box

I've compiled a first draft of a new version of the topics box, which would be intended to go across both columns towards the bottom of the portal (above Related portals) -- see Portal:Cheshire/Cheshire topics/draft. It is planned to go inside the existing topic box, so will also have a dark-green header line and box, though if anyone knows how to make something more like the template versions I've linked, that might be another option. There are similar expanded topics boxes in the majority of featured portals (sometimes relegated to the subpage "Indices"). For a few examples that I've drawn on, see: Portal:Minnesota, Portal:New South Wales, Portal:European Union.

Comments on the layout & format are very welcome, also on topic inclusion/exclusion. In a lot of cases there was no summary article, or the summary was thin. Most of the topics are at least start class, though I've put in some stubs where there was a clear gap in coverage. By the way, the size seems no issue, there are huge ones at, for example, Portal:London and Portal:Hong Kong. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I'll add this to the portal and we can tweak the linked articles in situ. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How are the links organised within the box? Sometimes it's A-Z, but others it appears slightly random, although having the main article first is a good idea. Since size isn't an issue, I wouldn't object to adding the box to the portal. History of Cheshire needs to be added. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Usually I've tried to put the main review article first and then to cluster broadly by topic, so that, say, all the hills fall together. I thought this was the most logical approach. I tried putting headers in, but the small font used doesn't appear to support bold, so I couldn't make them stand out -- I could try CAPITALS, perhaps? Alternatively, I could just alphabetise them after the main summary article, if people preferred that approach.
History of Cheshire is already included (as the first link under History). I've deleted the "of Cheshire" bits of most of the links to reduce the size slightly, though I note I've missed one. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How about bolding or italicising (or both) to make the main articles stand out? Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, bolding doesn't seem to work with the small font, at least not on my screen. I'm not sure whether italicising would stand out or just make it harder to read? CAPITALS would probably be my preferred version. Alternatively we could just ditch the small font so that bolding would work as normal, but that would probably make the whole box appear rather long. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sample text Sample text, bolding appears to work on my screen. Capitalisation is probably the best way to go, but I think it should be bolded too for the users who will be able to see it SAMPLE TEXT Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, bolding has no effect on my screen at all! Agree caps & bolding is a good belt & braces way to go! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How about that? I've added headings, reordered so the ordering strategy is a little more obvious, put in capitals & (fingers crossed) bolding (the latter is invisible on my screen). And now my eyes are about to cross, so I'm off to do something else for a while! Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been inactive in this. Good work and well done. Ready to go. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Nev1 (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks both! I will add it to the portal. Obviously we can tweak the precise links etc once it's in situ. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Tis done. Is there an expert around who might be able to remove the margins from the box? I've tried tweaking cell padding and margins, but nothing seems to have any effect. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Northwich

User:Northwicher has asked if it would be worth having two articles cover the town [1], one for the civil parish (as the article is now) and one for "Greater Northwich". It sounds like original research, and as such, has no place on wikipedia. I have left a reply, but other people's input would be welcome, and could people keep an eye on the article just in case this escalates. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I also left a message, but left off the original research bit. I think the user may be the anon ip editor who just previously made the same suggestion on the page, as well as making edits to the article page that I reverted (and possibly others have as well.) I told him what would be required in order to argue for a kind of "Greater Northwich" idea, but I doubt that such sources exist, for the reasons given by Nev1 about the civil parish being administered by a town council, that necessarily does not include anything about neighbouring civil parishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there such an entity as "Greater Northwich". If so, of what does it consist? If it exists and is officially defined, I suppose there should be an article; if not, no article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In a word, no. A mention of "Greater Northwich" from the only reliable source I could find (Vale Royal Council) implies that it does not exist, and certainly not officially. The relevant quote is "could be construed to compromise a greater Northwich" [2]. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it doesn't appear to exist: these kinds of issues are raised from time to time, but I think we need only fall back on the standard wikipedia principles of asking for verification from reliable sources: usually, the response is something like "I've lived/been a parish councillor (etc etc) in this area for x years, and I and everyone else knows that this is true.", which isn't really good enough.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reinvigorating the project

It's great to see people using the project talk page again after months of inactivity, but I think steps need to be taken to get people involved. The purpose of a WikiProject is to bring together editors interested in a subject, talking and helping each other. While WP:CHES is one of the more successful projects under WP:UKGEO, it doesn't appear (from the evidence on this page) that members are interacting much. This can be seen in the decline in numbers of people joining the project. If others agree, I think a questionnaire should be sent out to project members, asking for opinions on the best way to take WP:CHES forward, and reminding them to use the project talk page. It would be a good opportunity to assess which areas the project is weak in, as well as its strengths. Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think much of the discussion occurs on article or user talk pages, rather than here. I've also put a lot of stuff on the portal talk pages, without getting a lot of feedback.
I'm not sure about sending out just a questionnaire; I've suggested distributing a newsletter to project participants a number of times, and a questionnaire could usefully be appended to that. I'd be happy to draft a brief newsletter, but I have no idea how to do the clever stuff so as to transclude it onto project members' talk pages.
Another thing we need to do to attract more people is be more proactive in project tagging Cheshire-related pages. I noticed in trawling the category tree for biographies & key topics that lots and lots of articles weren't tagged. (I did tag a few but I have ongoing problems with RSI and so have to limit such repetitive activities.) Espresso Addict (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean there are articles in Cheshire categories not tagged by the project? We can get a bot to do the legwork for us if that's what you mean. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, hundreds. If a bot could tag them all (& preferably auto-assess as stub if there's a stub tag) that would be extremely cool. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm prepared to put in the request at WP:BOTREQ - although I've never done it before. The category tree needs to be intensively looked at, if there is any category that we don't want to be part of WP:CHES and make a note of them here. As explained on the request page, "You might not expect Category:World War II to be a subcategory of Category:Thailand, but it actually is, and a bot will find it!" Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A newsletter is a good idea, but the thing about a questionnaire is it would allow people to have their say (plus we'd find out how interested people are in actually being a part of the project). I think if people feel they've helped mould the project, they'll have a vested interest and want to see it do well. While it's good to talk on article pages, if the articles are talked about here as well, they'll get more exposure.
For ideas about newsletters, you could take a look here. Transclusion is pretty easy, you treat the page like a template; if I wanted to post the January 2009 edition of the WP:GM newsletter here, I'd add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/January 2009}} (without the nowiki markup of course). I think WP:YORKS just copies the code over, but transclusion means any changes to the newsletter only have to be made once. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A brief news update with a questionnaire attached seems a good way to go. What kind of thing did you think we ought to ask in the questionnaire? All that code scares me witless, though! I've never even tried creating templates. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put down a few ideas for questions in my sandbox, anyone is welcome to dive in and add to it and I think there should be 10 or 12 questions, although the only limit is practicality. Hmm, I know what you mean about playing with templates, I was lucky enough to work straight from a template created by Jza84, I can play around with the code a bit and see what happens. The question is, how would you like it to appear? Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned it before, but I'd be in favour of a North West England newsletter. Firstly this would help us all unify a little (there are projects for Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside), but also we can share our ideas. If we have an article we want to promote, then the extra sets of eyes from other projects. I don't think we need to merge as projects, but just thought I'd mention that. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd quite like to see how a WP:CHES newsletter goes. With WP:GM there are promotions or articles nearing promotion every month, so I think a WP:CHES newsletter would have to take a different format. At the moment, I think a North West newsletter would be dominated by Greater Manchester, but in the long-term I think it's a good idea. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A good point. If a CHES newsletter would help to renew the project then I'm all for it. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of keeping to separate newsletters for now. I'm interested in GM, but not so much in Merseyside. There's also WikiProject Derbyshire, though I don't know how active it is. We could perhaps ask if people want to sign up to an overarching North-West project newsletter as part of the questionnaire.
As to content of the questionnaire, I'd be keen to ask something about the portal, as it's supposed to be one of the project's main aims, but sometimes it seems like I'm the only project member interested in it. It would be useful to ask whether or not people watch the portal talk page, as I never know whether to post portal-related queries there, here or both. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, looks like a separate newsletter, for now at least. Any questions you want asked, just go ahead and add them to my sandbox, it's only a very rough draft. Nev1 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


(outdent) We have a mixture of members, IMHO: there are those who are always active, others who are active in fits and starts, and those who appear to be inactive. Some of the latter group may be largely "passive members" in that they merely want information, and others may have thei interests largely directed elswhere, and would be better off removing their names, and others may never have had much of an interest. When I first set the project up, I made a point of inviting each new editor I saw editing a Cheshire-related project to become a member, and so I may well have contributed to the large number of inactive members, but doing that is a potentially good way of gathering new members who could go on to be quite productive. May be what we need is a once-every-two-years (or so) "clearing out" of members in which everyone is asked to reconfirm their membership. It may make for a large reduction in members at this time, but with diligent work, we could gradually increase it and not keep too many people on who have their interest elsewhere now?

I also tried to post messages to the talk page about relevant issues and calling for viewpoints, but often got very few responses, so that, given my admin work, I gradually stopped doing that (I often regret being an admin, as it takes away too much of my time in writing content, but the tools would enable some of the editing work and prevention of mindless vandalism much more easy. I think I need to redirect my attention back to the project now, rather than get involved in other matters too much from now on.) One other point is that I am working on a number of areas of relevance to the project, but unless one looks at my sandbox, it isn't always obvious. Perhaps there could be a dedicated section where "work in progress" could be listed that individuals are doing, but which is of direct relevance to this project: it would be an individual version of the "task of the month" sections one sometimes sees. Finally, it is fantastic that more people are now involved, and I'm very happy to see the proect's development being discussed more with more of us taking action to reinvigorate it.

On the question page, should there be a question directly asking whether the person wants to remain a member of the project? Or do you think it would result in too many walking away from it?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On the questionnaire, I don't think we should ask directly whether people want to remain a member, and I don't see what purpose is served in removing people's names unilaterally. I'd hope that a newsletter plus questionnaire arriving on people's talk pages would stimulate those who have forgotten they're a member but are still interested to work on articles and possibly to answer the questionnaire and rewatch this talk page, and conversely would stimulate those who have moved on completely to remove themselves from the project listing. I don't think people need to be active on the project page to be a useful project member; they might tag & assess articles, quietly contribute content in their area of expertise, watch pages & revert vandalism, comment on Cheshire-related items under deletion discussion, or whatever.
I like the idea of a subpage where we can declare what we're currently working on. If those of us who are active, if intermittently, were all to post there, it would form an informal "active list". Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The main project page is still a bit cluttered (I think it needs some restructuring to make it a bit more user friendly), so a "work in progress" section could well be skimmed over. What I think would be useful is leaving a note here instead. I agree it may not have been very productive in the past, sometimes I left notes here when Deva Victrix was at GA so I know what you mean. Hopefully if we can raise interest we can make this page a useful forum. I don't think we need to ask people in the questionnaire if they still want to be a member. Over at WP:GM, there's an "inactive members" list, where retired editors and those who haven't edited (wikipedia in general, not project-related items) in the past six months are listed. There's no harm in having passive members, and I wouldn't encourage them to leave. Perhaps receiving a regular newsletter would interest them and lead them to get involved more. Nev1 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On a very slight tangent, I was rather disappointed that our efforts to get Middlewich to GA last year proved to be infertile. My hope was that by providing a model for the Cheshire towns others would follow. Instead they're all just as bad as they ever were. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. I sometimes dread clicking on a Cheshire town page for fear of learning not a great deal. Certainly for Cheshire's cousin WP:GM, it's something of a truism that good practice in one place drives good practice elsewhere (I think its called transformational leadership). Perhaps WP:Cheshire needs to identify some project aims to achieve in the next 6 months: Cheshire, Chester, Middlewich, Runcorn all come to mind. This project has been good at creating small articles and stubs, but (with the greatest respect - and there are exceptions) not so good at pushing specific articles up through the highest tiers of assessment. You have enough editors, and some mighty fine ones too, I just don't know what's happening here thats made the project stall somewhat. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
True, it would have been good if Middlewich had triggered more GAs, but part of the problem was as soon as the article was promoted, User:Salinae's activity dropped off. That's fair enough, Salinae accomplished what they wanted to, but at the same time, the project lost the editor's valuable new experience. Nev1 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I must admit, I despair of getting articles on major towns through GA, let alone FA. I've been working on the notion that improving stubs on settlements/CPs to start class and (slowly) expanding start class towards B class is more beneficial than creating one or two GA articles, or bashing one's head against the impenetrable wall that is FA. The magnitude of the task of even getting all the Crewe & Nantwich CPs to Start class before C&N ceases to exist has pretty much defeated me. I look at my local town article -- Nantwich -- which is little more than a stub -- and go away and create subpages such as Listed buildings in Nantwich, Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with EA's comments here. I think that the process for GA and FA, particularly at the time, seemed more like an obstacle course with particular reviewers' contributions being abrasive and more likely to cause a desire to avoid the whole thing in future (in other words, unnecessarily aversive) Of course, I think we accept that honest criticism should be welcome, but we did observe some review comments that made us think something along the lines of "Why should we expose ourselves to such inconsistent, unprofessional comments like this?" (I saw similar comments from a variety of other people on various talk pages about this, as well.) We did have some discussions, and thought that increasing the coverage was a better short-term goal than boosting the class of a few articles at that time.

I think we did feel a bit isolated at the time, and had no one who could be identified to help guide us through the processes better. All this happened within a context of continuing vandalism and sporadic attempts by people who still want to say that places no longer in Lancashire are still in that county, etc etc etc, with sockpuppets popping up to wikilawyer the views through, from time to time. So it did seem to me that we had enough on our plate just to keep in the same position at times given the relatively small number of active members.

That's why, with a few exceptions, we haven't bothered with trying for GA or FA status, although, for myself, since then, I have always tried to make my edits help if anyone wanted to: which is why I have always said that we should write as best we can to satisfy the requirements for GA and FA status. Now, all this is not an excuse, but merely an explanation of how this came about from my own perspective, and others' views may differ.

However, now may be a good time to review the idea, and change tack. Indeed, it may be overdue, and so, for myself, I welcome the guidance of people from the GM project if they are able to help and offer advice and support as to what to do. So, it was a good call from Jza84, Nev1, Malleus and the others to wake us up a bit here, and I would like to thank them and ask what would be, in their view, the best way forwards now? What strategy do they think we should have apart from those already started now?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said to Peter I Vardy on my talk page, WP:CHES is the only project I know of to have more start-class articles than stub-class, showing that while the project hasn't had the high profile successes that (I believe) attract users. The approach of working from the bottom up has worked, and there's certainly no reason to abandon it, but at the same time I'd like to see editors at least thinking about taking articles to WP:GAC. If there's enough information, enough sources, and it's well written, it will probably pass. Getting input from the project, asking if there any omissions or if it needs restructuring or a copy edit, helps everyone gain experience with the process, and getting involved with an unfamiliar subject should improve how people write. But GA isn't about badge collecting, it's about proving that wikipedia works; with nearly 6,000 reviewed articles, it's part of the process of making wikipedia a reliable resource. There may be reluctance to take articles through the review processes, but they have changed a lot, and now a bad review is a rarity.
WP:GM has undergone the same problems with vandals (the Denshaw article was on the news at one point) and traditional counties views. Even recently, articles such as those associated with Wigan are subject to those activities and don't always get caught as there are few editors from the area.
As for what is needed to take this project forwards, I'm not sure. I'd like to see more member participation (which would be hopefully stimulated by the newsletter, and to a lesser extent the questionnaire), and some new, more achievable project aims to get people motivated. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It's no secret that I'm a big fan of the GA and FA review processes, but I know that some members of the project—I'm thinking particularly of Peter I Vardy and his unfortunate experiences at FAC with Runcorn—are less convinced than I am. But I really do believe that articles stall unless they're being prepped to be put under the spotlight. I was born in Crewe, for instance, and I lived there for many years. I'd love to get the Crewe article up to spec, but I know that there would be significant resistance from other editors who have a different view of what such an article ought to look like from what the GA/FA criteria and UKcities guidelines say it ought to look like. When I was working on Stretford, for instance, I several times had even administrators telling me to slow down with the changes, or reverting back to what was clearly an inferior product, and my only defence was to remind them that the article was nominated at such and such a process, and that certain changes had to be made to meet the relevant criteria. I think I'm echoing Jza84's transformational leadership idea; we need to set down examples of our very best work that others can hopefully be inspired by. Not because it's badge collecting, but because it sets a standard for others to try and match. A bit like Peter's excellent example with Listed buildings in Runcorn FL. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok Malleus. I was also born in Crewe,, though probably much earlier than you were, and I lived there (actually in Haslington) until 1961, though I still think of myself as being from there, and regularly visit Haslington just to wander round and so on. I also have the two recent books describing the history of Crewe, and a book about the history of the railway works there. Let's do a deal, if you like. Why don't we work together on Crewe, and see what we can do. I think there is a slightly unusual story attached to its name and how it got its name for starters, and I can also add substantial material to Queen's Park, Crewe as well (when the weather gets better, I was intending to go and take a variety of photos of the park that would probably do until something better came alonmg.) So, how about it?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have some Crewe photos, see this search at Geograph: [3] -- I should have the originals of all of these and would be willing to upload at much higher resolution if any prove useful. I'm also willing to take more on request, though this weather isn't conducive! Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of those photos are quite nice, and I like the ones about The Valley Brook (or River Waldron), which I have always had a hankering to write an article about, though it would be a short one. The weather was one reason why I haven't already ventured out to take photos of Queen's Park: Although there's an organisation that is reinvigorating it, it is still a shadow of its former self in the 50s and 60s (before the old Pavilion burned down).  DDStretch  (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You also have all of these to use too, from Flickr (all of those in that search have Commons-compatable licencing).
Not from Crewe, only been there once at the train station on the way to Stoke, know nothing about it beyond it having a train station, and definately don't remember the 50s and 60s ;)! However, I'll stick it on my watchlist and would love to help make a positive example of the article where I can. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Count me in DD. I have very fond memories of Queens Park—strange how it was always sunny in those days. One particular Sunday afternoon always brings a smile to my face when I think of it ... but no names, no pack drill. :-) My grandfather was in the railway works all of his working life, so I'd like to do that justice as well. I haven't been to Crewe for years; last time I was there I was horrified to see that my old grammar school had morphed into some kind of sports college thingumyjig.
PS. I'm probably older than my beligerent, in-your-face attitude, might lead you to believe. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah Ruskin Road Grammar School, which has gone downhill a lot, or so my relatives in Nantwich tell me. My father worked most of his working life as a postman. In Crewe, it was first from the sorting office on Weston Road, and then on the Travelling Post Office in between Crewe and Holyhead. However, he did work at Rolls Royce during the war because he was medically unfit for active service, and on one occasion missed being blown up by a bomb by being late by about 3 minutes (my mother saw the bomb drop, being near Crewe Golf Course at the time walking towards the Valley Brook, as it happens. There was a scandal about the incident, as no defenses opened fire on the aeroplane, which was operating alone. The army chap in charge of defences was actually drinking in the Broughton Arms in Haslington at the time, and was suddenly and abruptly transferred somewhere else shortly afterwards. But I digress... I'll turn my attention to the article tomorrow, though I am committed IRL to other things for part of that day.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I've probably asked this before, but when I was at school I had a part-time job at a petrol station on West Street, right next door to Rolls-Royce. It faced directly onto a massive brick wall, part of Crewe works, which even in the 1970s still had its camouflage painting of what was supposed to look like a street with houses on it. I wonder if it's still there, or if we can get a picture of it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
As I'm about to have a go at drafting the newsletter, do you want to make this a formal project collaboration? Or should we pick something else? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to see Crewe as a formal project collaboration. It is, after all, the most important town in Cheshire, for obvious reasons. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd support it as a collaboration. Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to intrude into the Crewe discussion (and I'm all for it), this is a digression back to the subject of GAs etc. Although I'm a believer in a wide range of "good-enough" articles, I realise that I've been a major contributor to 11 GAs (10 on Cheshire-related topics) and the FL; so maybe I believe in both! My next venture is Arley Hall. If anyone has a few minutes to spare away from Crewe, comments/help would be appreciated. And when you've done Crewe, Crewe Works needs some TLC. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

I've got a couple of questions, are there any colours associated with Cheshire? I've got a feeling they're rather similar to the ones used on the current WP:GM newsletter. I'm going to play around with formatting a newsletter in my sandbox, I'm just trying to make it look good, hopefully Espresso Addict can take care of the content. Is there a free use version of the Cheshire coat of arms? I think it would look a bit better than the numbered districts map. Nev1 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We were advised to remove the coat of arms from the portal and it's not on the Cheshire page, so I assume not free use. You could try using a small image, perhaps one of the featured images from the portal. No idea on colours -- you could try using the portal colours? I'll have a go at writing a text version of a brief newsletter, though I've never subscribed to a geographical one. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The portal colours work well, and with a lighter background the map looks fine. When it comes to writing the newsletter, just put in whatever you feel is right (you can copy the template from my sandbox, write it straight in there, or just do the text and I'll add it to the template later, it's up to you). There can be article news, calls for help, or ideas on how to improve articles. Nev1 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. The shield on the Cheshire crest here has gold wheatsheaves and a sword on a green background, which is close to what we have. If someone could create their own version of the shield and grant it to public domain, it would be better IMO than the map, which I think is ugly and is soon to be out of date anyway. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When I first set up the portal, I chose the colours to be a reasonable variation on the colours of the shield on a version of the crest I knew. I think they work well still. I suspect (it being so long ago) that the map was used as a fall-back when a version of the coa couldn't be used.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We might have to change the portal colours, as the coat of arms on the council website appear to be discoloured. User:Lozleader showed me a higher resolution image of them, and they're blue rather than green [4]. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing that they were based on the coat of arms, I'd always assumed they represented grass and milk/cheese, which I think is rather appropriate. (Indeed I note the base of the arms is grass!) I'd not be particularly in favour of changing them to blue, because that is an extremely common colour in portals and would fail to distinguish our content. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and in that case we'll keep the newsletter the same. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
(reply to EA) That's strange: The coat of arms/crest I looked at and on which I drew onm for the colours was an old one my father had (and the colours may well have changed). I guessed in a fanciful way that they were green and yellow there to represent the reputation Cheshire has for dairy farming as well, and that's why I varied the colours a bit to accentuate that idea.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made a request for a free use version of the COA to be made here. Hopefully, soon we'll have a new image to go on the newsletter. Perhaps it could be used as a new logo for the project? Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There was some discussion at one point of having special symbol to denote the project, or something about the project (can't recall what just now: perhaps it was to mark out something of particular note for the purposes of the project): we could use the COA for this purpose. At the time, I recall we thought a depiction of a toothy smiling Cheshire Cat would be a good one to use. If we need another one (for other purposes in addition to the uses of the COA Nev1 mentions), then I think reviving this idea would be good.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe we were planning to use the cat to denote articles recommended by the project. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and put a logo or two together. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We could use a smiley toothy cat symbol to indicate articles that we think particularly show off Cheshire at its best: it may be largely the same as Featured Articles, but not necessarily the same (or is that what was originally suggested, Expresso Addict?)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the intent was that the Cheshire project should be able to show off its best content that hadn't yet been accorded GA or FA/FL status, both as a pat on the back to the editor and as a means of highlighting a wider range of good-quality content to readers, possibly as a subpage at the portal. I don't think we ever got around to determining how such content would be selected. As the suggestions for new content on the portal hasn't exactly received a lot of comments, I'm not sure whether a voted system would work well in the medium/long term. We could add this as a suggestion to the newsletter proposal section and/or to the questionnaire. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire

See below for how far I've got with the questionnaire. More may be needed, if you think so, add them straight to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/2009 member questionnaire, where I've moved it from my sandbox. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to assess the progress of Wikiproject Cheshire, it has been decided to send a questionnaire to members. To answer, please copy this questionnaire and paste your answers on the answer page. While participation is, of course, not compulsory, thoughtful answers will help the project to develop and improve. Thank you.

1. The project is always looking for new members, so we want to find out which ways of attracting and approaching potential members work best. Do you remember how and why you joined?
Answer:
2. How would you describe your involvement in the project? What activities do you undertake and how often do you edit Cheshire-related article?
Answer:
3. Do you feel like you receive adequate support/contact from project members?
Answer:
4. The project talk page is intended to be the hub of the project, where members discuss articles and help each other improving them. Until very recently it has been almost inactive, but do you check the project talk page?
Answer:
4a. If the talk page was more active, would you get involved in discussions there?
Answer:
5. When viewing Cheshire-related articles, are there any issues that have stood out as needing attention or frustrated you? (Traditional counties POV, poor coverage about a particular subject, vandalism going unnoticed etc)
Answer:
6. Maintaining the Cheshire portal is one of the Cheshire WikiProject's main aims, providing a display of the best and most up to date articles that are part of the project. There is currently a drive to promote it to featured status, but input from a wide range of members is needed. Do you have the portal on your watchlist?
Answer:
7. Would you be interesting in subscribing to a newsletter covering North West England, with details of work done by WikiProjects representing Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside?
Answer:
8. Finally, are there any improvements or initiatives you'd like to see WP:CHES undertake, or general comments you'd like to make?
Answer:
Looking good. I don't think it wants to be any longer. How is it going to be delivered? How are people going to respond? You could add that the responses will be summarised in the next newsletter. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I was going to deliver it at the same time as the newsletter, except rather than transcluding it, I should post the whole text. I've set up a response page here, hopefully it's clear enough. Nev1 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That should work. I think we're ready to go? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think so, I'll start sending the questionnaire and newsletter out now. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I suppose we should think about answering the questions. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, the only problem with delivery was I misspelt half the edit summaries! Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Long and probably waffly answers submitted. I guess that you wanted the answers put in in the way I've done it, complete with one section per editor. If not, let me know and I'll change it. If you wanted shorter answers, also let me know.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just the kind of answers we're looking for. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved your responses to the project page, from the talk, in case we need the talk page for something, say if anyone has questions about the questionnaire. If you think it should be on the talk, it'll be easy enough to move it back. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Content of newsletter

I've drafted a brief newsletter which is in Nev1's sandbox. Do add anything I've missed! I've put current editing interests for myself & Peter I. Vardy -- please add your current projects there to encourage members who aren't active here to join in. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The content looks good, and in preparation for delivering the newsletter, I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Newsletter/February 2009 (whether it's the January or February edition, I don't know, but I chose Feb). I think a few tweaks (maybe an image or two) and we're ready to go. The new logo might not be ready for days, so that will have to wait for the next one. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd suggest January/February edition as I don't see this as a monthly event -- we just don't have enough traffic. (The History of Science newsletter appears around every 6 months, and that's a much higher traffic project.) As to images, I'd suggest adding an image from Peter's Runcorn list, and deleting the Arley Hall image -- so as not to prioritise one member's ongoing work over others. The map as the placeholder header image is a bit dull -- perhaps move this to the 2nd column, where it illustrates the local govt changes nicely, and put the Cheshire cat as the placeholder? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea with the Cheshire Cat, done. Instead of the two buildings, I've used two different images: Lindow Man and Runcorn Railway Bridge. I think they're striking, although Lindow Man dominates as his image is portrait, so maybe should be swapped for another. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I like Lindow Man -- was going to suggest, but you beat me to it! (By the way, can I copy your comment here regarding it as a bio on the portal to the portal suggestions page?) Perhaps do size like the DYK, ie 100x100px ? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead with copying the comment. 100x100px makes it look a little funny and not line up, but could be done. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right that a newsletter wouldn't be needed every month, but I wouldn't like to have it less frequently than every three months (quarterly), with bimonthly being my preference. Article activity is important and should provide most of the content, but the newsletter can also be used to remind people of aims and collaborations, distribute tips on improving articles (the GA wikiproject did that), and perhaps other stuff such as interviews with project members to raise awareness of what people are working on. I suppose we'll find out in the next couple of months whether a newsletter is in demand. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's see how people respond -- if we're basically just talking to the six or so people who frequent this page, I'm not sure that it's terribly pointful. If we get a flurry of interest and lots more GA/FA applications, then bimonthly might work. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to send out the newsletter and questionnaire tomorrow, does anyone think more needs to be added or changed? Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Look's good - well done for all the effort involved. Except maybe for the apostrophe in beyond it's current. You've done some hard work and deserve my admiration. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought I'd fixed that? My version isn't showing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you want us to add what we are currently working on to the list there?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please -- at least the most major few things you've currently got up your sleeve. If the project members who are active on this talk page contribute some bullet points there, I think it will encourage others to join in and let us know what they're doing. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If you've got some thing in the pipeline, I think it would be worth mentioning it in the newsletter in case someone who reads it wants to help. (Sorry about the rogue apostrophe in the newsletter!) Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful changes to two articles

Just for information: Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester have been attacked by traditional counties people in the past: typically, by insisting that all mentions of "Cheshire" be qualified by "ceremonial". It has just happened again. The latest changes had no informative summary. Given that this editor had made more edits in the past to both articles, again without using any edit summaries that include irrelevant information from a "Traditional Counties" activist's point of view, I think we need to be alert to these kinds of edits.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional counties stuff is a perennial issue, and is something to be wary of on any article. I've watchlisted the articles mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually thinking of doing a FAQ about the county system and posting it in my own userspace. I thought of this after I tackled the two quotes at the bottom of Talk:Lancashire Tea (I suspect many users may be persuaded/intimidated by the official looking guise of those two misattributations pushed by ABC and may not be aware of the facts behind them). I'll probably hold back for now but if another round of traditional counties stuff reappears I'm gonna go for it I think. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed portal update

As at least one of the responders on the questionnaire wasn't watching the portal talk page, I'll add a brief note here... If no one objects I will go ahead with adding the following new articles which had some support:

Comments are still needed at Portal:Cheshire/Suggest on all the other articles/pictures currently suggested. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Help in tracking down a reliable source for a change of name

I'm trying to track down a reliable source which documents the change in name that Ellesmere Port and Neston implemented, I suspect in 1976, when it added the "and Neston" bit to the name of the local authority: it originally was set up in 1974 as "The borough (or district) of Ellesmere Port", and I want to document its name change to the standard we need for wikipedia. Can anyone assist, or point me to someone who should be able to assist? I've emailed Ellesmere Port and Neston council to enquire if they can help, but had no response so far. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was noted in the census report for 1981, although I don't have a copy to hand.Lozleader (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Here we are it was gazetted: "No. 46955". The London Gazette. 8 July 1976.

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC NOTICES

ELLESMERE PORT AND NESTON BOROUGH COUNCIL
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972, SECTION 74

Notice is hereby given that the name of the non-metropolitan district hitherto known as the Borough of Ellesmere Port has in accordance with section 74 of the Local Government Act 1972, and with the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment been changed to the Borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston.

W. R. Flanagan, Borough Secretary.
Whitby Hall, Ellesmere Port,
Cheshire, via Wirral, L65 6QY.

28th June 1976.

Lozleader (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the authority for the change firm Crewe to Crewe and Nantwich in 1974. I am putting all the changes up on this userpage (work in progress) and will check the various articles we have for England and Wales. Thanks for giving me the push! Lozleader (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the information; it has helped a great deal. On the matter of Crewe and Crewe and Nantwich: Was this a different matter to the mass changes that happened all at once (on 1 April?) in 1974? Or did the amalgamation of the municipal borough of Crewe and the urban district of Nantwich with Nantwich rural district initially get called "Crewe District" which was then quickly changed to Crewe and Nantwich subsequent to the big changes of 1974 that happened all at once? I was under the impression that it didn't (and Youngs book on page 646 suggests the name was "Crewe and Nantwich" right from the start.)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Crewe was the name given to the district in the English Non-metropolitan Districts (Names) Order 1973 by the local govt commission. Crewe District Council was elected as a shadow authority in 1973, and it was this body that resolved to change the name (in January '74) so that when the district/council came into being/power/existence on 1 April it was called Crewe and Nantwich.Lozleader (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Great information! I didn't know that, and so it will make a useful addition in some form to work I am developing (which you know about). Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tatton parish

I'm unclear as to the status of this parish - the Macclesfield Council website lists it under "Parish Meetings", but with no parish clerk. I can't find any other references to it being an active parish. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk says it had 35 inhabitants at the 2001 census, but the map seems to show it only covering an area of Tatton Park. I'm thinking a note on the Tatton Park page, and a redirect from Tatton, Cheshire, will probably do. — sjorford++ 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you hang off doing that just yet? I am slowly working through all the civil parishes that still don't have articles, and it is a convention that they all are notable. There is more that can be added about its history and suchlike, and I think there is a lot to be said about being consistent in the treatment of civil parishes in this way. Let me write the article, and then let's have another look at it, but I am not clear why we should subsume a local government area entirely within a country estate, when the remit for that article is rather different from that of a local government area, and the local government area, though perhaps not overflowing with information, is notable by virtue of it being a local government area, in its own right.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I'd not thought about the history. I may write a substub instead then, or at least put a note on the Tatton dab page. — sjorford++ 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cheshire/Archive_6&oldid=1137390409"