Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 7

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

Merging minor settlements into civil parishes

I've noticed that a number of rather minor settlements have had stub articles started on them; an example I came across today is Barbridge in Stoke CP. I'd propose that we discourage this, as it leads inevitably to duplication of effort, unless the settlement straddles CP boundaries (eg Ravensmoor). I'd suggest that until the article on the hamlet has enough material (at least a paragraph) to stand alone, it would be best just to redirect to the civil parish. We could perhaps bold the names of the more substantive settlements in the CP articles, as I note has been done in some cases. Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although, it could still be a long term goal to have all settlements as separate articles. However, where a settlement is so small that adding significant verifiable content and developing the article beyond a paragraph is near impossible, merger might be the best option. Putting the names of merged/redirected settlements in bold is good practice. Snowy 1973 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree a reasonable long-term goal would be to have separate articles on all settlements of at least the size of a hamlet. (Many of the entities listed by Genuki as settlements appear just to be a farmhouse or two of related name and without detailed historical documents I think it would be hard to locate even where the settlement was located.) However, in the short term, I think it's best to concentrate our efforts on the unit of the CP. I'm having enough trouble working up the articles for the 69 CPs of Crewe & Nantwich as it is! Espresso Addict (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that merging them is the best course for now. I assume that the name of the article is the civil parish name? If necessary, redirects could be created for the names of these small settlements, I suppose. AS for having problems getting enough information for the articles, I know what you mean. Do you have access to any sources that give the administrative histories of the place (e.g. Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.), and the series of books about place-names in Cheshire (e.g., Dodgson, J. McN. (1971), The place-names of Cheshire. Part three: The place-names of Nantwich Hundred and Eddisbury Hundred, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521080495)? They can usually be relied on to give some information that may not be readily available elsewhere. I have copies of both of these, and so if you have any articles you are having particular difficulty with, then I could see what is said about the places. I think that some places, though satisfying notability standards for wikipedia, just don't have enormous amounts of reliable information available for them: that's just the way things are with them. Probably they will always be waiting for someone or some group to write a local history book about them.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK -- Bridgemere

I've proposed Bridgemere at DYK (30 Jan), but will be away from my computer during the time it will be reviewed. If someone could check up on its progress that would be useful. The largest garden centre in Europe claim appears in numerous sources (and indeed some claim in the world) but appears to be on the basis of its total area rather than display area, sales or visitors etc, hence my hedging with "one of the largest". If I get a moment tomorrow I will try to get to the library to check out the Guinness Book of Records in which it is supposed to have appeared, though it might be in an old edition. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No luck with the 2009 Guinness Book of Records. A web source [1] quoted the 2004 edition, if anyone happens to have that to hand to add to the article. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to have run today, thanks everyone! Espresso Addict (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New category on Cheshire MPs proposed for deletion

Please comment at the deletion discussion. This was nominated a week or so ago while I was away, so any opinions are needed immediately. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The category was deleted today, despite a couple of pleas for reconsideration from project members. It looks as if the allowable categories for UK MPs are being decided centrally. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. I'm back from having no internet access for a while, and so I wasn't able to follow up on my question (which was never answered, in fact) about how large the parent category was going to be. I think the decision is not a good one, but we have to live with it now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Responses to the questionnaire

It’s been three weeks since the questionnaires were sent out, and there’s been a decent response, with seven people filling in replies, and not all of them were the regulars who are involved in discussion on this page. This shows that there is still activity on Cheshire pages, and there’s plenty of scope to move forwards. The responses were encouraging, with members generally satisfied about the amount of help and interaction they are getting from other members, so keep it up.

Looking at the comments, it appears that project members are taking the approach of improving articles from the ground up, and this work is shown in that the project has more start class articles than stubs. This approach raises the overall quality of the project, but sometimes leads to an insular approach. For example, this link shows how 10 members of WP:GM often collaborate on articles together, or at least drop by and give a bit of a copy edit when someone is at work on a project (out of 2102 articles edited by at least 2 people, 275 have been edited by 4 or more different users – these of course won’t all be WP:GM articles, or major contributions, but it gives an idea of how often efforts over lap). Using the same tool to find out how many people from WP:CHES edit the same articles shows that out of 784, 74 have been edited by 4 or more users. While it can’t be disputed that the project has its successes – 20 GAs, dozens of 53 DYKs and a low proportion of stubs – what’s lacking is the big successes that encourage more people to participate and gain interest.

Small steps should improve the project, such as leaving notices on this talk page and asking for help could get people more involved. Discussion here has already led to Crewe being improved. Also, asking pretty much anyone you see editing Cheshire articles might boost our numbers. For example, there is a new editer – User:Northwicher – who wants to improve the Northwich article, but because of inexperience with wikipedia’s policies of verifiability and the importance of using reliable sources they are struggling. In this situation, it’s helpful to have the experienced members of WP:CHES show them the right direction.

A problem is a lack of direction: the project’s aims are nebulous and unattainable in the short-term. Therefore, it’s important that these are redrawn. Esspresso Addict has expressed the opinion before that a collaboration of the month would be unlikely to work because of everyone’s differing areas of interest, but there is one subject we are all interested in: Cheshire. It is currently a B-class article, and barely deserves that much. It’s also the most important subject for our project so deserves to be in a better state. I believe a collaboration on this article to push it to GA could be successful. It wouldn’t be a short effort, or an easy one considering the scope of the article, but if we leave a note on each project member’s talk page, I think we can get enough people involved to do it. Before this is done however, if there is enough interest, there would have to be discussion about how to improve the article. If we don’t know what we’re doing, people will lose interest and it will probably grind to a halt.

In conclusion, no one should stop what they’re doing. WP:CHES works, but could still do better. Do people want to draw up some new project aims and perhaps think about how to set about improving Cheshire, or perhaps any other key article? Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the few people who work in this area regularly, expecting articles to have been edited by more than two people seems unrealistic. The newsletter/questionnaire does seem to have stimulated more activity, and continuing it on a bimonthly frequency might help to highlight the project's many successes and generate more collaborations.
We do need to agree short, medium & long-term aims which are specific & achievable. I think it's important, though, that the aims reflect the skills and interests of all the active project members. Perhaps we should start a general discussion in the next newsletter?
The other idea I've been meaning to float for a while now is a face-to-face meet up. Would anyone be interested? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Nev, for that contribution and the fact-finding behind it. I have to confess my selfishness, in that I am more interested in my interests than in the project or the portal. But as my interests lie mainly with Cheshire subjects, that must be of some value to them both. I am not convinced that new members will be attracted to the project by articles of excellence. New editors (if they are anything like me) find the whole business of WP very daunting and I suspect that in the early stages working on a FAC would be too scary. Rather, as Nev suggests, we should be helping, and offering help to, new editors who are struggling (I'm still struggling with many aspects of WP and appreciate the help I am given). By all means develop aims and objectives, but don't be surprised if this does not produce as much success as might be hoped. I think the main problem at the moment is the limited number of really-active members; we do not have a core of a sufficient size (yet) to be able to emulate GM.
This is intended to be realistic rather than negative. I really appreciate the enormous contributions which have been made to the project and portal and feel rather guilty that I do not contribute more to them. I like the idea of a meet up. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Depending on when and where it was, I'd be interested in a meetup.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal update

I've updated the portal with Beeston Castle, Norton Priory, Lyme Park, Deva Victrix, Listed buildings in Runcorn & Lindow Man plus a set of DYKs. We now have 13 selected articles, 9 selected biographies, 8 selected pictures, 14 sets of four DYKs & 6 quotations. Comments are needed on all the remaining suggestions for selected articles and pictures at Portal:Cheshire/Suggest. New suggestions, especially for biographies, pictures, news & quotations, are also extremely welcome. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning another portal update shortly. Current suggestions are:
If anyone has any comments on any of the above, please go to the suggestions page. Second opinions on my self-nominations would be particularly useful! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I've just added the Bridgewater Canal & Rowland Egerton-Warburton. Any more thoughts especially on Widnes, A500 road, the three churches, Eddie Johnson, and any of the pictures? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for "In this month" box on the portal

Apologies for keeping on posting on here, but I've been wondering whether it would be a good idea to exchange the news box on the portal for an "In this month" box. I'm thinking of something like the box in the Buddhism Portal, essentially a month version of the "On this day" feature of the main page. An "In this month" box would be a fair amount of work to set up and might then need ongoing manual updating monthly (I don't know whether auto-update by calendar date can be made to work with the randomised elements), but would seem an interesting addition to the portal.

The news hasn't been updated since May last year; no-one has suggested any news for inclusion since 2007 and I can't find any relevant feeds. There would be no reason why it couldn't be reinstated in addition, if a Cheshire newsfeed became available or if anyone had the time to keep it updated. Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea, it shouldn't require tweaking much once established, and "in the news" sections seem a bit redundant IMO. If people want news, they'll probably check the paper or some other website rather than an encyclopedia. It would be more easily set up if people could contribute a could of interesting dates from articles they've worked on, spreading the effort. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty in defining what Cheshire news might be interesting to an international audience might be why no-one's contributed any suggestions and I've found so little that seemed relevant. Obviously, if we decide to go this way, it would need to be a collaborative effort with people chipping in dates for people/events they're interested in. There are only so many dates associated with Crewe Hall, after all ;) Espresso Addict (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
One example: 26 January 1644, Battle of Nantwich (unfortunately the date for the Battle of Chester is no more specific than 616). I suspect exploring Category:History of Cheshire will be fruitful. Should suggestions be listed here or elsewhere? Nev1 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Battles are a good idea. More specific dates than are up on the existing pages for some events of the Civil War might well be available in the Dore volume of the History of Cheshire (which I currently have on loan), and we could probably add events where the month & year are known but not the day -- however, I suspect we're not going to get far with the Battle of Chester!
We should probably collate suggestions on a specific page -- I've just started Portal:Cheshire/Suggest/In this month for this, & added your suggestion. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled monuments

Two of the planned three lists of scheduled monuments in Cheshire are now in the main space here and here. The last (post-1539) list will appear in due course. There does not appear to be a collated list elsewhere and I have had to search various sources. I therefore suspect that not all the monuments are included. If anyone comes across omissions in these periods, please leave details here or on my talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done on a monumental effort. When collating information by hand rather than having a collated list to work from, there's always the risk of leaving some out, but the lists you've produced are a valuable resource and there surely can't be many (if any) missed out. It certainly puts Greater Manchester's 38 in context! I'm slightly surprised to see that Chester Roman amphitheatre isn't scheduled, but after having looked around a bit it's probably because it's been so disturbed through excavations already there'd be no point in adding protection. Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind if I move the article to Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539) from Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066-1539)? It's just that ndashes are meant ot be used in ranges instead of hyphens. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

March/April newsletter

The January/February newsletter seems to have sparked an increase in activity, so I'd like to suggest we make it a bimonthly fixture -- which means the second edition probably needs some thought now! I'd suggest we use it to initiate a project-wide discussion about the project aims, per discussion above started by Nev1. I'm happy to update the boilerplate sections of the newsletter, and contribute a paragraph on the portal. Nev1, could you write a section summarising the questionnaire responses? DDStretch, could you contribute an update on the work needed due to the council reorganisation? Peter I. Vardy, would you be interested in contributing something about how to write a successful Good Article? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a second edition of the newsletter would be a good idea, and I'd be happy to do a piece on the questionnaire. It's a nice idea on how to write a GA, but I think that might be too big a task for one newsletter. I remember that the Good Article wikiproject ran features on how to make GAs (a crash course on MOS, sourcing) over several issues, perhaps something we could emulate? Although some things like neutrality and writing well are not so easy to teach someone. A collection of useful sources might be worth including. Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Nev1. Maybe the regulars could chip in to write about one aspect of producing a GA (eg good sources) or about a particular type of GA (eg biographies). Developing a communal list of useful sources has been on my TBD list for ages. We've got a few online resources listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Resources (which could definitely use expanding), but I believe the list could profitably be expanded to include reliable books (as well as where to get hold of them -- eg which libraries have copies). Espresso Addict (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That list need to be more prominent, I had no idea it existed. Also, I don't think genuki is a reliable source, IIRC people have questioned it's reliability in FACs. Online sources that everyone could access would be of most use and where to find specific information (fro example statistics.gov is a bit of a maze); books – while often essential for articles – are more problematic as it requires a bit more motivation to go down the road and search along the shelves than to google something, but there'd be no harm in listing a few good books. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It's linked from the top of the main project page in the box "Important Sub-Pages" -- I'm not sure how to make it more prominent? Certainly as there's one regular contributor who didn't know about it, we should highlight its existence in the next newsletter.
Genuki can be useful for compiling CP pages, as it's often the only easily available source for which tiny settlements are in which parish, and I've found it often gives good information on defunct churches. I also use the historical population figures as a quick addition, but I agree that they're sometimes compiled from different sources, and need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm not sure that the Vision of Britain figures are any better, unfortunately. Genuki refs would probably need to be replaced before going for FAC (though I'm not sure by what), but I'm not sure that means we should abandon it altogether.
I agree that people are more likely to look at online resources, but a list of particularly useful books (things like Pevsner) that are widely available might be worth compiling, if only so that when one does trek to the library, one knows what to look for! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As long as people keep in mind that Genuki isn't an optimal source and should be replaced whenever possible but that it can be used when alternatives are lacking, I'm happy. Is there a particular deadline you'd like the bit on the questionnaire for? Is there a word limit (don't want to clog up the newsletter)? Is there a particular place you'd like me to put it? I'll probably start it in my sandbox for now. Nev1 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In the newsletter, would it be possible to have a one sentence shout out for each of WP:GM and WP:MERSEY? They're our sister projects and it wouldn't hurt to raise awareness; also WP:MERSEY would benefit from people assessing its articles, which doesn't require any knowledge of the area. It's something I did in the April edition of the WP:GM newsletter, and I see it as a precursor to a letter for the whole of the North West. Nev1 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to get the newsletter done in the coming few days, though I've been away/occupied and haven't started my bits yet, must get on with it... I suggest you write a questionnaire summary that's as long as seems sensible and then the rest of the newsletter gets fitted around it. As yet there are no other volunteers to write content, so there's probably going to be plenty of space this edition. A brief mention of WP:GM and WP:MERSEY is fine by me. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Small villages

There's a note on WT:GEO about pages for small villages that redirct to the counties they are in; if they're notable they should have their own article, if not they should redirect to the borough or civil parish they're in. The two in Cheshire are Rhuddall Heath and Windyharbour. Are these notable enough to merit their own articles, or should we just tweak the redirects? Nev1 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either of these, but as I recall, we came to the general conclusion a few weeks ago that villages should redirect to the CP unless they straddled boundaries, at least until enough info was available to write a decent article on them. I've been merging microstubs (with just a sentence and an infobox) when I've come across them. A compromise, where the village has a different name from the CP but is a bigger settlement, is to make sure there's a redirect & bold the name in the CP lead -- see eg Minshull Vernon. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After a quick search, there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of info online about either places [2] [3]. It doesn't seem enough for the villages to pass notability criterai, so I'll redirect them to the relevant civil parish. I recall the earlier discussion, and I agree that when there's very little information about a village – such as the micro-stubs – they should be made into a redirect. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Rhuddall Heath has been redirected, but Windyharbour is in the civil parish (I think it's a CP at least) of Lower Withington which doesn't have an article and probably needs one. Nev1 (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought between us we'd got most of the CPs, at least as microstubs. Which soon-to-be-abolished borough is it in? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Macclesfield, the census data is here. Nev1 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I have an article about Lower Withington just being edited in one of my sandboxes at the moment. It will be live in a day or so.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[ Here], in fact. It is being made by modifying another article, and so later sections are just plain wrong at the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of CPs still outstanding in Macclesfield District and then we have a slew of them in Chester District, and I had to sort out their existence by communicating with the council, but I intend to work my w3ay through them in short order soon. Some of them don't have available population information.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I was being overly optimistic. Crewe and Nantwich, Congleton & Vale Royal are complete, Macclesfield is missing several and Chester lots; I can't find a convenient list for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but it must be predominantly unparished.
I've been working for what seems like years now on improving all the Crewe and Nantwich articles to at least Start before the borough's abolished (with 20 remaining stubs, I'm likely to miss my target, sadly), but come April I plan to transfer activities to parts of the former Chester borough that are relatively near to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be very nice to get all the articles in place before the demise of the boroughs. I fear the lack of manageable divisions and the probable death of useful websites during the reorganisation will inhibit people taking on the task. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Ellesmere Port and Neston are complete: Ince was the only civil parish in it for a while, but a short while ago, Neston was created one, which was convenient since an article already existed for it. The same goes for Halton (borough) where a couple of new civil parishes were recently created. (I'm not sure whether they all have stub articles yet.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

About websites disappearing: I think it might be an idea to collate a list of useful sites and try to save them somewhere. There is a resource concerning the tithe maps that I think may be useful (it is useful in one specific matter that I am looking into: the position of the old Haslington Hall from the shape and position of the old mere, which complements information I've got from other reliable sources which were vague about the exact location though specific about the mere having developed from a moat, as well as eye-witness accounts from old relatives about the last days of the mere.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there useful websites that aren't already on the list of online resources? With a lot of the websites, you can't just save the information off, unfortunately -- I copied a map from the tithe map site for Crewe Hall but had to do it by taking screenshots and then cropping and jigsawing them together -- it took hours. I'm just hoping that the Interactive Mapping site remains up! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
www.archive.org (Internet Archive) is useful, taking snapshots of webpages occasionally. It doesn't always have what's needed, and I don't think it does PDFs, but I've used it on a few occasions to replace dead links. All you have to do is know the original address of the page you wanted and plug it into the search engine on the site's front page. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn't always archive the content of databases and I'm not at all sure what it would do with something like Interactive Mapping. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention all project members

With the retirement of Ddstretch and Espresso Addict from wikipedia, the project has been denied two of its most active and prominent members. It will be more difficult to ensure the quality of Cheshire-related articles without them, but I've set up a new watchlist covering all of the project's articles here. This will help us monitor recent changes and identify vandalism, so please do use the watchlist. It works by looking at the recent changes of all the articles listed on the page; it has to be updated manually, something I will try to stay on top of. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Winterley

A user is repeatedly adding incorrect information to Winterley stating that it is partly in Congleton Borough. It is not. If one looks at the Ordnance Survey map (1:25000 series), it is clearly entirely within Haslington civil parish, and so completely within Crewe and Nantwich. It is Wheelock Heath that may be split between Congleton district and Crewe and Nantwich. The editor is merely reverting with no clear explanation except taht he thinks he is correct when the most reliable source shows that he is not. Can someone take appropriate action. I have started templating him, but this may not be sufficient. This can be checked for those without OS maps by using the election maps website and choosing the Crewe and Nantwich parliamentary constituency, moving to the right area, and then implementing the parish and district boundary layers. (I have not returned, by the way, this is just a result of tidying up various things.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood, I'll keep an eye on the situation. If the user continues to ignore the facts they will be blocked, but let's hope it doesn't come to that. Nev1 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Macclesfield Castle

Does anyone have any free use pictures of Macclesfield Castle that can be used in the above article? It's doubtful, but it's worth a try as I recently started the article and have nominated it for DYK; a picture of the porch before it was demolished in 1932 would be great to go with the hook if anyone has one. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

More castles

Hi team, I'm currently working on a list of castles in Cheshire in my sandbox. It should be ready to be moved into the mainspace around mid-April, and when I do I'll propose it for DYK immediately. Cheshire has quite a few castles, although not many survive. With the DYK hook, I'm thinking of using an image, but can't decide which one. Below are the eight best from the articles on Cheshire's castles and I was wondering if the project could help decide which one was most striking/looked best. (They're displayed at 100px because that's how they'll appear on the main page). Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Beeston Castle gateway Old Beeston Beeston Castle from below 1 Beeston Castle from below 2 Old Chester Castle Frodsham Castle Halton Castle Old Halton Castle

I think one of the drawings would be better, but I don't know which one. The pictures are mainly good but when small are unclear. DeMoN2009 Not a member of this project 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about the drawings, although the one of Frodsham Castle isn't great because the actual castle is in the background. I think "Old Beeston" might be the best, but none really leap out. Nev1 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The second one, File:Beeston Castle by Buck Bros.jpg is the clearest in my opinion. Hope it helps! DeMoN2009 Not a member of this project 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It certainly does! Opinions from other people are welcome to get a wide range of views, and I'll leave a note here when I move the list to the mainspace. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New local authorities

As I'm sure project members who live in Cheshire are aware, on 1 April 2009 the new unitary authorities of Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester were created, replacing the boroughs of Macclesfield, Congleton and Crewe and Nantwich; and Ellesmere Port and Neston, Vale Royal and Chester District respectively. As such, the settlement articles need to be updated to reflect their new local authorities. I'm not sure to what extent this has already been done as I have been inactive for the past week, but I have noticed that some people have made changes. Help is needed updating the articles and double checking they're right; if you can't do much, checking the articles you usually edit would still help. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK?
Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with?
if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of castles in Cheshire

I've moved the above article into article space from one of my user subpages, and not only has it been nominated to feature in the Did You Know section on the main page, but it's also a Featured List candidate. Hopefully it can follow in the successful footsteps of list of listed buildings in Runcorn. Nev1 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chester city status?

Cheshire West and Chester seems to hold borough status, but, since 1 April 2009, has Chester proper held city status? If so, I imagine its defined as a Charter Trustee or Civil Parish, but if not, then, perhaps Chester does not hold this honorific title on Wikipedia???? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Still a city, with charter trustees. See [4], which defines the area in terms of wards of CWC. They held their first (lord) mayor-making on May 13 [5] [6] (at which the sheriff was also apppointed). The lord mayor of Chester happens to the same person as the chair of CWC council, but the offices are distinct. Lozleader (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Suspected this was the case. This infomation would be valuable for the Chester page. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
To which I might usefully add that the charter trustee area is identical to the previous Chester (district), so the city status covers more than the "urban core". It would seem, as with Durham, that once a wider area has been officially designated a city, the boundaries are unlikely to be cut back, which is only fair to the residents (or should I say citizens?) Lozleader (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlisle and Lancaster

In the absence of specific county projects for these two articles, I thought I'd let NW England know that there's been something of an improvement drive for the City of Carlisle to bring it more inline with the GA City of Salford. City of Lancaster has also had a minor facelist. Any info that can help with further improvements for the city districts would be much appreciated. (NB: the specific county towns of Carlisle, Cumbria and Lancaster, Lancashire are covered seperately like Salford, Greater Manchester). Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jodrell Bank Observatory GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Jodrell Bank Observatory for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

England at GAC!

Alerting all WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 7 members that England is undergoing a review for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can... England expects that every man will do his duty.... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

New Portal suggestions

I've completed a long-overdue update of the Cheshire portal and made some suggestions for new selected articles, biographies & pictures. Comments & further suggestions would be very welcome, at Portal:Cheshire/Suggest. We're also in need of suggestions for a couple of the In this month slots (particularly September & November). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Wharton, Cheshire into Winsford

I have proposed the merger of the subdistrict Wharton, Cheshire back into Winsford, as there appears to be little or no distinct content. Please discuss at Talk:Winsford#Proposed_merge_of_Wharton.2C_Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Tomorrow's TFA is a Cheshire article on John Douglas (architect) - I thought participants might like to know. We cannot emulate WikiProject Greater Manchester in their achievements, but it's something!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved! It's a superb achievement. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

New category for water bodies

I'd like to start a category for water bodies in Cheshire, including lakes, meres, reservoirs, flashes, notable ponds etc. Reservoirs are currently under "Geography of Cheshire". Any thoughts on what it should be called? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. "Water features in Cheshire" ???? - how do the other projects deal with this?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be only two counties that have specific categories under "Lakes of England": "Lakes of Cumbria" & "Lakes of Northumberland". The Peak District, Surrey & Yorkshire have "Reservoirs of ..." We have a lot more lakes than reservoirs, but there are a couple of existing reservoir articles (and no tagged lake articles at the moment, though just on a very quick scan Sandbach Flashes & Woolston Eyes don't have any water body categories atm, and there may well be others "in hiding"), so perhaps "Lakes and reservoirs of Cheshire" would work? We could add a note under the header stating that it was equal opportunity for all inland water bodies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've implemented Category:Lakes and reservoirs of Cheshire. Only 9 entries at the moment, but I plan to create more articles on SSSIs over the coming months, which should fatten it up nicely. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cheshire

As suggested by Nev1 so long ago he's probably forgotten, I have improved this, broadly following the model of previous featured lists on the topic, with a few alterations (improvements?) of my own to the formatting. If the list is ever to reach FL status, however, then preferably all & at least 2/3 of the SSSIs need articles.

Currently the stats are a bit dire: I'd say only 7 of 63 sites had adequate coverage, with a further 6 stubs/near-stubs, and 50 lacking articles altogether, though some are mentioned in other articles. If anyone can help out creating & improving articles, it would be a great help! See the list talk page for details. If those of you used to creating FLs could look over the list itself & point out where I've blundered, that would also be great. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Boult

Adrian Boult, one of the biographies featured on the portal, is currently a Featured Article Candidate: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adrian Boult/archive1. If you have any expertise in the area do go & help out! Espresso Addict (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now promoted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Maps of Cheshire

In the course of messing with the portal of late, I've made some more sketch maps of Cheshire, which might perhaps be useful to others...

I also created a derivative of Jza84's map, with the background & inset showing the position in the UK removed:

Espresso Addict (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting a bot to do project tagging

Sorry to spam the project talk page, yet again, but I noticed recently that very many of the articles under Category:People from Cheshire & its numerous subcategories are not tagged for the project. I was wondering about trying to commission a bot eg User:Xenobot Mk V to autotag them, and possibly do some autoassessing too. We probably want to exclude the category Category:People from Cheshire (before 1974). Any thoughts? Has anyone noticed any other categories that need project tagging en masse? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Vanbrugh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposing Selected Lists section on Portal

I proposed adding a section to highlight lists on the portal a few days back (see here for the details) but haven't had any feedback yet -- if no-one objects to the idea, I'll start suggesting potential content at the suggestions page shortly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheshire Railings

I think there should be an article about Cheshire Railings, the white-painted metal railings with uprights curved in at the top, generally found at the corners of fields, which are a feature of the landscape here. There is a picture at File:Caldecott - Cheshire Railings.jpg. On the better-maintained ones, often every third upright is painted black. I believe they were introduced in the 1920s, with the rise of motor traffic, to replace hedges at road junctions in order to improve visibility; but I can't find any source about them. Any ideas? JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've photographed a lot of these for the Geograph project, and accordingly tried to find out more information, but I've never found a good source. This Geograph image [7] has a little more detail and cites the CCC website, but unfortunately the relevant page, like many others, seems to have been mislaid in the split to unitary authorities and isn't on the Wayback Machine. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The page you are after may available on Cheshire East website, but it does not say much!  Pixie2000 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's something - maybe I'll see if the council can help. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Members of the Project may be interested to learn that Norton Priory has been nominated as a FAC here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cheshire/Archive_7&oldid=1140238137"