Talk:Stoke-on-Trent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Stoke-on-Trent has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] Potteries Urban Area
As far as I know the term "The Potteries" refers only to Stoke on Trent (and maybe surrounding villages which are now part of Stoke on Trent, such as Meir) but most certainly not Newcastle Under Lyme. This is certainly what I was taught at school (in Newcastle) and what most of my friends from the area agree with. There is a link to the "Potteries Urban Area" page - this is not something I've ever heard of and with the increasing incidence of people using Wikipedia as their first source of information I think it should be got rid of.
However - didn't want to change it outright in case there is more to the story than this - if there really is some sort of "Potteries Urban Area" which also includes Newcastle then I think it should at least be marked that this is contentious and that many people believe Newcastle not to be part of the Potteries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.211.199 (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The [[Potteries Urban Area[[ is an Office of National Statistics area which Newcastle is part of. Whilst it isn't part of The Potteries, which redirects to Stoke-on-Trent it is part of that statistical area. Regan123 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"image of an industrial northern hellhole" - great line
At 15 miles and half an hours drive, Alton Towers is hardly a 'stones throw'. Sorry, at the time I wrote it, I forgot to sign this little observation, months ago. NoelWalley 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Peer Review
"Although there are actually Six Towns, the city or 'the Potteries' is more well known as the Five Towns - from the books by Arnold Bennett. It has been incorrectly stated this can be seen from the Lord Mayor's car carrying the number plate VT1. The actual registration is 1 VT and has nothing to do with Arnold Bennett and the five towns. The simple explanation is that VT was the registration used for Stoke on Trent (along with EH) in the 1960's - it just so happens that the Lord Mayor has number 1 of the VT registration letters."
The article suffers from a certain amount of trivia, of which three or more lines devoted to the number plate on the Lord Mayor's car is a good example. Blame Arnold Bennett (arguably the Potteries most famous literary son) and cut out those lines or better still explain Bennett properly and the fact that when writing about his native Potteries he changes everything. We can be sure he did not think there were five towns but more likely four or six. There were four boroughs so did he invent a fifth? The Bennett factor needs to be taken into consideration. NoelWalley 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC) formerly of Oldcastle!
Contributors to the Peer Review offered the following suggestions:
- The article needs references- see WP:CITE and WP:V. Inline citations- WP:FOOTNOTEs- are also required for featured articles.
- Please alphabetize the categories
- See WP:CITY for city article guidelines; while you are there, browse through some of the already-featured cities.
- Condense the paragraphs in the lead. See WP:LEAD for the number of paragraph suggestions.
- Only years with full date should be linked generally- see WP:MOSDATE and WP:CONTEXT
- The history section is quite short and has large gaps chronology wise. I'm not sure that the passage about the mayor's car registration is particularly encyclopedic.
- You can get Staffordshire oatcakes in much of Cheshire, so it is incorrect to say that their "fame has yet to travel outside of North Staffordshire".
- Things like geography, climate and demographics should be added.
- The "Famous people" section should go. Any particularly notable people should be mentioned in the relevant part of the article (such as Stanley Matthews when sport is mentioned).
On the whole I would agree, and particularly with regard to dates and linkage generally. I would however question the suggestions regarding the following:
What can be said about climate other than that it is British? I think demographics should be used very sparingly. I believe that in the particular circumstances of this rather new city with very old roots and an aging infrastructure, the Famous People section is very valuable and should be retained. Perhaps it should include only people for whom a Wikipedia biography has been developed?
What do others think? NoelWalley 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- also,the history section is too short about the ceramic (Gladstone for example) .I was impressed by a new book in french (!) on english imari from the Potteries ("les Imari anglais", publisher :Massin,Paris)
[edit] Staffordshire
Can't believe there was no mention that the city is in Staffordshire in the opening paragraphs. Yes it may be a unitary authority now, but it's still in the geographical/ceremonial/traditional county of Staffordshire!! David 22:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Famous People
This section was sugested in the recent peer review for deletion. Although I believe it should stay, I think there are problems that should be addressed. I see these, in no particular order, as:
- The list is open to abuse, and especially to the addition of people still making their way on the ladder of fame, or those whose fame is particularly transient.
- I wish to propose that only persons who already have a significant personal biography (not a stub or a group listing) or obituary on wikipedia be allowed to remain on the list.
- I wish to propose that only persons born in Stoke-on-Trent (as widely defined by the present Unitary authority boundaries) be allowed to remain on the list.
- I am not sure about the recent groupings. I think they raise unnecessary problems. E.g. the potters (Wedgwood, Spode, Minton and I would hope others to be added later) they are far more than business men! What do you think? NoelWalley 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that John Caudwell isn't in the list. Surely one of the most successful people to have been born in Stoke? Beest 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also I see Gareth Burton (sportsman, raconteur, bounder) has been added as a notable person. I suspect this is nonsense, so I will remove him unless someone can elaborate on who he is. Beest 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I removed the description "tosser" from Robbie Williams mention an hour or so ago. I also deleted an entry that was of someone who was purportedly a "Tibertan nose flautist". The same person had added an entry for a supposed band. I don't know much about this type of music, but i surmised that it was best to remove it as it did not have a link to a pre-existing entry for the band on wikipedia. I suggest that all entries here should have links pointing to specific wikipedia entries or sections for them, otherwise we might consider just deleting them. If someone thinks an entry should not be deleted, then such an entry could be "saved" by having a wikipedia entry for them, perhaps? DDS talk 09:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with you, the list is full of rubbish. Cutting down to those only with a Wikipedia entry seems like a good idea, but the whole section should go eventually. Famous people should be rolled in to relevant paragraphs of the article, as suggested by the peer review. Beest 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-
After removing H.G.Wells from the Writers section just now, I think something needs to be done about these lists. To begin with, I will shortly remove all entries on Famnous People where there is no corresponding wikipedia entry. Later, given the H.G.Wells experience, I am going to try to check the authenticity of the rest. That seems to be a useful first step in integrating all those names into the main body of the text. DDS talk 10:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of the entries also link to the wrong people (e.g. Mark Holmes), so I will check they link to the right articles or delete people that don't have an article. Beest 11:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- The person who had added H.G.Wells has got back to me and stated that he lived in Stoke for a short while and also based one of his books there. He says he will get a reference to it. I think he thinks H.G.Wells should be put back in, but my thoughts are that even if we continue to have this "Famous People" section, which I think we should move away from, then it should only include people born in Stoke-on-Trent. What do others think? DDS talk 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok - H.G.Wells seems to have stayed in Stoke-on-Trent for a "few months", and so I hope I have been correct in saying this seems insufficient to justify adding him there. the user has given a quote from "The New machiavelli" which talks for about a paragraph about his stay in the area, and I suggested that this might be added to the "Trivia" section. The exchanges about this can be seen on this talk page: User talk:Bogle DDS talk 17:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- That seems fair enough, it's interesting trivia. But I agree the famous people list should be reserved for people born in Stoke-on-Trent. Beest 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for all your good work on this. Do we know that Mark Bright was born in the city? Robbie Earle born Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Egyptian born Poker player have more than a passing presence in Stoke-on-Trent but ought they to remain on the list? I think classing Poker as a sport is stretching the definition! NoelWalley 07:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- We now seem to be getting a few more entries of famous people known to have not been born in Stoke-on-Trent added to the list. In some cases this may be well-intentioned yet inaccurate, but in other's (probably in the recent case: Slash), it may well be vandalism since the entry clearly gives his place of birth, which isn't Stoke-on-Trent, and it wasn't altered recently either. I've also found these kinds of additions are now happening more often for other entries now. We need to be vigilant. DDS talk 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slash
I don't think that this issue is so cut and dried. I've seen references that state he was born in Hampstead or Stoke. The wikipedia article seems to flit between the two. However, the Brittanica states [1] he was born in Stoke. I have a horrible feeling that this is one of those occasions where the Internet is imitating the Wikipedia, instead of the other way round. Beest 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok - Until a definitive answer is found, then may be it is better to omit the link in the Stoke-on-Trent article and let the main article about Slash get sorted out first, if people want to argue the point? DDS talk 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two articles on Stoke on Trent
There appear to be two articles about Stoke on Trent. This one and Stoke-upon-Trent. Wouldn't it be better to combine the two, and have one redirect to the other? --Avantman42 22:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Stoke-Upon-Trent is one of the 6 towns that make up Stoke-on-Trent city, so it likely has a distinct history etc. 86.140.227.141 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I want to reiterate what the first response stated: there are not two articles about Stoke on Trent, There is one article about the City of Stoke-on-Trent - the other article is about one of the constituent six towns that, together with the other five towns, make up the City of Stoke-on-Trent. It just so happens that this particular town is called Stoke-upon-Trent. The other five towns: Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Longton, and Fenton each have their own entries that contain information it would be difficult to subsume under the entry for the City of Stoke-on-Trent. Even if they were subsumed, the entire entry would likely become quite unwieldy. DDS talk 22:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History Section
I am very sorry to say that I see no justification for a separate history section to this very modern city article. Please copy it back and expand it much further within the main article to counteract all the trivia that keeps floating in! NoelWalley 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with you there. I've added the content back (and added some more). I've also put a redirect on the History of Stoke-on-Trent page. Beest 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree. Until and unless a much more substantial section about the History of Stoke-on-Trent evolves within the main city article, there's no justification in separating it out, even though some might say it should be in order to be consistent with some other UK cities. DDS talk 23:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There's some interesting information in this section, but does it belong on this page? Should the history of SoT start in 1910? Does anything before that belong in one of the articles about the six towns? Beest 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've just obtained some interesting books on the history of SoT from Hanley Library which includes pre-city status. In fact, it deals with the lengthy moves that prepared the way for the city status. I think this could be added to the history section, but I'll need to read the books and think about it a bit before I try my hand at adding some of the stuff. DDS talk 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Re pre 1910. I think this is a matter of judgement not of dogma. Take a look round the city at all those buildings and then say "They don't belong here, they are pre 1910!" Clearly many things and many people have a continuing influence on the city as a whole even though they existed or happened before 1910. Perhaps other things are quite parochial yet still noteworthy in the local context of Stoke or Burslem even though they happened yesterday. NoelWalley 07:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gorillaz
I've added in the "References in Popular Culture" section a mention of Gorillaz and Murdoc Niccals as a means of trying to encourage people not to add this fictional character to the Fanous People section. DDS talk 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jolly good, you just beat me to it! NoelWalley 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Get it to good article status
I would really like to get this to good article status. Does anyone fancy a collaboration on this? I have lived away for a long time and am getting a bit rusty on the place. Regan123 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Right, well I've started on this one. I have removed the notable persons section and integrated it into the article as best I can. A few people have fallen by the wayside, but there is now a see also to the appropriate category. I have been looking at Sheffield which is a featured article and we have some way to go, but I think we can get it there. Any comments, suggestions and expansions always welcomed. I have peppered the article with specify templates as there is quite a bit of referencing needed, so if anyone can help I would be very grateful. Regan123 22:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Areas for improvement
OK. I reckon the following areas need improving:
- References. There are a massive amount of references to be added, particularly regarding people from the area.
- Demographics. This can be improved dramatically. I have put some basic information in, but I have put a table onto Newcastle-under-Lyme that we could adapt (I got the table idea from another article).
- Administration and politics. Again this could be expanded and then split out into a Politics of Stoke-on-Trent article.
- Industry. There is plenty to say about the home of the UK Pottery industry. Where we get sources from on the web I don't know.
- Lead. Need to check that anything in there is referenced below and expanded.
- Geography. Again a large amount of expansion is needed. The local climatology needs to be in here and perhaps something regarding the geology as well, especially considering the effect it had on the growth of particular areas.
What do others think? If you complete a task might I suggest the use of {{tl:done}} is added so that it can be indicated what still needs to be done. Regan123 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- These sound like some good starting points. I'll contribute where/when I can. In addition, the opening para of the Sport section seems to need a full rewrite. Also, the etymology section needs expanding, as separately discussed below. Russ London 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology
At the moment the article states only one possible meaning for 'Stoke': crossing place. But there are plenty of sources that suggest alternative meanings of 'stoc' – and thus Stoke – notably 'meeting place' and 'place of worship'. I propose to expand the etymology section to include variant explanations of the name. Russ London 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds fantastic - look forward to reading it! Regan123 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've made a first stab at this and I'll probably try and refine it a bit in the near future. However, my revision now conflicts with the etymology given in the Stoke-upon-Trent article, so I'll also need to try and make these more consistent with each other. Russ London 10:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Smoking ban news
I removed a paragraph that had been added about then failure of Stoke-on-Trent council to do whatever was required to put the smoking ban in place on 1st July. My reasoning was that this was a rather less than permanent news item that didn't really fit in with an encyclopedia entry, the more so, because so much other stuff needs to be added to the article. Since then, someone else has re-added it. So, I'm opening it up for discussion here rather than remove it again. Do people think it is an acceptable entry, given the amount of other work that needs to be done to the article? DDStretch (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest and fair, I do agree with you that it is less than permanent. I was hesitant to add the information in, and I did speak to a veteran user about whether I should [Write about the failed enforcement] and whether it was under the correct section/heading. I do not know of the other work that needs to be done, seeing as I am not a resident of Stoke-On-Trent nor a follower of this article. Although, something, in the long run, must be written about the council's failing to enforce the ban. And, also, in the news article that I did quote and cite, it does say: "The council [Stoke-On-Trent], branded one of the worst in the country by the Audit Commission..." I believe something, if it hasn't already been mentioned, should also be written about this. To sum up, I personally believe it [Failure to enforce the smoking ban] should at be mentioned, that is why I tried to keep the information I entered short, sweet and concise. ScarianTalk 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I edited earlier as User:217.34.67.157 and am not User:Scarian. It is indeed less than permanent, but I believe this belongs in the article for a couple of months. I can't see why the fact that other work needs doing to the article changes the relevance of this item; other people can do other work as they see fit. I know you (ddstretch) recognised my edits as good-faith. User:Scarian's writing is better than mine and I support it.86.140.88.114 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Have to agree with DDStretch that this is not particularly relevant. It is a minor cock up not particularly encyclopaedic. Regan123 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of specify tags
An anonymous user has removed a lot of specify tags, claiming they were tantamount to vandalism, but I could see that they were useful, and reverted most of the changes. The user has now re-re,moved them. Can I ask what people think about the usefulness of such tags, as they seem to me to be a useful way of indicating where more work is required. DDStretch (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I thought a lot of the "specify" tags were damned ugly and completely unnecessary - there is absolutely no point sticking "specify" next to the names of noted ceramic artists who have perfectly satisfactory articles one click away. What on earth is "specify" next to Clarice Cliff's name supposed to mean, anyway? No, they're largely meaningless, and I agree with the anon editor, they should go. -- Arwel (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The tags are there to ask for verification that they have a specific connection with the City. If these are not provided, then they should stay or the entries removed. "Notables" are often added at a whim and it is one of the major areas requiring clean up on many of the places articles in Wikipedia. Regan123 23:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why put them back in again? You aren't giving discussion or consensus a chance. ScarianTalk 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The energy being wasted on this would be better used on improving the article. Some of these things have been tagged for six months. If nobody can improve their referencing then they will have to come down altogether. --John 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- As I noted in my first reversion, some might have been unnecessary However, it struck me that not all could have been in that category. Because such a lot were removed, it needed discussion on here first. As for the fact that they looked ugly, I don't think "ugliness" should really come into it, given the aims of an encyclopaedia, and what they highlight, if they are reasonable. The real issue should be, I would have thought, not simple removal with no attention given to specifying more information, but to supplying the information and then removing the tags. So, I think they should have been discussed first. The issue of ugliness should be tackled in other ways for those which can be justified, and their presence should not have been said to be "tantamount to vandalism". DDStretch (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Agreed. I have spent quite a bit of time adding references and tidying the article up. I put the tags on where I couldn't find the refs. Circumstances have kept me away from Wiki for a while, and it will do for a bit longer. I intend to get back to finding more references. Regan123 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- For goodness' sake... if you click the Clarice Cliff, Susie Cooper, or John Lightfoot links and read the articles, their connection with Stoke is obvious. There is such a thing as taking a good idea too far. -- Arwel (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Then add the references if they are there.... I'm off to bed. More important things to worry about. Regan123 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Agreed: if you can find References in those articles that pin the people down to Stoke-on-Trent (and re,member that a wikipedia article itself cannot be used to verify other wikipedia articles), then it would be time better spent for you to simply add them! The requirements for wikipedia articles to attain GA or FA status is that the claims need to be referenced. I'm also off to bed. DDStretch (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Factual Error on Stoke-on-Trent page
The article states that the A500 link road is locally known as the 'D' road. This part is correct, however it goes on to says that it is known as this because 'D' is Roman numeral for 500. Whilst the latter is correct, 500=D, the true meaning behind the legend is that if you look at a map of the road it is the shape of a 'D'. I know this as I was born and grew up in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.139.233 (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- It does talk of the loop issue as well. We could reorder it though and source it properly, which I will look at. Regan123 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I originally entered the information about the D road being called so because of 500. The reason I entered this is because through my life living in Stoke I have been told that this is the reasoning behind the name of the A500. I also recognised that this may not be the only reason, or even a reason at all, so I retained the shape of a D comment. If someone can find a proper source stating which one is the reason behind the name then I would have no problem in removing the Roman Numeral business. 86.7.80.172 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
