Talk:Altrincham/Archive 1

Millionaires

The town is home to more millionaires than any other area outside of London.

Really? I know Altrincham is well-known for its large number of well-off residents, could someone verify this claim? I'll have to remove it otherwise. --RFBailey 14:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so somebody else has removed it. Fair enough. --RFBailey 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Explosion of opera singers

I couldn't find any reference (in Google) to the people named either as opera singers or to do with Altrincham, so I've taken them out. I'm not sure what the "head of beef" business was about either, so that had to go as well. --RFBailey 08:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Status

Am I right in thinking Altrincham has never been a city? This may sound a silly question, but I just want to be sure. --62.255.236.179 10:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are certainly correct in thinking that.

Chris From Sale 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Inserted external link to National Register of Archives. This provides links for citation of various matters relating to the history of Altrincham BC.Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) A brief section of local government reorganisation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries needs to be drafted. I'll have a go if nobody else wants to. I suggest we insert a draft of all contributions in this section firstCosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

inserted reference to the north Altrincham and South Altrincham neighbourhood forums and the wards coveredCosmopolitancats 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Inserted reference to Trafford MBC's website's description of the Altrincham area Cosmopolitancats 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

If anyone is interested, I have several photos of Altrincham town centre and the Dunham Massey area I could put up here. Chris From Sale 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris from Sale - I think it would be great if you could put up some pics of the town centre.RRJ 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree - this page needs more pictures and more local information (see below). However, when I added my pictures, someone removed them and I've no idea why.

It would appear this page is being vandalised if things are being removed without an entry in the edit summary.

I think however your photograph may have been removed because it wasn't entered in the correct way - there are edit conventions which need to be observed. I've just searched for 'including photographs and found that all photographs need to be entered as follows

Title of photograph - - Description of photograph. (Go to the edit page to see the code required). Cosmopolitancats 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Present Day

I cam back to take a look at this article again. This section resembles some sort of developers brief or council planning report - I cannot believe that there are not more important things to talk about in relation to Altrincham than the cost and composition of a roof! (ref A new roof costing £180,000 has recently been installed over the platform at Altrincham Interchange which is currently used for the Metrolink service. The platform had been uncovered since glazed panels were removed three years ago due to safety concerns. The new roof is made of coated steel with clear panels to let in the light) I haven't looked to see who wrote it but do wonder why they deemed this sort of detail appropriate for inclusion. Especially as the cited reference did not present itself when I tried to get it

Why are the cited references local newspapers? These are not the most reliable sources for verifying facts.

That my friend is a very broad statement to make with no evidence to support it. Show me some poll or other evidence to show in the UK local media is less reliable than national media. In fact, any table to show the reliability of sources. Candy 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to:

• places of worship?
• schools and other places of education - and associated scholastic records if relevant?
• notable buildings and landmarks? ( for historical, architectural or economic reasons)
• the current main employers in the town?
• etc

Has anybody taken a look at the site of the local history society http://althistsoc.users.btopenworld.com/index.html (which belongs to the Cheshire Local History Association and the British Association for Local History) or thought about including a link to the local schools eg Altrincham Grammar School for Girls?

I suggest somebody checks the best practice for an article about a town (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements), identifies the gaps and comes up with a plan for improving this. Cosmopolitancats 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added all of the information about the new developments. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the new roof - it's still a new development which the people of Altrincham will regularly use and should therefore be there. The information used to be headed under 'New Developments' until somebody changed it to 'Present Day'. I will change it back to avoid further confusion. If you wish to create a new sub-heading about present day Altrincham in addition to this then feel free.

If the link doesn't work properly then it's because the website has removed the page - it worked originally.

The reason why the sources are local newspapers is because they are the only sources available for this information. If I didn't include these, I would have got endless people annoyingly writing 'citation needed' next to every bit of information.

The New Developments section is an important summary of the changing face of the town and I don't see any problem with it. RRJ 13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Industrial history

It is puzzling to see a paragraph about Altrincham never having been a textile town, then citing some engineering firms now gone, at the top of this page, without anyone below making any reference to it. Given that Broadheath used to be a centre for such industries, should this not be mentioned in the article? 86.132.234.4 14:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham was never a textile town as the word is normally understood, ie applying to somewhere such as Bolton. I can't actually recall anything there to justify the word. What it had, however, in its suburb of Broadheath was a number of medium-engineering machine build works, eg Linotype (hot-metal composition), Richards, Kearns (machine tools), Budenberg Gauge (pressure gauges and the like for steam boilers) - alas, all gone.(unsigned)

Confused

I took on board some of the comments about this page not being as good as some of the others from Manchester, so added the following sections: 1) famous people, which included Paul Young, who lived on the road around the corner from me before he died. 2) education with links to official websites - schools and ofsted reports 3) a picture of the clock tower in altrincham that i took 4) an entry on stamford park with a link to it's website

I only created these entries this afternoon and they've all been removed. I'm new to all this and don't understand why they were removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kieransampson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Talk page refactoring and quality assessment

This discussion page is very difficult to understand. In the interests of improving this article, I've reformatted the Discussion Page so that it now has a set of headlines which directly correspond to the guideline format for this article and assist new contributors to find the right section for their comment. No comments have been removed but I'ved moved comments to the relevant section of the guideline template for ease of finding things. Contributions may not now be in date order - but the history of contributions is clear if contributions have been signed. I'm not minimising the importance of the 'Naming Conventions' debate but it is now at the end of this discussion page as it is so long and was swamping the discussion page (does it need a separate page?). This hopefully means that people visiting the page for the first time can now contribute to the improvement all the other sections where much more work is needed. Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For guidance on conventions see also WikiProject UK subdivisions, Wiki Project UK Geography , and WikiProject UK geography: How to write about settlements I've amended titles within the article to follow largely the suggested guidelines.Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - as of 4th February 2007, we've been regraded to a Category B articles from a 'stub'. now we need to improve it to category A. This means Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. We need to address citation and other issues identified at the top of this page in the box. Cosmopolitancats 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the next step up from B-class on the standard scale is GA-class. This is achieved by improving the article to meet the GA criteria ('WIAGA') and then submitting it for review. — mholland 13:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - for guidance on citation refer to citation templates or use <ref> tags (have I got that right?)

Yes. — mholland 14:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested improvements: 4 Feb 2007

Introduction

Needs draftingCosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I've included a 'first draft'. Any comments? Cosmopolitancats 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Divisions and suburbs

We need to be careful here as it's easy to misrepresent. This can all be cited so use appropriate references. If nobody else wants to have a go, I'll do a draft and include here firstCosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I've included the draft in the article. the issue we need to be careful about is what actually forms part of Altrincham. Bowdon and Hale formed part of it when it was Altrincham BC - but that doesn't exist any more. I've tried to refelct this in the draft.Cosmopolitancats 11:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has been edited without any discussion or explanation in this section. Please explain otherwise I will reinstate the original text. Please try and remember to (1) reference only current arrangement unless you are writing about history - which should only go in the civic history section (2) to draw a distinction between Altrincham the area and Altrincham the town when referring to other neighbouring settlements eg Bowdon, Hale, Timperley etc. See Trafford MBC narrative re the Altrincham area Neighbouring settlements mentioned as being part of Altrincham have their own unique page within Wikipedia and this should be recognised on this page - and was until the references were deleted. These will be reinstated unless explanation is forthcoming as to reasons for their deletion Cosmopolitancats 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

History

Included a reference to the very detailed history of Altrincham on the Altrincham History Society website Cosmopolitancats 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary Representation

Can this stand or could it be better?Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Physical Geography/Geology

Nothing exists at present - needs to be draftedCosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Happy with the explanation of the source of the name? Do we have a citation? Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Early History

What more can we say here? Any good sources? What about the Local History Society and the National Register of Archives? Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent History

What more can we say here? Any good sources? What about the Local History Society and the National Register of Archives? How about a reference to the development of the town as a result of the railway and the impact of industrial expansion of Manchester? Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Transport History

Now includes info from section on transport which is historicalCosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I've also included an external link to an academic paper on the expansion of the Manchester railway network by J. A. Patmore Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No. 34 (Jun., 1964), pp. 159-173 Cosmopolitancats 11:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks

What do people think about about the inclusion of the old Station Clock in this section? Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the clock & a few other things at Images of England - there appear to be loads of others which could be included (certainly all grade I & II* buildings -IoE has over 100 entries for Altrincham. Just one other thought on the page (though I can't see which of your "sections" to put it in) ... it's best not to have sections with "To be drafted" or similar, don't put the title in until you have some content to go in it.— Rod ^talk 11:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

More info required. Guidance indicates this should include total population figures, population change, age structure, ethnicity, religion, etc etc.Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Economics

Guidance indicates this should include major industries and employers and, where available, statistics such as GDP and unemploymentCosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Present Day

Guidance states..........This section should be used to write about the settlement as it exists today, and should be distinguished from that of the History section. It should serve to sum up the area/settlement today, perhaps to highlight any contrasts with the past, including the settlement's current use/significance, types of housing, any notable controversies, redevelopment, major employers (if not already mentioned in the Economics section. Suitable sub-sections can include:

   * Communal facilities - Such as libraries, parks, sports venues etc.
   * Transport - Main centres and modes/means of transport of the settlement today (this may require it's own section).
   * Education - Indicating local schools, colleges, and universitys (if appropriate) etc.
   * Industry and/or /Retail/Commerce - This section may not be required if an economics section is in place.
   * Sport - Including sporting venues, local (notable) teams and relevancies.Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So here are the headings.........

Current redevlopment

This is an 'Altrincham special' heading I've reverted the edit which took out all reference to the Revised Unitary Development Plan. The previous edit could have left the text in even if it took out the link which didn't work as Unitary Development Plans are mandatory for all local authorities and is hardly open to dispute - even if the general public are not always aware of them. In future please notify original author that link is not working and give them time to fix it. Cosmopolitancats 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Communal facilities

Ive included refererence to the local hospital and library.Cosmopolitancats 11:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Transport

Already got a section but it contains history - so I've moved the historical bits to the history section.Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Education

It's got a section - does this need to be expanded and/or need any further citation? Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Industry

I've left this out as I've included an ecnomics section - but it could be inserted here.Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sport

Examples of sport already included - needs expanding?Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Local culture, arts and media

Include the Garrick Theatre and local newspapers? Does the sub-heading need changing?Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Local notables

section already included, Can it be improved?Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think everybody identified in this section meets the Wikipedia:notability (people) criteria. What do others think? Cosmopolitancats 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

added Helen Allingham, Alison Uttley and reference to the biographies of local people identified on the local history society website. I'm assuming the history society as sufficient citation as they seem to be doing a thorough job judging by the website.Cosmopolitancats 12:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Local Places of Interest

Should Dunham Massey be mentioned here? It's actually in Bowdon which has its own wikipedia page.Cosmopolitancats 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Local History Records

Created new section for local history in the sense of records. This includes a reference to the Altrincham History Society and their tour of histoical 'hot spots' in Altrincham http://althistsoc.users.btopenworld.com/tour.htmlCosmopolitancats 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Included reference to Lifetimes database for Altrincham- the local community archive on the internet. Is there anything more that could/should be highlighted from this database? Cosmopolitancats 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Do we need to identify where the records for other local places and people are kept eg crematoria / old newspapers etc? Cosmopolitancats 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

'UK' in introduction

Some people seem to have an obscession with removing the 'UK' from the location of Altrincham. The UK is the sovereign nation to which Altrincham belongs to. England is not a sovereign country. It is like putting an American town with it's state but not actually saying that it's in America. RRJ 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Using England and not UK is currently the consensus-approved way of locating UK places in article intros, per this discussion from WP:UKGEO. I agree it has its flaws, but I'd recommend not edit warring over it. UK is usually added in sprees by anons, and removed similarly; it's a bit lame, I think. — mholland 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page layout

Sorry, Cosmopolitancats, my last few edits have sort of clumsily stomped through your arrangement of this talk page. Feel free to refactor me, but wouldn't it be simpler just to archive all the old discussions? That way, the page is smaller, and therefore easier to navigate, and only contains live issues. Apologies again. — mholland 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem - the important thing is that we should try and do all references to additions and reverts of any significance within the appropriate sections of the talk page. I'm far more concerned by people who edit without any explanation whatsoever!

I'm rather afraid that if we archived all the old discussions they would start up again. This page has made some quite significant progress recently and it would nice if that could continue without people becoming distracted. In any case I don't know how to archive the section on the naming conventions - which is the only bit which needs to be archived. Any suggestions/tips? Cosmopolitancats 00:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done: I have archived the naming section. For future reference, WP:ARCHIVE. — mholland 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)