Talk:Rotherham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Re Justin Wilson - Although most of the sources state that he was born in Sheffield, which may well be correct, his home village, Woodall, is actually in the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham. (see Harthill, South Yorkshire)Jud 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Screen[edit]

The centre has some high street names, and a large BBC Screen

What's a BBC Screen? Flapdragon 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BBC Big Screens --160.5.249.243 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Floods[edit]

In this text "as well as a power station serving the city of Sheffield" are you referring to Brinsworth Switching Station? If so, it is not a power station, but (as the name suggests) a switching station for routing power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.116.47 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this media created error of calling it a power station. Article also omits the fact that the pumps were brought in from all over the country by other fire brigades. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture[edit]

As this is not a travel or tourist guide and it is an article on Rotherham is there any reason why most of the culture section is about venues in Sheffield. And has the town not had any culture of its own in the past! MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The college was dissolved in 1547 in the reign of Edward VI, its assets stripped for the crown. Much of the college building remains intact but hidden from view in the town centre." has anyone ever seen the building? I always thought there was just part of one wall encased in the old woolworths buildings wall. If there is lots of it left why are there no photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.135.224 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotherham Renaissance[edit]

This section reads like a developers brochure and constantly repeats itself. The encyclopedic content is contained in one paragraph.--86.156.76.50 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Oliver[edit]

"Poor eating is common in Rotherham with Jamie Oliver attempting to save the town from an obesity epidemic largely associated with the town's love of fast food, fuelled by fast food brands like McDonalds and KFC."

The above statement is unjustified and offensive and should be removed. The Jamie Oliver program is mentioned further down under Popular Culture so doesn't need keeping and altering. Oatzy (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowhall[edit]

I don't think this article needs a whole paragraph about Meadowhall and all its (allegedly) wonderful facilities because a) like it or not, Meadowhall is in Sheffield not Rotherham, and b) anyone wanting to know more about all its fabulous shopping opportunities etc. can click on the link to the Meadowhall article. Draggleduck (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes should be removed, the only mention of Meadowhall should be related to the shift in shopping patterns away from the town centre to out-of-town stores. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the whole Economy section needs drastic revision. Typos, irrelevancies, lack of sources.Asnac (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the borough - two Guards of soldiers[edit]

What are 'two Guards of soldiers' mentioned in the 'Freedom of the borough' paragraph? Does it refer to units such as a company or platoon?

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info was added by an IP in this edit. The best person to help would be Richard Harvey who is knowledgeable on the Yorkshire Regiment, he appears to be back editing yesterday after a break. Keith D (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this respect' two Guards of soldiers' is correct. Where a military unit, in this case the 3rd battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment, parades their Regimental Colours they will be escorted / protected by a small 'Guard' of soldiers. The Yorkshire Regiment is unique, being the only unit in the British army to also have a set of 'Honorary Colours'. These are only paraded by the 3rd battalion of the regiment, formerly the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, whose 2nd battalion (76th Regiment of Foot) were awarded them, in 1808, for their actions during the Battle of Ally Ghur and Delhi in 1803. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Is there any suitable wikilink that would help clarify this? I was also thinking the Freedon of the Borough needed some explanation, for those not familiar with it, possibly a link to Freedom of the City may help. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Freedom of the City link would be perfect Keith. However there I am unaware of any specific article relating to Guards for Regimental Colours. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern History - Floods of 2007[edit]

Centenary Washlands

I want to edit the sense of

Sheffield Wildlife Trust is to managing the site as a local nature reserve

a reference to Centenary Washlands. The only other web content mentioning Centenary Washlands looks like it is sourced from Wikipedia. Does anyone know if this is meant to be a reference to Centenary Riverside, managed by the Wildlife Trust for Sheffield and Rotherham, confusingly also called Sheffield Wildlife Trust? Both these names appear at http://www.wildsheffield.com/Sheffield/home.aspx and

http://www.wildsheffield.com/Sheffield/FolderMenu/content22.aspx?id=304 respectively. In the absence of any clarification I intend to delete parts of this paragraph in a week or so.

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedting[edit]

I did a bit of copyediting and removed loads of stuff about Meadowhall and Sheffield. The Economy and Regeneration section is unwieldy and unreferenced. I think it needs someone who knows what they are talking about, not me, to rewrite it.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotherham sex grooming case[edit]

The following paragraph was deleted by an anonymous user:

As of August 2014, Rotherham is the centre of a major ongoing scandal concerning mass child molestation of "at least" 1,400 children [1][2]. The associated inquiry states that the known perpetrators are British men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage, and some also of Afghan and Roma Slovak origin [3].
  1. ^ Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 children – Guardian
  2. ^ Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds – BBC
  3. ^ Para.11.2 of the the inquiry report: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community".

The anonymous user's rationale was «not really necessary to have its own section in the history of the town.»

I'm undoing the removal as I assume the molestation of "at least" 1,400 children has encyclopedic value. Bjornte (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar cases such as Derby sex gang, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Telford sex gang, Oxford sex gang are not mentioned in the respective articles for those towns. Obviously the scale is different here as the abuse occurred over a longer timeline and appears to concern more than one gang, but I still don't think it's a major part of the history of a relatively large town of over 250,000 people. There is undoubtedly encyclopedic value in the abuse, inquiry and cover-up allegations but I don't think it's particularly relevant to include in the history of the town. 82.47.206.191 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already the local Rotherham political fallout seem to justify inclusion in this article. I'm not sure if WP:RECENT applies too much, as this is already a historical issue - we're not close in time to the crimes. Also, the current view count of over 12K per day (compared to 2 days ago of 200) indicates readers looking for this content. [1]. Widefox; talk 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it doesn`t seem possible to include scandals like this in the article, Rotherham will remain a place that keeps their skeleton in the closet - which is the best way to cover up things and let them go on unhindered. It is a shame for wikipedea to have such hypocritical whitewashed cant in its articles. Gabel1960 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No-one here in Finland, hardly wouldn't know anything about town of Rotherham, were there not this shameful case. Unfortunately the town is and must stay as a lasting reminder of what kind of atrocities an West-European goverment can do against it's own people. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this (https://www.city-journal.org/html/crudeness-and-truth-15668.html) partisan source, 'at least 1,400 non-Muslim girls, some as young as 11, were brutally raped by Muslim immigrants over a period of years in the 2000s." If this is correct, then the religious aspect should be mentioned. Kdammers (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article would be incorrect then, as not only were they British born, but also "british asian girls suffered abuse that mirrored those of others" which is explained in the Jay report. Therefore no, it should not be added. Americatcp (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with the previous statement in the text that most were white girls. Some were not, but most were. The source suggested by Kdammers is a wildly inappropriate, unreliable and non-neutral blog, which should certainly not be used as a reference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rotherham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Hello everyone, does anyone know what the population of Rotherham is. This article has never had a very good demography section, and only includes statistics for the surrounding borough, so the info from the section is effectively useless. Should the population of Rotherham be a combination of electoral wards (parliamentary constituency) or an urban subdivision. Roscomoner (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rotherham/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires photographs
  2. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  3. Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
  4. Notable persons section needs to be switched to prose rather than bulleted list
  5. Investigate red-links to see if articles exist under other capitalisation/spelling
  6. Requires copy edit for WP:MOS
Keith D (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rotherham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Large in lead[edit]

Per WP:Subjective, large is not really recommended to add to lead summaries of towns or villages because it is not an established term other then to describe an area size or maybe a population but no council or government adopts the term "large" in their towns or districts. @Crouch, Swale:, @Eopsid: and @KeithD:. Any thoughts on using this term as I believe it is under subjective and an anon keeps making an issue of it being removed despite me explaining in detail why? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd agree Rotherham is a large town indeed its subjective so probably not appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better without. Subjective and unclear whether large refers to population, area or anything else, so could be marked with one of several tags such as "Compared to?" or "clarify". Also it is possible to misread it as referring to the minster, rather than the town, as being large. EdwardUK (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to note that the first example in the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead begins with "Chew Stoke is a small village and civil parish ...". PamD 18:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's an example given but might it be worth questioning the example? Is Chew Stoke widely regarded as being small? The village has a population of 830 while the parish has 1039. Do sources largely consider it small? On Google if I search for "Chew Stoke" "small village" a few sources say this but most results are Wikipedia and mirrors though nothing appears to come up if I try "large village". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that Chew Stoke got through an FA review and was promoted with small present. Personally I think that we can do without it, as said above we do not know what we are referring to, area, population etc., and it is subjective as at what point does it become large? Need to modify the guidance and come up with an example the does not include it. (As an aside, the ping did not work as there is a space missing.) Keith D (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my opinion matters that much, just stumbled into the Rotherham article from going through Randoms, but I'm in agreement -- using large to describe the city in the lead is too subjective by its lonesome. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "large" within the context of a town[edit]

The definition of "large" within the context of a town is not subjective given that it is defined via Dictionary.com (which is in effect the web equivalent of Wikipedia, albeit for words alone).

The definition is:

"large town: population between 60,000 and 174,999"

Applying such a descriptor to the town of Rotherham is therefore appropriate and relevant. It's removal by an over zealous Wikipedia moderator, with some sort of axe to grind, is nothing short of churlish. Not to mention quite bizarre! What is his/her issue? 81.155.194.208 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about reading the section above as to why? And don't call me terms like overzealous or Churlish. Per WP:Respect and thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are overzealous. That's plain to see. You exhibit classic signs of Napoleon Syndrome. 81.155.194.208 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing you as the other anon who made a song and dance about large being removed so yeah. If anything opposites attract in your case. You can't accept large is subjective and try to use a dictionary as a reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't use dictionary as a reliable source other then for spelling but hey I'm more experienced with editing here. I can see your trying to be a Google doctor 💊. Also your using my pronouns wrong I identify as a chihuahua so I'm a they not a he or she. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's "you're" not "your" you thick pudding. An editor yet doesn't understand basic grammar. 🙄 81.155.194.208 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thick pudding? That's cute @81.155.194.208. Try returning to the discussion when you learn to grow up and not make immature remarks. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the Guide to Yorkshire describes Rotherham as a large town. Perhaps this Dragon man/woman could explain his/her aversion to Rotherham and why an accurate description of the town offends him/her so...
https://dotguide.co.uk/yorkshire/content.pl?action=rotherham 81.155.194.208 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotherham&oldid=1204205025"