Talk:Stretford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pictures

There are 3 pictures in this article, all of which are ridiculous.

1. A bleak-as-hell picture of the ugliest building in the town. If that isn't enough, it seems to have a COWBOY ON A HORSE.....the hell?
2. Under "activities to do", it shows a picture of a bench. I don't know about you, but sitting on a bench is hardly an 'activity', especially when it's in the middle of a carpark.
3. Graffiti. I suppose it's right to show some of the bad aspects of the town, but one that says "stoping" portrays the youth to be illiterate morons.

Just a few thoughts. Powelldinho 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Powelldinho

3. Graffiti - I'm not sure that the youth who wrote 'stoping' was being serious. I think he/she was poking fun at the council's anti vandal panels. It really depends on whether an encyclopedic article is meant to promote or to show it how it is. The panels are there and they have been written on. Whether it is ridiculous to show them is open to discussion. 2. It's not a bench it's a council provided youth shelter and it's in the centre of Stretford. You may well be right to say it's ridiculous but once again someone obviously thinks it's not, or it wouldn't have been installed. If there anything else in the town centre that has been provided for the young perhaps it should replace this photograph. 1. Stretford House - I like Stretford House and as it's visible for miles, probably it's Stretford's most recognisable building. Horse riding is quite common on the land between Stretford House and the motorway around Kickety Brook. It seems an appropriate photograph to illustrate Stretford. - So I probably agree on two out of three of your points but Stretford House is not ugly. Stretfordian

---

I've just done a large scale rewrite of this page to order the information better and bring it into line with other Greater Manchester town articles. The article still needs a lot of work, however.

I'm not an expert on the area, and further help would be extremely welcome in writing the geography (currently very basic), history (completely non-existant) and redevelopment sections; if you have any further information on these, please include it! Aquilina 13:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Noone went to St. Bede's College, not Stretford Grammar - check out the info you have linked his name to!

Stretford Grammar School

"The proportion of pupils leaving Stretford Grammar School with five or more GCSEs at grades A-C is 98.3%, compared to an average of 66.7% for all secondary schools in Trafford and a national UK average of 61.3%"

What year were these statistics for? Epbr123 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• 2007. Trafford update their figures every April so far as I'm aware. Do you have some reason to doubt the figures? I'm looking at the Longford ward profile now, and it quotes "TMBC Education Services/House of Commons" ---- Eric 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• • GCSE exams are taken in around June so the figures will be for 2006. It would be helpful to include which year the figure refer to. Epbr123 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• No doubt you're right. But so far as I'm aware they're the most up to date figures available. ---- Eric 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• • You added a bit after I'd written my reply - It would be helpful to include which year the figure refer to. While I don't disagree with that as a general point I think in this specific case it's nit picking. ---- Eric 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • "The proportion of pupils leaving Stretford Grammar School with five or more GCSEs at grades A-C is 98.3%"

This sounds as though the figure is always 98.3%, which is factually inaccurate and nonsense. I do strongly suggest adding the year. Epbr123 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I agree. I'll make the change you've suggested. ---- Eric 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements

"Until the industrial revolution of the 19th century, Stretford was an agricultural village."

Please provide some evidence that on the first day of the industrial revolution, whenever that was, Stretford was no longer an agricultural area. The article is full of dubious statements like this. Please fix before the GA review. Epbr123 09:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Whislt there are perhaps insufficient references, for example the transport section lacks any references, some references are implicit. For instance, at town that produces "six hundred animals a week ... for Manchester" cannot be disputed to be an agricultral town (complete with reference). Also the presence of looms in the town highlights the progression of industry. As such does the statement "until the industrial revolution of the 19th century, Stretford was an agricultural village" actually need a source?

Also the start of the industrial revolution cannot be defined as a single date. Nev1 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually implying that the sentence needs rephrasing rather than a source. Epbr123 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps that's what you ought to have said, instead of repeatedly vandalising the lead by insisting on a source. ---- Eric 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence as it stands is inaccurate and requires a citation. Epbr123 13:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So fix it if it's bothering you. I'm done with your selfish vandalism, got better things to spend my time on. ---- Eric 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That response is exactly how I've felt about you the past couple of days. Epbr123 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why this article has been nominated for GA review

This article was nominated for GA review by Epbr123 on the 1st July 2007, shortly after him making this comment to me.

"I have no interest in what you have to say. I have contributed to five featured articles and four good articles. Your contributions have resulted in a poorly sourced and badly structured Stretford article. I have the utmost respect for most FA reviewers, but you are not one of them. Try picking fights with someone of your own level of experience."

If this article is indeed "poorly sourced" and "badly structured", then why waste GA reviewer's time by nominating it? ---- Eric 00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• To get you motivated to improve it, and to get you used to review processes. Epbr123 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not my article to be improved by me alone. And nor is it the only article that I've made what I believe to be significant contributions to. I'm personally quite pleased with both the Chat Moss and Sale Water Park articles for instance, but as I thought I'd made abundantly clear, I have absolutely no interest in the review processes, only in the improvement of the articles. All I want to see are good, consistent, guidelines, leading to good, consistent articles. And then the review process ought not to be the fight that it currently appears to be. ---- Eric 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• But the the review processes are based on the guidelines. They therefore promote consistency and provide a measure of which articles are good. The reviews are also useful in highlighting weaknesses in the guidelines, eventually leading to their improval. Epbr123 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If that were true than we wouldn't be discussing whether Sale's utility providers were relevant in an article about a pretty small part of Greater Manchester or not. Or the unilateral shift in presenting kilometres before miles in the expression of distances by road. BTW, there's no such word as "improval" ;) ---- Eric 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Those examples will lead to improvements in the guidelines. "we wouldn't be discussing whether Sale's utility providers were relevant" - if the reviewer continues to request this, it will eventually lead to a change in the UkGeography guidelines saying that utility providers are irrelevant. "the unilateral shift in presenting kilometres before miles" - that reviewer's requests will someday lead to a proper debate about this. Epbr123 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Can someone please explain to me why Religion needs a section of its own? Epbr123 13:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's a stub, to be expanded as the opportunity arises. ---- Eric 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh ok, you're waiting for the opportunity. Epbr123 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that I'll be expanding that stub? Feel free to expand it yourself. I don't own this article, or any other article. ---- Eric 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, but I thought that's what you meant by your "to be expanded as the opportunity arises" comment. If your not going to expand it, may I get rid of it. Epbr123 15:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I didn't say that I was or wasn't going to expand it. I was merely suggesting that you or someone else might like to do the job instead. But as that seems unlikely to happen, I will indeed expand this section asap, to prevent its hasty deletion. ---- Eric 18:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Good. Epbr123 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now expanded this section, hopefully to your satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion, but the comparison table now has room for some other religions. Epbr123 07:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It does, but as the article says, there are no others more than 1%. Sikhs would be next, but even they represent only 0.2% of the population. Do you think percentages that low would be worth adding? I don't know, I'm just posing the question. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm answering my own question. I think your suggestion is a good one Epbr123: the text summarises the table, so the table can contain data for other major religions, like Sikhism, even if they're not at more than 1% of the population. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you double-check the christian percentage. It seems rather low. Epbr123 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, so I double checked all the figures, and it appears that the Christian percentage is correct. It may be to do with the number of people not reporting their religion, so I'll check that, and triple check my figures. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone working together

Thanks to everyone working together I think this article is now worthy of a GA review. Thanks in particular to Epbr123, and to Nev1. It would be great if we managed to get another Greater Manchester article up to GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stretford Town Hall

I've removed this unreferenced material from the Stretford Town Hall subsection:

"The design of the building is Georgian with Adam characteristics. It was originally U shaped and built of soft toned wire cut Ruabon Bricks with Darley Dale stone dressings. The roof is covered with grey-green slates. The central tower is 108 feet (32.9 m) high and there are low octagonal towers at the main corners. Internally the building was furnished by bespoke architect designed pieces. The main staircase is embellished with, mosaic floors, stained glass windows and bronze statues. The woodwork is of oak and Borneo white mahogany."

If anyone can find a supporting reference, then please feel free to restore it. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

Hello, everyone. I think this article is very close to GA status with its reasonable coverage of the town, quality of prose, and neutrality. While the number of references is nice, some sections need far more references. The lead in particular needs the citations used later on. Also, the Landmarks and Attractions section is extremely sparse with references. My next objection has to do with the coverage in the history section. Surely there should be something about Stretford's industrial side and role as labor supply for Trafford Park? There ought to be some link, some summarization of Stretford's relation to the Park. Other than thewse issues, the article looks great!--Meowist 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are fair comments, and I agree with all of them. Getting to work on it right away. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we've addressed the issue of the link between Stretford and Trafford Park now.--Malleus Fatuarum 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some references added to the Landmarks and attractions section. Do you think there's still anything needing to be done to the lead in terms of citations? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree you've addressed the Trafford Park issue. The Landmarks and Attractions section is still missing citations for some of its facts, I have marked them with the "citation needed" tag. I have also marked some facts needing citation in the lead. Now, I am a bit confused about citing in the lead: since the facts in the lead admittedly occur cited in later parts of the article it doesn't make much sense to cite them in the lead as well, but some GA articles do cite in the lead and some don't. I don't know if there is a policy or recommendation, but just to be safe, please cite the marked facts in the lead as well. That's it and *bing* GA! --Meowist 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether to citations in the lead is a matter of personal preference. There are no guidelines on this as no consensus has been reached over it. Some believe the lead doesn't need citations as they are provided later in the article; others believe that citations in the lead make it easier for readers to verify the accuracy of statements in the lead, as they don't have to search elsewhere for the citation. Epbr123 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All the "citation needed" tags have been dealt with now I think, either by adding references or by removing the unsourced claim. As to citations in the lead, I'm not personally fond of them. They seem to me to clutter up the introductory prose, and anything said in the lead ought to be referenced in the appropriate place anyway. To justify the agricultural employment figure alone would need 4 citations, and another 4 for the population figures. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems there is no policy or recommendation about citing in the lead. I'm pleased with the citations repair and am passing the article. Suggestions for improving the article: more pictures and comprehensiveness in some sections. --Meowist 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian Curtis, of Joy Division

So far as I can see, the only connection that Ian Curtis has with Stretford is that he was born in the Memorial Hospital, Old Trafford. His family seems to have lived in Macclesfield. I don't believe that just being born in a local hospital is a strong enough connection with an area, so in lieu of further information I've removed Ian Curtis from the Notable people section. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Grade II listed buildings

According to the latest figures from Trafford, the 15 Grade II LBs in Streford are:

• Stretford Civic Theatre (already mentioned)
• Longford Cinema (mentioned)
• Trafford Town Hall (mentioned)
• The Great Stone (mentioned)
• The cenotaph (mentioned)
• St Ann’s Church (mentioned)
• St Matthew’s Church (mentioned)
• A cross base outside St Matthew’s Church
• Union Church on Edge Lane
• The entrance to White City
• The entrance to Gorse Hill Park
• Brindley’s Wier near Cornbrook
• An “Essence factory” on Chester Road
• Traford Road Bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal
• And finally, Barfoot Aqueduct (for the Bridgewater Canal over the River Mersey).

About half are already in the article, but some others may be worth including. Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The most notable seem to have been mentioned. Most of the unmentioned ones seem to be "parts" of buildings. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the entrance to White City was probably worth a mention, so I've added that to the History section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Comer

Television actor John Comer, best known for his role as cafe owner Sid in the BBC Sitcom Last of the Summer Wine, was born at 104 King Street on 1 March 1924.

I've removed John Comer from the Notable people section because after extensive searching I can find no supporting evidence. Anyone who can, please feel free to put the material back, with an appropriate citation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points

This is all I picked up on needing change:

• "…the Trafford family thus acquiring the whole of Stretford and Trafford, after which the two manors descended together" – I thought the Earls of Stamford owned south Trafford, but that may be my misunderstanding.

Does it mean north Trafford instead of Trafford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nev1 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the source again I think it must mean what we would call North Trafford today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t think the term "Hardrock/village rock" (near the end of the history section) is clear. A wiki-link would sort it out, but is it like Hard Rock Cafe or hard rock?

I don't know to be honest, someone else put that bit in. I'll try and find out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source is no clearer. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've sorted that out now. Hardrock was the name of the theatre, and Village was the name of the disco that was also held there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Anciently" is certainly a word, but doesn’t quite scan.

I'll rewrite that bit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The area is comparatively flat" – compared to what? (Trafford or Manchester) Perhaps just "generally flat"?

Good point. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Economy section – Trafford Park is mentioned previously but not here where it’s most relevant.

Another good point. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit about Trafford Park to the Economy section. Do you think that's enough? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. I added an image of Trafford Park and moved the other image further down the section; feel free to revert it if you don't think it works. Nev1 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly minor things I know, but I think the last one is more important and would bulk up the economy section. Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've a couple of pointers/queries too (most of which I'd be happy to help with):

• A few sections, particularly the Geography section, have a few one sentence paragraphs. Is there any source material we could use to expand the geography section specficially? Perhaps something about major open spaces, the types of building stock, heavy infrastructure? Perhaps also mentions of the town's commercial centre could be made clearer in this section (I wasn't sure it had one until reaching Economy).

• Are there any Grade I (or even II) listed buildings in Stretford?

No Grade I of Grade II* listed buildings (these seem to be mostly in south Trafford). There are probably lots of Grade II, however not all of them are worth a mention. The list of LBs in Trafford is here (PDF). Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have any evidence of what the social class in Stretford could be described as?

I'll take care of this, Visionofbritain.org.uk is a useful site. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do we think Porkhampton could be a redirect page to here? Do we know how prevailent/common this name was?

• Alot of good images (which I always admire in an article), but is there anything suitable for the History and/or Economy we could use? Perhaps an image of Stretford's commercial centre?

There are some images of Trafford Park that could be used if/when something on Trafford Park was worked into the economy section. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the one sentence paragraphs, these are just some minor challenges really, if that. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots if useful points there too. I'll see what I can do. Any assistance gratefully received. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though it's shaping up already! It would be nice to go for FAC and not have any outstanding issues! Certainly between the three of us here (at very least) we should be able to acheieve this!... Anyway....

I was worried about a statement I read: "There were certainly plagues in Manchester from the 14th century onwards, but although the stone may then have been used as a plague stone, the depth of the holes is probably too great for that to have been its original purpose."

It's not sourced and a little wordy/lengthy. Is this original conjecture? If there were plagues in Manchester, does that really mean there were some in Stretford? Perhaps a copyedit here, but I don't have the source material to hand to help clarify what is verifiable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't immediately remember where that came from, it may have come from the onsite information board in Gorse Hill Park, I'll check. It certainly wasn't an idea of mine, I got it from somewhere. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Images of England source I added earlier includes the "tradition" that it was used as a plague stone after it was a cross base, but does not mention plague in Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That bit may have been an elaboration on my part. If I can't find a reference for it pdq then I'll take it out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All of that information about 14th century plagues and the depth of the holes came from the onsite notice board, which luckily I took a picture of. It claims to be reporting on work carried out by the Greater Manchester Archaelogical Research Unit. Any suggestions on how best to reference it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm worried it may not stand upto FAC. I'm sure there would be a published source with this infomation somewhere, right? This is the site for the GMARU though, but I can't find any reference to this on their publications page. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a plague reference for Manchester at British History Online so I'm going to add that now. Hopefully that'll do? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Certainly hits the spot for me! Some more points though (sorry)...

Under economy we have "The Trafford Centre is about 10 minutes away". I understand what's being said here, but I'd be reluctant to use time as an encyclopedic unit of distance. That paragraph (which is the second one), is also unsourced.

Fair point, I'll change that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was also wondering if there was anything that accounts for the rise of Catholicism in Stretford. It may be anecdotal on my part, but I always understood that this was linked with Irish migrants who came to aid with the construction of the major canals following The Great Famine, and settled in the area? I may be wrong though. I think it would give more context if we found something for this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting you mention that, because the Catholic issue was in the back of my mind as well. Especially as the Trafford family were very prominent Roman Catholics even before the navvies arrived. I'm sure that there must be a bit more to be said about that. I'll see what I can dig up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look too. I'm sure that's what aided the establishment of Salford Cathedral and the RC diocese too. I'll have a look in that direction for clues.... It'd be an interesting project (albiet total original research) to plot the various churches according to denomination on a GM map and look for patterns! You mention something doubley interesting though; did the Trafford's Catholicism have an impact on Stretford (other than the Pugin church)? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across any evidence that it did other than, as you say, the church. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this - I intend to check some of my trusty pan-Greater Manchester sources I have at home for this, as well as other bites of info. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this is ready to go to FAC yet? I think we've addressed most of the stuff we thought of. Nev1 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Notable people section could do with a little copyeditting and strengthening of source material on a closer inspection. The Geography section is still a little under-developed too. I'll see what I can do. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we must be pretty close to an FA nomination. Personally I feel that this is now probably the best encyclopedic reference to Stretford to be found anywhere, and I think we should go for it now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable people has been a problem right from the start. People add in names but rarely provide sources. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the entries seem perfectly notable and the connection to Stretford seems (at very least) plausible. John Comer is the one I'm worrying about (Google doesn't seem to help). The Topographical Dictionary of England isn't very helpful for the Geography section. Nor do my books on Greater Manchester make any claims that aren't already in the article (a good sign!). I was wondering though at this stage, does The Stretford Wives film deserve a mention at all? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it probably does deserve a mention. I also think I've probably confused it with The Stepford Wives when I've come across mention of it before. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect that! It's excellent! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents

"What's the corresponding recommendation for the Notable residents section, which looks like a dog's dinner at present having being "delisted"?"

Its good to know you don't actually mean these things you say. Keep up the good work. You're my star pupil. Epbr123 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I meant every word of it. There's a good deal more to converting a list to prose than simply removing the bullets. And please don't try to patronise me; it makes you look rather childish. ---- Eric 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How sweet! I now know that's your way of showing admiration. Epbr123 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's your next lesson. "He built up the textile business that he set up with his father and two brothers to become the largest textile manufacturer in England by 1873." - unless the business was located in Stretford, this should be removed as it makes the article unfocused. Epbr123 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment is not about the business per se, but about John Ryland's achievement in building the business; what he is notable for in other words. ---- Eric 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Its too detailed. The info can be found from his article. Epbr123 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The Sale article includes this statement in the Notable residents section: "James Joule, the physicist who gave his name to the SI unit of energy ...". That information can equally be found in the article about James Joule. I see no difference. ---- Eric 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It only had one sentence devoted to describing his notability not two. Its alright, you can change it later when I'm not looking. "Fittingly for an area so close to the heart of the 19th century industrial revolution" - where exactly is the heart of the 19th century industrial revolution and is there a reference for this? Epbr123 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Has it not become apparent to yet how childish you're making yourself look? ---- Eric 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Does it have a reference? Epbr123 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't own this article, or any other article. If you believe that you can improve that sentence, either by providing a reference or by rewriting it, then please feel free to do so. ---- Eric 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for offer, but I'm busy with some FACs at the moment. Epbr123 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

More things for someone to fix:

• "songwriter of Jamiroquai" - should it be "songwriter for Jamiroquai"? I'm not sure.
• Words don't need to be linked twice in the same section.
• "21st August 1931" - full dates should be linked.
• "early 1980’s" - the apostrophe isn't needed.
• There are too many short paragraphs.
• There is some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then may I suggest that you turn your attention to your FACs. This "poorly sourced" and "badly structured" article is clearly beyond even your help. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, its OK. I can spare a few minutes. Epbr123 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, once again, please feel free to correct the points that you have just drawn attention to. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I like to teach others to do these kind of things, rather than do it myself. Epbr123 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to teach, then you might also like to recall something that GBS once said. "I'm not a teacher: only a fellow-traveller of whom you asked the way. I pointed ahead - ahead of myself as well as you." You're not conducting yourself like a teacher, you're conducting yourself like some kind of unofficial security guard. And it's really about time that you stopped and thought about that. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And just to circumvent your next, almost inevitable comment, I actually am a professional lecturer. So I do know a bit about teaching. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• "about one mile from Stretford town centre" - this needs a km conversion. Epbr123 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• B&Q needs linking.
• "The growth of Stretford, like other towns in the area, was fuelled by the transport revolutions of the 18th and especially the 19th century; the Bridgewater Canal reached Stretford in 1761" - do the census figures show an increase in population growth after 1761? Epbr123 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A Stretford constituency may well have existed since the 19th century. However the boundaries of 'the' stretford constituency have changed a number of times under the normal review process. I would suggest that it's therefore misleading to suggest that 'the' Stretford constituency had existed until 1997; it suggests that this was a huge departure. Personally I would remove references to how long the constituency had existed since to my knowledge it was never a contentious issue that the constituency took the name Stretford and Urmston in 1997 (mike from stretford)

It's not a case that a Stretford constituency "may well have existed since the 19th century", it most certainly did. But if you have some information to contribute to the changing of constituency boundaries between 1885 and 1997, then why not add it to the Stretford (UK Parliament constituency) article? Nothing contentious is implied by the reference to the name change, it's simply a reporting of the facts. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Have done a version in text again: I will get back to the better refs (e.g. Reuben Spencer) another time.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC) E. A. Rylands does merit inclusion: both her husband and herself were great benefactors of the town. 'Emmeline Pankhurst and L. S. Lowry are said to be 'more famous persons': which ones are 'less famous' ? The business empire of Rylands & Co. under John Rylands's control extended all over South Lancs. w outposts in London and elsewhere. Much of his wealth was invested in improvements to the town where he settled in 1855 --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It hardly seems remarkable, or worthy of particular comment, that Mrs Rylands lived with her husband in Stretford. The precise wording to which you refer is "Perhaps two of Stretford's more famous residents ...", not "more famous persons". Who are less famous residents? Well, Mrs Rylands for a start. Please bear in mind that this is a featured article when making any future alterations, such as converting Notable people to a bulletted list. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have sorted out the erroneous listing when requested by Nev1 : the achievements of John Rylands and Enriqueta Augustina Rylands in Stretford have been well documented in various publications. I hope to return to the problem eventually once I have collated useful references.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The achievements of John Rylands and Enriqueta Augustina Rylands have indeed been well-documented, but don't forget that both have their own articles, which is where the detailed accounts ought to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'll update the images when the sun comes out, but meanwhile...what on earth is the gentleman on the left doing in this picture?!?! Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the sun didn't come out, but I was passing today and took some snaps anyway. They're nothing special but they're here if anyone would like to use them.

I need a much better lens to get a decent shot of Stretford Public Hall though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:LCCC_Entrance.jpg is terrible. I was up past Saddleworth Moor today and it was outstanding - however, even I don't think my camera phone is upto the quality we need, the place still spooks me out enough not to get out the car. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooo bloody hell that is horrid. I'll make it better in a few days. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Saddleworth Moor article is pretty rubbish too: "Although the odd tourist source such as one cited here - and even certain other Wikipedia articles - state that the M62, Britain's highest motorway, crosses the Pennines at Saddleworth Moor, this is in fact not the case." --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Saddleworth Moor is the opposite side of Manchester to me so its unlikely I'll be able to get good images, but I do know where some of the murders happened as I've filmed there, so I can always keep the camera in the car if I'm heading over the moors at some point. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can try take some snaps sometime - it's about a 15 minute drive for me. But I have a Nokia N95 for my photo- and cinematography. Not great. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the same phone. Its quite good, if you understand how to get the best from it. Keep the lens clean, set the camera in landscape mode, and hold the phone with both hands, nice and steady. You'll get some good shots. The panorama I did for the Scout Moor Windfarm article was on a Nokia N73! Often its the fettling once you've taken the pic that makes the difference. For instance, this shot of the Essoldo I took today took a good 20 minutes of fidgeting before I was happy with it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I did get it for its camera functionality. To be fair, yes it's a very good camera for a mobile - not sure it stands up to most (true) digital cameras. The autofocus can produce the occational good shot - infact I need to upload a photo of Oldham Parish Church I have to commons.... might do it now to show it as an example! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres a tip for you - if you want to video things close up, give the camera a sharp slap. It knocks the lens into the near-focus position. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try that. here's a short of Oldham Church I snapped last month, but I think the best shot I got from the camera is still this. Be gentle.... --Jza84 |  Talk  22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They look pretty good to me, get your arse out there on Saddleworth Moor Jza84. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The parish church...hmmm. The Trig Point is very good though. Do you have photoshop or GIMP? You could pretty it up a little. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dodie Smith

The removal of the piece about Dodie Smith has been done under the statement that the source only cites a suburb of Greater Manchester....however you may have failed to notice that there were TWO supporting sources attached to that piece and if you had bothered to examine the second source which is a reference to an exact page of the 1901 census, then you would see that it confirms that the said suburb of Manchester where the family were in residence is Chester Road, Stretford. User:greg78uk (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How does a 1901 census support this statement? "Author Dodie Smith spent her early childhood living with her maternal grandparents at 586 Chester Road, from circa 1896 to 1910." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I might also point out that "Greater Manchester" didn't exist until 1974, so the statement is impossible. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement was supported by two sources, they both work work together. The first source links to a website which tells us that she spent her childhood (1896-1910) in a suburb of Greater Manchester, which you correctly pointed out doesnt tell us which suburb. However if you check the reference to the 1901 census page, there you will see Dodie Smith, her mother and her mothers parents living at 586 Chester Road, Stretford. Therefore the statement on the first source telling us that they lived in a suburb of Greater Manchester is then supported by second source (ie the 1901 Census) in which we can see that the suburb to which the first source refers is in fact Stretford and as the year 1901 does fall between the years 1896 and 1910. the two sources back up the fact that Dodie Smith grew up in Stretford.

And while you might very well point out that Greater Manchester didnt exist until 1974, I fail to see how that is relevent. the website which states this is obviously talking about the present area now called Greater Manchester... User:greg78uk (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't supported by either source. As Greater Manchester didn't exist until 1974 Dodie Smith couldn't possibly have been brought up in a suburb of Greater Manchester, whichever one it was. Self-evident really. Greater Manchester is in any event a county, and counties don't have suburbs. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Or we could always look for another source. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Dodie Smith would be more appropriate in the Old Trafford article then. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

... where she is already, uncited. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is completley irrelevent whether or not you refer to Stretford as being in Lancashire as it was then or Greater Manchester as it became in 1974. Its still the same place, so the website says she grew up in Greater Manchester, evidently meaning what was then Lancashire. Have you actually looked at the census reference to see what it says and how it supports the fact that she was living in Stretford during this period when the website describes her as living in a suburb of Greater ManchesterUser:greg78uk (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I still fail to see how a 1901 census page supports your assertion of living in Stretford between 1896 and 1910. Have you read my comments above about Old Trafford? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:OR. Parrot of Doom 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

okay I will try and explain this very simply for you. The website link tells us that when Dodie was a baby her father died, and "Dodie's mother, Ella Furber Smith, returned with the child to the Furber family home in a suburb of Manchester". It then tells us that she grew up there until "In 1910, Dodie's mother remarried, and the trio of mother, daughter, and stepfather moved to London". So from that first source we now know that between 1896/97 and 1910, Dodie was living in the Furber family home in a suburb of Manchester. Now then having read that we can look at the second source which is the 1901 census return for the Furber family home in a suburb of Manchester and guess what... the suburb of Manchester is the District of Stretford and there is Dodie and her mother living happily with her grandparents. wow, remarkable its called cross referencing.

With regard to Old Trafford. Old Trafford was a district in the Borough of Stretford and if you are going to remove everyone from the notable persons section who lived in Old Trafford rather than Stretford centre, you might as well get rid of Pankhurst and Lowry as well.User:greg78uk (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's poor cross-referencing. The 1901 census means we know where she lived in 1901, not before or after. She could have moved.

But, as we now have two new sources (the MEN article and ODNB entry) the issue is no longer whether the two references prove that Smith lived in Stretford between 1896 to 1910, but whether it should be included. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved? The source tells us that in 1896/97 they moved to the Furber family house where she grew up. Not the Furber Family Houses. There was one house. They moved there in 1896/97 and left in 1910 and were there in 1901. That was the purpose of the sources. But anyway as you said there are others but I dont think it is up to us to decide if she should be included in the Stretford article as the article clearly belongs to Malleus Fatuorum and I believe that nobody is permitted to touch it without first prostrating themselves before him and begging his permission!!! User:greg78uk (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd support removing the whole notable people section. If someone's worth mentioning, they can be included in the rest of the article rather than a roll call of "notables". Notable people sections throw up all kinds of problems; what is "notable"? Do they have to satisfy WP:N? Do they need their own article? Is it enough that they stayed at a bed and breakfast in the town? Can you guarantee such sections are comprehensive? More trouble than they're worth in my opinion. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think notable people sections are useful in many respects, mainly in providing links to personages connected with the area, but I think should only include people with their own articles who were born or actually lived in the town. What I object is dictatorial people who wade through articles deleting anything they personally dont like instead of opening a discussion on the talk page and gaging the opinions of the rest of the interested parties, it is after all a colaborative effort, for example if Malleus Fatourum had an issue with Dodie Smith, instead of just deleting her, he should have started this discussion, the result of which is that I explained the originall sources and other sources have now been located. User:greg78uk (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All you demonstrated was that your sourcing was poor, and did not support what you claimed that it did. I deleted material that was unsourced. You may claim that's dictatorial, but I'm afraid you're just pissing in the wind. Again.

I will be deleting the Notable people section very soon, as it's just a trivia magnet, to show how the subject ought to be handled in other articles. John Rylands, for instance, has already been moved into the article body. That Dodie Smith, for instance, spent some of her choldhood in Old Trafford should obviously be covered in her own article, but the links do not, and should not, be symmetrical. That's the fundamental stupidity of the present Notable people farce. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm reminded that J. K. Rowling was once included in a list of Didsbury's notable people, because she once spent a few nights in a hotel there. This notable people farce needs to be taken by collar and sorted out. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Longford Hall

"The site of the hall was landscaped to form the Larry Sullivan Gardens in 1996. (Larry Sullivan, 1916-92, had been a borough councillor for Stretford, 1966-73, mayor in 1982-83, and a Greater Manchester county councillor, 1974-92.)" The information is provided at the site but I have not been able to verify on the WWW: even Larry Sullivan does not show up on the Friends of Longford Park w/s. If anyone can provide a reliable citation the information can be added again.

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)