Talk:Rugeley

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

According to Rugeley Online, the 2001 population was approx. 23,000 - I find it hard to believe it has grown to 40,000 in less than 5 years, as a previous edit claimed. — sjorford (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again - please give a source for the 40,000 figure! See this page from Rugeley Online - the total of 22,950 given there includes Brereton and Etchinghill wards (Hagley and Western Springs form the bulk of the town). (I note that if you include Brereton and Etchinghill twice, you get close to 40,000, which may be where this figure has come from.) — sjorford ++ 10:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Cannock Chase official website (of which Rugeley is part of and mentions Rugeley's population) this is where it was stated of 40,000 apx. I was stating what was written there. To be fair an household is usually worked out at 2.4 so by taking that into account has a basis it could be worked out by working out how many streets there are and how many houses per street with four per household (Has some families have less and some have far more this is only a rough guess at the population) although of late there has been a population boom in Rugeley which accounts for a jump. I am not disagreeing the the census just was adding what the Cannock Chase website had on there.

Can you post a direct link to the page you found it on? — sjorford ++ 13:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page i was actually looking for I cannot find, not sure if it was has been moved or not, but did find this one. Hope it helps

http://www.expressandstar.com/es/features/community/townguides/rugeley.shtml

Phone Code[edit]

A large number of websites contain an incorrect spelling duplicating an error present in Ofcom's (previously Oftel) UK area code list for the last decade. 01889 was listed as Rugely in the official UK area code list and only recently corrected to Rugeley, see their Errata. 212.139.105.91 (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Collins[edit]

The man said to have murdered her, "Shale"(sic) should have a Christian name prefixed if it is historically known, unless it was a one-word alias. The article on the book and tv drama based on the case, "The Wench is Dead" mentions no one called Shale at all, while two other named men are stated to have hanged for the death.Cloptonson (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change of "barge men" to "Shale" was vandalism dating back to an edit by 88.105.237.245 talk at 14:41, 28 April 2007. At least it didn't have the expletives that he used in a similar edit elsewhere three minutes later. Keomike (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect pronunciation[edit]

There is a kind of half "er" noise between the two sounds, it's more like ROOJerLEE, but the "er" is subtle. Not sure how it would be typed but "ROOJ-lee" is off, and "RUDJ-lee" is straight up incorrect, the "rudj" noise is usually what people reading it think it is, which locals are quick to correct. I have removed the second incorrect pronunciation but left the first as is until someone can fix it better than i can.2A00:23C6:F437:AC01:E1C9:6421:2C14:1FA0 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]