Talk:Altrincham/Archive 2

Talk-page layout (2) (5 March 2007)
I have restored conversations deleted by User:Jhamez84 and replaced them in chronological order (with minor refactoring in an attempt to make sense of things). If nobody objects, I'm going to archive a lot of this fairly shortly, since it refers to an improvement drive which is now over. Well done to everyone involved, especially User:Cosmopolitancats for doing some organisation work. The article is in much better shape than it was before. — mholland 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done – all old discussions now archived. — mholland 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire postal address
Ach, you wouldn't let it lie. This debate is now officially lame, so I'm reluctant to step into it (but I have). Suffice it to say that as boring and as pointless as the claim is, it is easily attributable to all of those folk who give their postal address including 'Cheshire':
 * Google search for "Altrincham, Cheshire WA14" = ~78,800 hits
 * Google search for "Altrincham WA14" = ~43,500 hits

My brief sampling of some of these found that of local notables, the Trafford PCT, the Rail Station, RFC and FC all use 'Cheshire' in their address, whereas the local MP and the Trafford Council do not use 'Cheshire'. This would seem ample sourcing for the claim that many people still put 'Cheshire' when addressing letters to Altrincham. Best wishes to all — mholland 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you've found some organisations who are using this obsolete system. But how widespread is this? And why are your comments markedly directed at you (does this mean me?); it is convention to talk about content not contributors.


 * The sources used are not adequate or reliable (by which I mean quantifiable) citation. That one poor administrator found that single purpose accounts to circumvent policy was lame, I find disgraceful, particularly when we have rules such as WP:A and WP:RS. Am I breaking any rules? No. Are others over a petty unhelpful unencyclopedic entry? Yes. Unless a quanitifiable reference can be found short, I have no option but to revert these changes per policy. Jhamez84 22:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By "you", I do mean Jhamez84 personally, but please don't take it as a personal attack. I'd have made the same comment if someone had re-added the 'Cheshire postal' sentence without citing a source. As I linked above, this debate is now officially catalogued as a lame edit war.  Every extra keypress from now onwards is double-lame, because I've no intention of reverting again over trivialities.
 * With respect, I don't think that quantifiability is an issue here: the claim is that "many people" put Cheshire in their address. Not "most", not "a majority of people who live in Altrincham"; just "many".  On that ground, the NHS source alone is enough to satisfy the claim.  How many people work for the Trafford Primary Care Trust in Altrincham?  There must be thousands of business cards with "Altrincham, Cheshire" coming out of Altrincham General Hospital alone.
 * Once again, I apologise to Jhamez84: none of this is an assault on your judgment or even your interpretation of policy. It is simply my practice to supply sources for tagged-facts where the claim appears sound, and not to delete the claim.  Taking a step backward, who, in the real world, would dispute that there are people in Altrincham who put "Cheshire" in their address?  Not I.
 * (see also comments on my Talk page)
 * — mholland 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A Point of information: The UK Postal service no longer require the county name in a postal address. Businesses will use the Post Office PAF software to create addresses more often than not, and therefore these addresses will not include the county name, Cheshire or otherwise.

Altrincham lies within the physical boundaries of the county of Cheshire; it has a Warrington postcode, and Warrington is in Cheshire, too. It is perfectly acceptable to put it as part of an Altrincham postal address -- correct, but entirely irrelevant.

(Disclaimer: I live in Altrincham.) 78.144.115.60 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your point that counties are irrelevant so far as postal addresses are concerned, it remains the fact that Altrincham does not lie within the county of Cheshire's physical boundaries, whatever you may believe those boundaries to be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Goodness! You're quite right; thanks for pointing that out.  But almost everyone here puts 'cheshire' in the address.  I wonder why? 78.144.113.220 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Altrincham was in Cheshire, as was Sale, until Trafford was formed in 1974. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See also the article entitled "Postal counties of the United Kingdom". --Jza84 | Talk  16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable local residents - improvement action
To improve this article action is required for various entries - including 'notable local residents'

Can I just check the principle which need to operate here?
 * I'm assuming "Notable Local Residents" means that a 'local resident' qualifies for a 'notable entry' as defined by Wikipedia and has a Wikipedia article. So unless this individual has an entry nobody should be identified by name just because they exist? Similarly nobody should be included and identified as a notable local resident unless their wikipedia entry has a verified source as to address? Have I got this right?
 * I assume any relationship with the area should reflect the current defined geographical identity of the area rather than any historical arrangement. Within Trafford MBC, the southern part is referred to as the Altrincham Area and is defined as including Altrincham; Bowdon, Greater Manchester; Hale; Hale Barns and Timperley which are all recognised to be separate and distinct areas (ie wards) within the south of Trafford MBC.  Within Wikipedia there are separate entries for the settlements of Bowdon, Greater Manchester; Hale; Hale Barns and Timperley.

To increase accuracy, to include a reference to an individual should mean that a wikipedia article exists and a citation as to the connection is included in that entry. I suggest that all references within the Altrincham entry to 'notable local residents' ( including celebrities from football, other sports, Coronation Street and other TV programmes who live in these settlements rather than Altrincham) should be identified within these Wikipedia entries rather than Altrincham. If an entry is included in Altrincham because these settlements fall within the Altrincham Area as defined by Trafford MBC then it should clearly identify the precise settlement as well. (Or does this create unnecessary duplication - and the reference should fall only within the settlement in question rather than Altrincham as an area. Comments please.

Do we need a distinction between past residents and current residents? One would make the assumption that somebody living who is listed under 'Notable Local residents' lives in the area at present - which is often not the case (see below). Comments please

Comments on and suggested amendments to current listings
Cosmopolitancats 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Altrincham is identified as Angela Cartwright's birthplace in her wiki entry - but no citation has been provided - although the website clearly identifies this in her bio. Does this qualify for citation purposes?
 * Alison Uttley's entry identifies a precise address and should be included in the Bowdon article.
 * Helen Allingham's wiki entry does not identify any relationship with any part of the local area. However the local history society states "The family moved to Market Street, Altrincham in 1849 and later to St. John’s Road, Bowdon.".  Suggest she stays.
 * Ronald Gow was a local resident - as indicated by the bio entry for him on the local History Society website. He also had a relationship with Altrincham Grammar School although that fact and his local resident status does not have a citation in his wiki entry - but one could be made.
 * Andrew Flintoff's wiki entry does not identify a place of residence. I'm removing him as an identified individual
 * I couldn't see where in the The Stone Roses entry it identified where they live. The entry does indicate that two members attended Altrincham Grammar School for Boys (but no citation for this). This means they were resident somewhere in the catchment area at some point in the past. However, the Timperley entry claims them as residents but provides no citation.  Should they be linked to the school in the Education section? I'm leaving them in 'Notable Residents' but clarifying that two of the members attended Altrincham Grammar School for Boys - but citation is required. I can't remember how to do this - can somebody else please indicate this.  Any comments?
 * The Smiths - I couldn't see any aspect of their wiki article which connected them to Altrincham. Removing the entry.  Can be reinstated if citation provided.
 * Starsailor entry is very brief/(a stub?) and does not identify any connection to the area. Do they qualify as 'notable' for the purposes of wikipedia?  Removing the entry.

Citation - Improvement Action
Removing the need for citation of a verifiable source of evidence improves the quality of this article.

This section identifies all aspects of this article where citation is currently required. Please do not add items which will swell this list. Try and identify citation before posting in the main article. Otherwise identify the suggested additional material here and ask for help with finding an appropriate citation.

If you identify the necessary citation then please remove the item from this list by striking it through rather than deleting it and identifying source here. Cosmopolitancats 10:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations - "To Do" List
There are two forms of improvement action: identifying where citation is required and the provision of sources to verify information quoted in the article. See Citing Sources which has status for further information about why/what/when/how.

As at 8th March 2007, the article indicates that citations are required for the following: Cosmopolitancats 10:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Intro to present Day: "The town has more recently fallen victim to decline with shoppers abandoning the area for the nearby Trafford Centre and a regenerated Manchester city centre.[citation needed] "
 * Notable Local residents: (see comments above re inclusion of named individuals and citation) Two members of the The Stone Roses attended Altrincham Grammar School for boys. [citation needed]
 * Is citation required for the generalised paragraph about the volume of unnamed personailities/celebrities who live in the area. Comments?
 * Do any other aspects require citation - but are missing the citation tag? If editors believe further citation is required please indicate where.

Notability
For information about the inclusion of people on the Altrincham article on notability grounds, see Notability (people) as a style guide. Jhamez84 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Altrincham" in IPA
I think it would be most accurately rendered in IPA as ɒltɹɪŋʌm, would anyone else agree that's accurate? If so, I'll add it to the article. Cheers, DWaterson 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It may well be more accurate, but it's also substantially less accessible to most readers, including myself, than what it replaced. No harm in adding the IPA version, but not at the expense of an alternative explanation that most English speakers would be able to understand without further study. Which is what appears to have happened. ---- Eric 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Current redevelopment
I see no justification whatsoever for this section on the building work either currently taking place in Altrincham, or scheduled to take place in Altrincham. Therefore I propose to delete it unless persuaded otherwise. ---- Eric 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Information regarding the future and redevelopment of the town is surely relevant. I use Shaw and Crompton as a precedent. Rather than deleting the section, individual concerns should be addressed. The section isn't being used as an advertising board and provides pertinent information. What exactly is your concern? Nev1 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern is with the level of detail, which seems excessive to me "... erecting new lighting columns with provision for hanging decorations and banners, erecting bollards along the road edge ..." and the transient nature of this information "The first phase is due to be completed by early 2007 ..." ---- Eric 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, the question is what to trim. Nev1 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the sentance "Manchester-based Park Lane Estates, the centre's owner, is transforming the 1970s precinct to bring a fresher, more contemporary look to the town's main shopping area" could be got rid of;
 * 2) "Construction works will be phased to ensure that Stamford Shopping Centre continues to trade throughout the development period" probably isn't necessary.


 * Well, I've trimmed out what seemed to me to be excessive detail. ---- Eric 19:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tidyup
This article has alot of strengths, and is becoming very well referenced and comprehensive. However, some points to improve it further:


 * Some of the formatting is in breach of WP:MOS. Wording like "Altrincham's location relative to Manchester and local transport networks is shown on this borough map." is not really the style adopted by Wikipedia. Consider that some people print their articles to read, and thus this style of wording and linking is very unhelpful and should be reconsidered and rephrased.


 * Simillar to the last point, the linking of external links mid-prose is again not generally the style taken by Wikipedia, and will certainly hold back the article from community awards. Links should be internal mid-prose.


 * There are some weasel words and contextual issues compromising a small amount of the text - keep the article's contents about Altrincham, rather than talk about Greater Manchester as a whole (the climate section is a good example of this). Also, that Altrincham is a suburb of Manchester frankly isn't true; it's more of a suburban centre used as a commuter town to Manchester (tightly defined) but would need referencing.

Hope that helps a little! Good luck! Jhamez84 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Restaurants and bars
What's the stance on the Restaurants and bars section? It doesn't sound very encyclopedic so should probably be got rid of, but should it be incorporated into the rest of the article? Nev1 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'd consider keeping from that section would be a mention of the two Michelin starred/listed restaurants, and the two theatres, but incorporated into the rest of the article somewhere. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think the 'Cultral events and venues' is the most appropriate. Nev1 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely this can't be true?
"The creation of the Bridgewater Canal, passing through Altrincham, provided a water route into Manchester and, when the canal was completed 1776, to the sea."

I thought the Bridgewater Canal ran from Worsley to Manchester, both about 40 miles from the sea? Is this a reference to the ship canal? If so, that wasn't completed until 1894. Or have I misunderstood what's being said? --Malleus Fatuarum 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bridgewater Canal was originally built from Worsley to Manchester, but was extended to the sea passing through Runcorn. Definately the Bridgewater. Nev1 10:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable people section
I have been unable to find a reliable reference for the following statement from the Notable people section of the artcile:

"For a time, it was the home of Morrissey, former frontman of The Smiths."

I have removed it, but if anyone has a reliable source - or thinks they can find one - please add it back to the article. Nev1 09:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know how to add things properly with a reference but I did find some info at this link, http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html, which shows from a Manchester Evening News clip that he was once in residence in Altrincham. Infact I am of the opinion that he still owns the house in Altrincham as I frequently see him in and around the town when he is not off around the world touring and the suchlike. Not likely to be able to find any evidence to back that up though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.131.247 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GA almost there
Information, breadth and depth, NPOV all excellent. The only thing left is that two paras of the history section have no ref and that some paras have a ref halfway trhough and nothing for the second half of the para. That's the only problem. Otherwise, everything is there.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done, easily passes. Comprehensive in all parts of life, weel written, NPOV and appropriate pictures and tables of statistics. Good work. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Knoll
''"The oldest confirmed residence in Altrincham is a house called The Knoll on Stamford Street, now demolished ... "

It's not clear whether it's the house that's been demolished, or the street. Is the house called "The Knoll", or the "Knoll"? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's called 'The Knoll' and is now demolished, rather than the street. Nev1 07:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article should remain listed as a Good article but please supply a fair use rationale for Image:Arms-altrincham.jpg. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Malleus Fatuarum 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

 * Dead and problematic links to be dealt with. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Population change
I've added the years 1801 to 1891 to the table, but I think it would benefit from a diagram aswell. Anyone have the know how? Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the ones in Demography of Greater Manchester with Microsoft Excel - but currently have no access to the program myself I'm afraid. If you create a table then convert it to a chart/diagram, then copy and past the diagram into a graphics package and save it, then upload it to WikiCommons, you've cracked it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see how that would work, the only snag is that we don't have data for 1981 and 1991 and 1939 is out of step. I don't know how to change the scale in Excel, I'll try anyway and see how I get on. Nev1 (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Invalids
This indicates the area was a relief for Manchester's sick (presumably those with respiratory complaints). Is there anything we can add from that? The site of a home of convalescence or similar? Seems odd that folk would move to Altrincham for air quality in the mid to late 1800s if the area was becoming industrialised so presumably this was a short-lived practice. Dick G (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all relative, although Altrincham had a few mills it was far fewer than the rest of Greater Manchester. I'm afraid I can't add anything more (yet). Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Population and demographics
I think that the population shown in the top box (67061) is made by totalling the census details for these wards;

Altrincham ward 10,778 Bowdon ward 11,856 Broadheath ward 11,267 Hale ward 10,300 Timperley ward 11,049 Village ward 11,811

A much earlier edit did detail these wards in the citations,

How do we decide which wards should be included?

I think that it's unfair to add this number (the total pop of 67061) onto the table of archaic populations from previous census data - as the rest of the table in the demographics is pulled from 'vision of britain' - and the areas defined by those previous census are vastly different.

Specifically, the jump from a pop of 40,768 in 1971 to 67,061 in 2001 seems unrealistic (compared to general lack of growth in uk during this period).

I think that population figures are a whole huge problem for all 'settlements', and considerable thought needs to be given to the question...guidelines put into place, etc. But in the immediate, it seems that the table in 'demographics' on this page is simply not comparing apples with apples. Population is a very basic and important statistic for people researching;

Perhaps it would be possible to add a caveat to the demographic table here to explain that, due to changes in boundries etc, it is very difficult to compare populations over any long timespan?

For more info, see "Why is it all so complicated?" in the faq from 'visionofbritain'; http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/footer/doc_text_for_title.jsp?topic=faq_content&seq=2]

I certainly think that the total pop figure should be explained more thoroughly, and that the 2001 figure should NOT appear on the 'demographics' table - unless explained in more detail.

Some other 'settlements' take pop data from the census spreadsheet at

For Altrincham, this pop would be 40,695. A huge difference! But maybe more reflective of the fact that the UK population grew very little between 1971 and 2001.

Chzz (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language versions of article
There is a sidebar link to hu:Sablon:Greater Manchester. I can't figure out how it was added, and I think it would be better to move the link to the Greater Manchester article (sidebar). —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC))