Talk:Chester/Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chester → Chester, England — There are more than thirty places named Chester or similar, and while the city in England is important, it is unlikely that most people looking for a place called Chester are looking for that one. Currently someone looking for one of the other Chesters by typing "Chester" comes here, has to go to a disambiguation page, and only then get to the place he wants to go. The Chester page should instead be the same as the Westport page: fewer hops for the user. This proposed move is to help make navigation of place-name articles less confusing. — Evertype 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. The idea is to free Chester to be the disambiguation page as there are 30 or more Chesters worldwide. Chester, England or Chester, Cheshire are both acceptable options to me for this article. Note that both already redirect to this article, so there is no great problem using either one. Evertype 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

1. Support as above. Evertype 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. For what it's worth, we decided this as a general rule a couple of years back, but I'm not sure if it was ever enshrined in a written convention. Deb 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. Given the large number of Chesters, there is no way you can not have most users being directed to wrong page without this change. Can anyone show that more then 50% of the Chesters being checked on are this one? Failing that, there is no proof that this article is the major use of this space and hence it should be moved and replaced by a dab page. Vegaswikian 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Vegaswikian. Recury 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support on the grounds of fairness. When several places have the same name, why should one be treated more favourably than the others? As to "regional nationalism" (surely an oxymoron?), does User:Yorkshire Phoenix deny that England, Wales, Scotland are nations? Would he condemn English people for "pandering to regional nationalism" by supporting their 'national' football team, and flying their 'national' flag, during the recent World Cup? And he now informs us that England does not exist! Home Rule for Yorkshire! -- Maelor  14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, being a Great Britain supporter, I do dislike the subnational teams of lesser sports such as soccer and do condemn the flying of the flag of the Church of England during soccer competitions. Home Rule for Yorkshire? Yes please, just make sure it's the real Yorkshire and not some bastard son of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire! Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong Support - Wikipedia is a world-based website, not England based. Chester is not world famous. I consider myself to be knowledgeable in geography, and when I think of the word "Chester", nothing comes to mind (although I'd know its derived from England). I never heard of Chester in England. There's a 0% chance that I would be searcing for the city in England. I guess that's my United States bias. The city may be historic, but I KNOW it is not necessarily well-known to a world audience. Soccer/football is not well-known in the United States, so having a team doesn't make the English city stand out. I argue that NO Chester stands out. Chester CLEARLY needs to be a disambiguous link. --Royalbroil 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Now you're just being silly. Chester's football is not even famous in the UK, every town has its own team of course. Chester is famous as being a historic Roman town and it is very famous across the World. Marky-Son 15:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   This is a silly argument. Chester (Castra Devana) was one of the three Legionary fortresses in Britain during the Roman period. It is the original "Castra" after which ALL other Chesters are named. Frankly I'm shocked at some of the ignorance which is being displayed in these debates. -- Arwel (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose NoelWalley 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose As at Newport, importance is not a linear function of population - historical significace matters too. The number of other Chesters matters not; would we move Paris if a sufficient number of small hamlets called Paris are founded? Should have we checked exactly how many insignificant nobodies were called, say, David Bowie before we put that article there? This article is still at the correct place for a truly historic (Roman!) city of regional and national importance. Aquilina 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose For the same reason as Aquilina. Population, history and importance are important factors. Dot dismabiguate for the sake of it. Apply common sense. Owain (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Where disambiguation is needed, they should go under placename, county resulting in Chester, Cheshire, which is clearly silly for a county town. Chester, England would be pandering to regional nationalism and therefore is not reflecting a NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't understand quite what you mean about "pandering". Chester is in England, and not in Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. In any case, the proposal is that Chester per se should be the portal to all the many Chesters. It's not clear to me any Chester, Cheshire would be "silly". Evertype 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Chester is in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "England" hasn't existed since 1707. Putting the county after the county town from which it takes its name is widely regarded as not only unnecessary but inappropriate (where would it end: Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Durham, County Durham, Londonderry, County Londonderry, New York, New York (county), New York (state), United States? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Um, we do have Lancaster, Lancashire and Lincoln, Lincolnshire, you know... Oh and Appleby-in-Westmorland. ;) Morwen - Talk 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   England, Scotland, and Wales do, actually, exist. Evertype 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Really? In what capacity? I can't find them amongst the 192 members of the UN or on Wikipedia's 202 strong list of countries. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Heh. I didn't say they existed as sovereign states as recognized by the UN. But if they do not "exist" as you suggest, then billions of people have been living in a rather odd dream. Evertype 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Strong Oppose; there are plenty of Birminghams, Leedses, Barnsleys etc, but the largest of these cities is always listed at the main page, as opposed to Birmingham, England or Leeds, England. In addition, well in excess of 500 pages link here. Compare this to the dozen or so linking to Chester (town), New York, Chester, Wisconsin, Chester, Massachusetts, etc. Even the largest other Chester, Chester, Pennsylvania, only gets under 100 links, most from transclusions of Template:Delaware County, Pennsylvania. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I couldn't agree more, this is the standard on Wikipedia, but Evertype seems to be on a mission to dismabiguate everything and break thousands of links in the process. See Talk:Newport and Talk:Plymouth for further examples and voice your protest! Owain (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose - This is disabiguation for the sake of it. The reason there are so many Chesters is that they are all named after the original in England. josh (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose; Chester in England is clearly the most important Chester in the world, having existed since the Roman occupation of Britain. All the other Chesters are named after it. Most people searching for Chester on Wikipedia, or on the net in general, would be looking for this city, and if they weren't, they can go to the disambiguation page, which is linked to at the top of the article. The city of Chester in Pennsylvania, for example, is nowhere near as notable as Chester in England. It's a very different matter to, say, Birmingham in England versus Birmingham, Alabama, or Perth in Scotland versus Perth, Western Australia. In those cases, the newer cities are at least as notable as the original British places they're named after. --Stevefarrell 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - After the current incident on the Newport page, I've been made aware of this policy of offending our nation's largest, economically important and historic cities. I have nothing against Evertype but I do not agree with this overuse of disambiguation pages and believe that a search should lead straight to an article wherever possible. As for Chester itself, it is possibly World-famous and attracts many thousands of tourists each year as it is of great historic importance, making it by far the most important Chester. Marky-Son 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose - this Chester is the original and most historic. Name another which is more significant. -- Arwel (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per reasons already outlined above. -- Roleplayer 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I note that in the case of Boston, where Boston, Mass is clearly the largest place, "Boston" redirects to Boston, Massachusetts (not the disambiguation page).

BUT the disambiguation page says:

Boston most commonly refers to the following city:

Boston, Lincolnshire, England (original town) Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.

There is also... (list)

I hope Chester, England will receive the same consideration and acknowledgement. NoelWalley 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Query about moving

Would anyone object if I moved this page to Chester, England? I don't know of any others in the UK. --Deb

With reference to all of the above: Would anyone object if I moved this page?

To prevent any further confusion on this matter, I think the Wiki title of this page should be

Chester, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom, Europe, The World, The Solar System, The Universe ... Look - Chester is fine, so stop all this time wasting! A Cestrian born in this city.

Twinney12 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very funny, but to be serious. the answer to the original question is "Yes, I would object strongly."  DDStretch  (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Query about the City wall

I'm not sure about this: "Chester is an old city dating back to Roman times (when the City wall dates from)" - I thought the walls as we now see them are largely medieval with later rebuilds - is "dates from" maybe a bit misleading if it could be read as saying the walls are Roman, which I think they aren't? If what you are saying is that they are on the Roman plan or something (are they?) then maybe this could be clearer. Views please? Nevilley 19:35 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the walls are largely medieval rebuilds but they do stand on the Roman plan, so you're probably right. Feel free to reword this if you find it misleading. --Silver plane

"Apparently some of the buildings off the main street appear to be far older than most people suspected. Perhaps even roman but it is unclear.--Son of Paddy's Ego 11:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Query about the zoo

Hmm, no talk about the zoo? --Kaihsu 16:27 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Chester Zoo--Son of Paddy's Ego 11:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Cestrians?

Is there a List of famous Cestrians? I was wondering after the news that Chester born Daniel Craig is the new James Bond. Others include Michael Owen, Duke of Westminster and Randolph Caldecott. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk), (Recent Contrib)} 20:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is now.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

And Category:Cestrians for good measure. --Son of Paddy's Ego 13:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Rather short! Never mind, I've extended it a bit. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the Cats are easier to edit.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone from Chester City FC would count. None of them have articles and they're not exactly famous! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bad list for the sticks. Aren't some of Chester Cities ex Owners infamous?--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There was Terry Smith. He was an American who led the club to be kicked out of the league. He stayed for less than a year, and was born overseas. There's also Kevin Ratcliffe. Again, not born in Chester, but lived there for three or four years and he saved City from folding (and he even paid the entire stadium's £5000 water bill). Would either of them count? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong. Several Chester players have articles. Mostly stubs, though. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If they have stubs it's worth putting thme in the Cat at least, otherwise how will people find them to add bits of info?, and perhaps creating a cat for Chester City's famous/infamous associates, which doesn't have a born in condition?--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Done! It's Category:Chester City FC

How do I delete categories!? It turns out that there's actually both Chester City Players and Chester City Managers. It's just that the stubs are so badly written that they don't tend to link to the right category. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just found that my self. Empty all the members from it, then put CFD in it between two pair of braces.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How far?

What sort of area would still be considered to be 'within Chester'? Waverton? Tarvin? And should areas in Wales such as Hawarden and Broughton be counted? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We certainly wouldn't want to claim any of Wales! I'd say Waverton yes, just about, but Tarvin no - but maybe others disagree.

• The most reasonable way of determining this is to realise that there are two entities that are being mixed up a bit here. The first entity is the City of Chester. The second entity is the Chester District of the County of Cheshire. Whilst the City of Chester is part of the District of Chester, the District of Chester extends far beyond the city boundaries, and it is this lack of clarity which causes the problems of knowing where to draw the line. Some work needs to be done to clarify the situation in the entries, perhaps by paying attention to the wikipedia entry for the County of Cheshire and then adjusting the wikipedia entries (if they pre-exist) for its component parts appropriately. I may begin to do this myself soon.  _DDS  talk 13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have just removed a list of "Districts, Towns and Villages" of Chester from this entry (which is about the central city called Chester) into the entry for the district which is called City of Chester. This is a large part of Cheshire itself, and it contains many towns and villages some distance from the central city called Chester. The situation is a little confusing, as the name of the central City is Chester, but the name of the local government district is City of Chester. Both of these have their own wikipedia entries. I think we need to take particular care in distinguishing, where possible, between the two. I see this as part of the work of a potential project or sub-project that I have proposed (see section 14, below).  _DDS  talk 01:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just expanded the dab link at the top which should help direct editors and readers. --Regan123 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put one in the City of Chester entry as well.  _DDS  talk 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Schools in Chester

Perhaps somebody could add a short section about the schools in Chester (Upton, Christleton, King's, Queen's, Bishops ...) with links to their websites at the bottom? ---- Jo, Cestrian in exile

I have started (See Chester Catholic High School and Queens Park High School), but I don't know much about the others. If you could help, try Blacon High School, Queen's School, Chester, The King's School, Chester, Bishop's School, Chester, Kingsway School or others. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Westchester

I found some archaic references to the city as 'West-Chester' or 'Westchester'. Not sure where to add this, though. Morwen - Talk 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chester was known as West Chester by Daniel Defoe in his 'Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain'. (early C18th) Suggest you mention it then. Gordonemery - Talk 13:20 15 July 2006

Photographs used on this page

Surely this page needs an image of the Eastgate Clock?

From the history of this page it looks as though someone with a connection to Grosvenor boat club has hi-jacked the page with a huge image of the boathouse, subsequently modified to a more sensible size. However there is also a picture of the weir. There is more to Chester than just the river.

I'm sure a picture of the Eastgate Clock is more relevant to people reading this site for Chester information than a picture of a boat house. If we do need two river scenes, the Queens Park suspension bridge with it's Hollyoaks connections surely holds wider appeal than the boat-house.

I'm happy to go out with the digital camera this weekend and do the business.

An image of Chester racecourse would also be a good advert for the city on here.

Does anyone think fresh images along these lines make sense, or would including the clock and the racecourse in preference to the boathouse just be enforcing stereotype images of Chester ahead of alternatives?

There are photos of both, but you'll have to look under Eastgate clock and Chester Racecourse respectively. I agree though that we don't need the picture of the boathouse though. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that the photo of the eastgate clock on the Eastgate clock page is more appropriate for the top of the Chester page than is the current one on the city's page? The fact that the photo on the Chester page is taken from the walls makes the clock look like it's situated on a side-street, and as such it looks much less significant than it would if the photo was taken from Foregate Street, as it has been on the clock's own page and on most other photos of it. Comments? PJBeef

Cestrian

Is it worth mentioning here that 'Cestrian' can apply to anyone from Cheshire, not just Chester? Or would that be better on the Cheshire page? Ericatom 12:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a Cestrian supposed to be someone who was born in Chester within the city walls, So it could apply to anyone in the world if they met that criteria.

Nightclubs

Five nightclubs? Five nightclubs? Being a 19 year old who has lived here all my life I'd love to know where these alleged nightclubs are. The only one I am aware of is RB's - formally Rosies. Perhaps you could argue that bar 6 T 9 is a nightclub because of it's late closing time, but considering it's the size of a shoebox I wouldn't argue that myself.

There is also Brannigans in Chester and it is arguable that Loaf could be seen as a night club as it also has a late license. The same could be said for Off the Wall but I personally would only say there are two, Rosies and Brannigans.

Theres a Revolution and a Reflex isnt there?

"Welshman shooting" in the books?

Is "any Cestrian may shoot a Welshman with a longbow if he loiters within the walls after sunset when the curfew bell chimes" to be found in, say, Halsbury's Laws of England? – Kaihsu 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried several combinations of keywords but couldn't find it. – Kaihsu 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this though: [1] "If elected, I will make it illegal to shoot Welshmen. Jun 30 2006. By David Holmes, Chester Chronicle. EX-CORONATION Street star Adam Rickitt says, if elected as a Tory MP, he will seek to abolish an ancient law allowing the people of Chester to kill Welsh visitors at night." ... "He said: 'There are two archaic laws - which no doubt have been superseded - which are supposedly that if you catch a Welshman within the City Walls after midnight then you are allowed to hang them and you can shoot a Welshman from the Walls with a long bow. 'They are laws from Medieval days,' added Adam, who confessed he was not 100% on the detail. 'Symbolically they should go.'" ... "After putting down the rebellion, Henry IV took severe precautions to ensure that there would be no repetition. On September 4, 1403, he wrote to the Mayor, Sheriffs and Aldermen of the City of Chester, commanding that 'all manner of Welsh persons or Welsh sympathies should be expelled from the city; that no Welshman should enter the city before sunrise or tarry in it after sunset, under pain of decapitation'." which apparently has the source [2]. – Kaihsu 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

external link

I'm a novice (and as I'm not much of a writer, and a newcomer round here, have put an asbestos suit on!) and had added a link [3] recently (2006-12-10, I think) to an external site which gives a lot of information about the Roman Walls, in the form of a walking tour. (It has actually been printed out by some of my relations before they actually walked around the real walls some years back). Anyway... seems Chestertouristcom didn't like that link and deleted it. I went onto IRC and discussed options and as a result I'm here - I'm not going to add the link back only for it to be deleted again. Seemed a better idea to put it for discussion - the quantity of information already written is not suited for copying direct into Wiki - and it's not my website anyway!

I had today made a small edit, with a view to adding a new page about "Chester Roman walls" (but I am not really knowledgeable enough to write a precis or intro about the walls, myself), so I suppose someone could remove the edit or zap my amendement, unless someone is keen to write a bit of original text about the Walls... or would it be worth inserting the link in the body of the text, rather than as an 'external link' at the end... I've read that the intention is not to be pages and pages of links (like a web directory). 'a novice' on 82.153.28.132

A Possible project (or sub-project) for Cheshire

I hope I haven't trodden on any toes by doing this, but I took as a precedent the project about Cornwall. I've listed a proposed project concerning Cheshire on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I think it can easily co-exist with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I would not want to diminish or withdraw from this other project. If you are interested in contributing to this proposed project, please add your name to list at the appropriate place. If you think it might be better placed as a sub-project of the dxisting UK Geography Project, please say so on that project's talk page, here, and let us discuss it. Many thanks.  _DDS  talk 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sub article?

Just a thought. The history section is getting a bit big. How about a History of Chester Article with a lead. See London for an example. Cheers --Regan123 13:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered that, too. But I've just noticed that a large amount about Roman Chester has been removed and placed into a Deva (Chester) article. Perhaps it still needs a separate article, however. What we really need in all of this, however, is referencing and citations.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the cleanup tag that is now in place, then I intend to shortly move much of the unreferenced history stuff to a new article "History of Chester" and then attempt to search down and provide some references for the claims made in both.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chester Wiki

I came across Chester Wiki when a link was made to it from Chester Castle, having been previously unaware of it. Does anyone know anything about Chester Wiki, and how it relates to Wikipedia and the Cheshire WikiProject? Peter I. Vardy 12:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, please see the discussion here for some information when I asked for advice whether it would be generally good to have such an external link in place. On reading the advice, I think I am inclined to delete the links where they occur unless some serious work is done to improve the quality and verifiability of the content on the Chester Wiki. After all, we have a large enough job trying to bring the articles up to standard with respect to references and citations, without new external links that point to a different wiki with no verifiable content on it.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of the contributors to Chester Wiki, I'd like to say that I and Hooligan (who wrote the page on Chester Castle) have verified many sources on the pages we have contributed to. Hooligan has included tens of links to historical sources as well as Wikipedia itself in his article on the castle, as well as the one he did on the Civil War in Chester, to name but two. The Chester Wiki is a fledgling project - we're not claiming it is part of Wikipedia. It is a local wiki for use by Cestrians and tourists. I find it a bit rich that you see fit to take links off because you don't approve. What makes you the arbiter, or judge of another project? It's not a competition, for goodness sake. I'm sure people who consult Wikipedia are intelligent enough to see when they are inside a rigorously edited wikipedia or in a site that is linked to it and may have something useful to offer. Purpleprose 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments both here and on the discussion page for External Links. After some thought and discussion with another editor on the Cheshire Project, I've reached the conclusion that I acted a bit hastily and that I owe you and the the Chester Wiki an apology. At the moment, although some editors on wikipedia as a whole think the wiki should not be linked to, I now think a case can be made for linking to it on the article for Chester. We are not in any competition with you, and, in fact, work that helps to promote Cheshire (my own county of birth) is to be encouraged.

As an explanation, I offer up the fact that I was paying attention to the rules and existing advice offered up by Wikipedia in the context of having to deal with much trivia and vandalism of articles at the time. However, as you and my colleague, and now myself, realise, the advice I received is not really abided to in many articles on wikipedia, because if it was much of the content would be just a series of stubs, and I dealt with you unfairly as the vandalism had coloured my assessments a bit. Sp, although we are trying to improve matters, we need to make sure we are even-handed in bringing the articles up to the standards wikipedia declares should be in force, and you were being treated a bit more harshly than some others. Hence my apology.

I noticed that you believe that some articles on the Chester Wiki to be of a much higher quality than their corresponding articles on wikipedia. Can I then invite you to consider whether you or some others would be prepared to bring the articles on wikipedia up to a higher standard? They would have to use the wikipedia standards of references and citations, but it would be very helpful if you or some others felt able to do this, either on your own, or within the aegis of the Cheshire Project, which I invite you all to join and participate in. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk)

10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Comment

Can we apply the same rationale used by < User:Marnanel when s/he wrote about the CheshireItalic text Crest or Coat of Arms - " I consider this fair use in the same way that reproducing a corporate logo is fair use"? "This was a project to add the arms of the towns, boroughs, cities, districts and counties of England and Wales to both the English Wikipedia and the Welsh Wicipedia (see the "other languages" link) where appropriate. All the images came from the excellent civicheraldry.co.uk [1]. I've contacted the webmaster of the site and he's happy for the pictures to be used as long as we give credit. He mentions that towns may occasionally object to the use of their civic arms on a website. (However, I consider this fair use in the same way that reproducing a corporate logo is fair use.)" I also have contacted the webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk to ask him to add the Chester COA to his site. When he does we can then use the COA in the same manner that the CHESHIRE COA has already been used. Doesn't civicheraldry.co.uk have the same problems with copyright? Who does own the copyright to a city's COA - The city or the citizens represented by the city? and I think the 'a corporate logo is fair use' point is strongest argument to be able to use COA79.76.213.210 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ollie Hughes (guitarist)

This has been added as a "Famous Cestrian" with a redlink. If the person is of sufficient notability to be included in this article please either write an article (or stub) and bluelink it; or alternatively provide an appropriate citation to confirm the notability. If this cannot be provided within ten days the name will be deleted. Peter I. Vardy 08:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to DDStretch by Twinney12

The Coat of Arms badly placed? badly placed? The image of The Coat of Arms of Chester has been placed at the top of the page about Chester. Where else would one place it eh? The bottom, middle, to one side? - Excirial does not appear to be as concerned as you are about the Coat of Arms as he/she offered advice. About the "strange disclaimer" you mention - I suggest you contact Martin Waters at Chester City Council and tell him that HIS disclaimer is strange, for he wrote the disclaimer in an email to me, which you are free to inspect.

Excirial wrote, with reference to the Coat of Arms.: "Now about the reference: Is there any chance that you could just create a number reference without the preceding "Not endorsed" text? A disclaimer doesn't fit inside the article, so it might be better to move it to references altogether. --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)" You wrote: Excuse me, but it was me who removed the reference to the Duke. The information was out of place in the article about Chester, but would fit in the article about the Duke. I also have changed other things around which were not in conformance with guidelines (see WP:UKCITIES.) I have also removed the coat of arms that are badly placed and, with the strange disclaimer really does not fit in. I suggest that these kinds of major changes would be better discussed prior to them being made on either Talk:Chester or the Cheshire WikiProject. I left you a note about this. DDStretch (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not use inflammatory language in your edit summaries, and, also be aware that you are nearing a 3rr boundary that may reasult in you being temporarily suspended. DDStretch (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'Buggering about' is hardly 'inflammatory language' What, are you an American bible puncher who considers 'dam' 'inflammatory language'? Also don't you dare threaten me over such trivial issues You wrote: "also be aware that you are nearing a 3yr boundary that may result in you being temporarily suspended" Who is your supervisor I think I will have a word. I am acting in good faith here as I was born in this city I love Chester and I still live here. Can you say the same? Kind regards, Tony

I do consider the placing of the coat of arms was not good, as the structure and the shape of the article on the page was affected. The disclaimer does not fit in with the article at all, and the changes you made were sufficiently great that some prior discussion was required. I am sorry if you feel my language was "inflammatory", but can you point out to me what bits were inflammatory? At least i did not use the kind of responses I am seeing here and which others can see. Incidentally, I note that you have removed a legitimate fact tag to one of the claims you added, and yet still not provided any citation for the claim. I will put it back in. My note to you about continually adding back information that others had removed was a reasonable one to make: if you revert changes made more than 3 times in any one 24 hour period, you can be suspended from editing for a while to prevent "edit warring". In that respect, i was trying to help you avoid getting a suspension, which is, I contend, the action of someone acting in good faith. The fact that you love Chester and live there is admirable, but it neither adds nor subtracts any legitimacy to your editing attempts here, as it neither does to mine.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be an idea if the references to webpages added could be consistently formatted as the others are (including the date on which they were retrieved.) An additional comment about the "strange disclaimer": since the contents of this are in a personal email, they could not really be counted as anything citable, and that is why it is strange to see it in an article. the size of the coat of arms added was overwhelming, and I tried, but did not succeed, in placing it in the infobox, similar to how an image has been added to the infobox for Runcorn, but it looked bad, though I may not have had the time to tweak the size. The entire article still needs some work to make it conform to the structure suggested in WP:UKCITIES.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DDStretch, well done on tidying this up a lot. I think we need to review the number of images, as I think it is becoming a gallery with some text as opposed to the other way round. Also I would suggest removing the sizes per the WP:MOS and allow the user preferences to apply. Regan123 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem of the number of images had occurred to me. I've moved some into the gallery, but think more should be moved. However, it may be an idea for others to suggest which ones should be moved into the gallery: for instance, I think we could have one of either the cathedral or the city hall, but which one? The thumbnail sizes of some of them is a bit too large as well. may be they should be edited to reduce them?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've taken the size out of the rest. Images really should be there to indicate something about the text. So, the Chester FC one could reperesent the sport secton, one of the olde worlde buildings, something historically unique and so on. I don't know Chester enough to make all the right judgements. However my initial feelings are:

• Remove the first canal image
• Remove the Curzon park image
• Remove the Grosvenor Hotel
• Remove the Cross / Falcon shots until room can be made for one of them.

I'd also cut down the gallery shots. Some of them are not of a good quality to my mind. Maybe this seems harsh, but there is too much info on here. Regan123 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a gallery at all? Why not populate the article with some images in the relevant sections and dispense with the gallery. All the other worthy images from the article and gallery could be transferred to Wikimedia Commons and the commonscat link would allow all of them, and more, to be seen by those who want to do so. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me...Regan123 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me too.... As part of the discussion I'm going to give Chester a quick blast of WP:UKCITIES. There's loads of white space and text warping in my browser (which is Internet Explorer). -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also more than fine by me as well. Perhaps the discussion may move to a consensus view about which images should be retained and which put in the commons category links?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Comment

Can we apply the same rationale used by < User:Marnanel when s/he wrote about the CheshireItalic text Crest or Coat of Arms - " I consider this fair use in the same way that reproducing a corporate logo is fair use"? "This was a project to add the arms of the towns, boroughs, cities, districts and counties of England and Wales to both the English Wikipedia and the Welsh Wicipedia (see the "other languages" link) where appropriate. All the images came from the excellent civicheraldry.co.uk [1]. I've contacted the webmaster of the site and he's happy for the pictures to be used as long as we give credit. He mentions that towns may occasionally object to the use of their civic arms on a website. (However, I consider this fair use in the same way that reproducing a corporate logo is fair use.)" I also have contacted the webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk to ask him to add the Chester COA to his site. When he does we can then use the COA in the same manner that the CHESHIRE COA has already been used. Doesn't civicheraldry.co.uk have the same problems with copyright? Who does own the copyright to a city's COA - The city or the citizens represented by the city? and I think the 'a corporate logo is fair use' point is strongest argument to be able to use COA79.76.213.210 (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but there is no need to post it in triplicate although I know you probably wanted to ensure I read it. You need to take the issue up with the people running the image deletion processes. So I suggest you go to the page which discusses the deletion of the image here and make yourself and your arguments known there. If the image is kept, we can all then discuss where, if at all, on this article it would be best placed to reach a consensus amongst all interested editors..  DDStretch  (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A mess

This article has got into a horrible mess and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire. It seems to me that editors have been adding material and saving it BEFORE looking at what they have done. Would editors please carry out a preview before saving their edits. Otherwise please keep their experiments to the sandbox. This is an article of prime importance and cannot remain in its present state. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, and I'm sorry if I have contributed to its present bad state. My explanation is that I've been trying to sort out great problems brought about my new contributions by a relatively new editor who has not yet appeared to absorb the guidelines about structure, etc. I think I got some of it sorted out, but unless the new editor begins to engage with us more, we may have to carry on redoing re-implemented changes that are not optimal in terms of structure, etc. I think we all need to keep a close watch on the article for a while, and we do need a concerted effort to knock it into WP:UKCITIES shape paying attention to intext refs (not intext ELs), etc. Sorry for any unsorted out problems arising from my own work: I've felt a bit like a crisis fire-fighter with it at times over the past few days.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It would appear from previous comments (" ...and I dealt with you unfairly as the vandalism had coloured my assessments a bit. 10:56, 20 April 2007 DDStretch), that this editor, appears to be making a habit of writing irrational comments and making assumptions about the good intentions of new and inexperienced contributors. (Also, please do not use inflammatory language in your edit summaries, then accusing ME of calling his language inflamatory - which I did not. I asked him how was 'buggering about' inflamatory!!) Can no-one 'have-a-word' in order to stop these unjustified and irritating and ultimately discouraging remarks? Tony Swaine- ChesterTony - Twinney12 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

One mistake does not constitute a habitual characteristic. Now that you appearto be using this talk page, can I gently suggest that WP:UKCITIES would be a useful source of information as to how to structure one's edits to fit in with guidelines? I also gently suggest that WP:NPA may also be useful.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I haven't been misunderstood. The point I am making is that what we are doing is writing an encyclopaedia, containing verifiable facts, not a travel guide, or offering personal reminiscences or opinions. To make this a reasonable article we need to add inline citations to verify every fact already in the article and to write new material as appropriate with full inline citations (see below). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

I've made a start on improving the article. What I've done so far is to merely take the guidelines given in WP:UKCITIES and done a cut-and-paste job on the text that is already there (with a few minor textual alterations) to begin to get the structure ogf the article matching the structure supplied in the guidelines. Without a doubt, some work on the actual text will be required because of this. I haven't done all that is possible on the structure yet, as some of the current sections need some extra thought on whether, and, if so, how, they can fit into the guideline structure. If people can continue this job, then it will help a great deal in getting the article into a better shape than it has been. We also need to address the issues raised above about there being too many images in it at the moment, and to also consider in greater detail Peter I. Vardy's suggestion that we dispense with the gallery and just put those images into the commons category with a link to them at the end of the article. I hope what i have done is acceptable to as many people as possible.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking better already - but there's an awful long way to go..... There must be some editors living in or near the city who have some reliable reference material to add inline citations (see above) and to write new, properly referenced, material. (And to correct/improve a lot of what's there.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the 'Chester City COA' back onto the Chester page as it has a 'Wikimedia Common' License - and is already in use on Chester (district). I am not sure if it has been placed correctly or if the attribution is absolutely correctly written. Tried to place it inside box on RHS of page with no luck as it did appear, but it 'knocked out' the fine photo of the Town Hall!Tony - Twinney12 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding an image of the COA already within wikipedia space that can be apparently used. I've moved it to the right hand side below the infobox. It doesn't create a load of white space or take up so much room there, but it may be that swapping the two images round would be better. What do people think?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the image at the top of the infobox and would like the COA immediately below it. Like Tony - Twinney12 (and before I saw the message above) I tried to incorporate it in the infobox but it seems to only accept one image. I think the problem is the infobox itself. Template:Infobox UK place does not seem to have provision for what we want to do. Transatlantic cities like Montreal and Chicago incorporate image, COA and flags but they use Template:Infobox City. Manchester (recently promoted to FA) has image and COA but uses Template:Infobox Settlement (which redirects from Template:Infobox City}, as does Sheffield (also FA). Do you think we should change our infobox? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We certainly could do that, but we need to make sure we can fill in most of the fields that the new template would need. Thinking about this, we need to make sure that we are not conflating the actual main settlement called Chester with the local authority district called Chester (district). The person who wrote the original articles had made a mistake and it took two attempts and communications with the council authority to sort out the correct names. I think the easiest would be to have both articles: Chester and Chester (district) use the same template. In which case, I suspect the easiest route would be to switch Chester (district) first: at the moment, it's a cobbled together ad hoc thing, and the infobox would be a big improvement. Finally, I'm not sure if we will be able to use the same map as it stands now for Chester for the new template (another reason why changing over Chester (district) first may be the better course of action.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Chester assume 'Chester (district)' as Chester is a city and a borough (Chester is a non-metropolitan local government district of Cheshire, England, with the status of a city and a borough.)? Therefore Chester (district) is a redundant wiki listing? The 'Chester' page already has a 'City and surrounding areas' heading and a 'Demography' heading where 'district' info. and entries may be placed. The Town Hall picture could be placed elsewhere outside of the infobox, and I agree that there are too many images, and that perhaps the gallery is perhaps too 'touristy'. The point is surely, to pepper the article with significant, illustrative images? Thanks for your comments above,  DDStretch  Tony Swaine Tony - Twinney12 (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The is part of an old debate that has happened in cases when the name of the local government district area is the same as the principal settlement within that district. The two share the same name, but they fall into different logical and conceptual categories. In some cases, the two (principal settlement and local authority district area) are coterminous, in others, like Chester, it is not so clear, as the core central principal settlement is quite distinct from the wider local authority area which contains towns (like Malpas), and many villages and civil parishes. It is just easier to separate them in this instance, and let Chester deal with the central core city area, and Chester (district) deal with the wider area. When the proposed new local authorities take over, the issue will be less confusing, as the name of the local authority district area (City of Chester and West Cheshire) will not be the same as its central core principal settlement. You can read more around this issue in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions which are pages of a now largely defunct project, now merged in with WP:UKGEO. (They are also remarkably difficult to find, as I've just found out!)  DDStretch  (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, the Chester article needs to tidy up the section to do with the surrounding areas: I have already made an edit in which the edit summary stated this: it needs to distinguish between suburbs of the core settlement Chester from the surrounding villages and civil parishes. To some extent we can take the fact that the core area of Chester is an Unparished area (meaning civil parish, not ecclesiastical parish), but part of the core settlement has spilled over into civil parishes that may now be considered suburbs. This is one place where local knowledge would be invaluable. The problem with taking the Chester article as reflecting the way we ought to structure the articles or merge them is that it isn't as reliable as going to official published sources will be. We need to go and see what we can get from the official figures. This leads onto the demographics stuff. There are official government figures that separately deal with what might be called a "Chester Urban Area", which is mostly the central core area, and it is those figures that can go in the demographics section within Chester, leaving the district population figures to go in Chester (district). I think this is the best way to go, since, come the local government changes, Chester will not be so easily run together with the local government area in which it is located.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox & image positioning

Stating the obvious, at the time of writing this, there's a whopping great blank space at the beginning of this article. As you've already discussed, this is due to the infobox positioning. (A headache I've been trying to deal with on numerous settlement articles with infobox & images). I know it is not ideal - but why not position the coat of arms top left (if only temporary)? This has been done in the Hoylake article. I know it means sandwiching the text, but for now it's either that or having to move the COA image up and down the article to suit text additions/deletions. Just a suggestion. Snowy 1973 01:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or simply swap the Town Hall immage with the COA. Tony Swaine 10:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The reader can get rid of the "whopping great blank space" by hiding the Contents box. Positioning images goes against the advice in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements which states "Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images.". Peter I. Vardy 11:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Already tried hiding contents list, it didn't seem to work for me. Agree text sandwiching goes against the guidelines. So it seems that we'll have to use a different infobox template (?) Isn't this issue applicable with any image, not just the COA? Snowy 1973 15:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this. I certainly had the same problem in my browser, but no longer do. I removed the COA from the lead (and indeed the article) - it pertains to Chester (district), not Chester as such). -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be wrong here, as it is 'The City of Chester' Coat of Arms. If you are to remove anything you should consider ::removing the COA from Chester (district) I have removed the pic of the Town Hall and placed it in the gallery and put the COA in the infobox where I think it should live.

 Tony Swaine  12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope sorry, that's a common misconception. Not only does it not pertain to Chester (proper), but it only pertains to the council of the Chester local government district (so it pertains to a corporate body, not a territory). COA's are only granted by the College of Arms to specific people or companies, not territories. So it strictly/officially/only pertains to the City of Chester Council. Also, Chester (like every other place in the UK) lost city status with the 1974 local government reform (all districts were abolished). City status was (re)granted according to the new local government boundaries, which is why Chester (district) has the status of a city - but that's a little unrelated here.

To futher complicate things, there was a problem with including the arms in the infobox; it's a breach of fair use to use copyrighted images in templates (which is why biographical articles have to use public domain photographs). So we can't use it there anyway. It's common practice to use a local landmark in the infobox anyway. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You say: "it's a breach of fair use to use copyrighted images in templates" To be consistent, I think you should apply the above rationale to the COA that appears on the Chester (district) page, and all the other wiki pages that contain COA in the infoboxes e.g. Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool etc., etc., etc., in that case? - Do you not think?

The Chester COA has been put back because it is an image with a wikimedia commons attribution!  Tony Swaine  18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But this does not take into account the other argument advanced by Jza84, which is that the COA refers to the council, and not the settlement, and that therefore, it should not be in this article, but that the image of the town hall is acceptable. The onus is on you to explain how and why (using cited souces and appropriate references) it should be included. Until then, I will revert it. Note the advice (not a threat, which you mentioend previously) that you should not revert this more than 3 times unless you want to be possibly blocked for a period.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, you owe a duty to be consistent, and remove the COA that appears on many other English city pages, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester etc., etc., etc., Go on, remove them, and use the same rationale as you have here. Put simply, Chester city council 'represents' the city, and has the best interests of the city at heart, agreed? I think that there is nothing wrong with the Chester City Council logo appearing on a page about Chester city. Do you agree? Tony Swaine  18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chester Council is responsible for Chester (district) which is where the COA can sit with a fair use rationale. If it keeps getting put on this page it will be deleted by the copyright project. Regan123 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the example of Salford may be more relevant to make the comparison with instead of Manchester or Liverpool. You will notice that the Salford article does not include Salford City Council's COA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

--::Quite. This is common across the UK - Salford/City of Salford, Carlisle/City of Carlisle, Wakefield/City of Wakefield, Canterbury/City of Canterbury. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh?! Tony Swaine  19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's hardly more relevant, now is it?

I'm talking about English cities which do have COA in the infobox (note ones which don't!!)

Why have not ALL the other English city sites who display a COA, had the COA removed for the reason Regan states above?

Jza84 says "To futher complicate things, there was a problem with including the arms in the infobox; it's a breach of fair use to use copyrighted images in templates" My question is:Where's everyone's consistency here? Why don't the other pages with a COA break the rules as well as the Chester page seems to with it's COA?  Tony Swaine  19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's agreed that the logo belongs to the district of Chester, and not to Chester, then what is the fair use rationale for using it in this article? Or indeed the relevance? Wouldn't it be just as relevant to include Chester City Football Club's COA? The Chester district extends much further than what was the pre-1974 city, unlike some of the cases mentioned in the appeal for consistency. So I don't see in any inconsistency here. And even if there was, wouldn't it be preferable to get it right in this article, instead of copying what every other pre 1974-city article had done? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(About being consistent and having to revert lost of other articles) We are concerned with this article about a topic concerning Cheshire. If you believe there is a matter of consistency that extends to the other cities you mentioned (or, to be more precise, that the other articles are being inconsistent or violating fair use rationale), then raise it on their talk pages (don't immediately edit the images out, as this could be viewed as being disruptive to prove a point). We are getting things done right here. The COA, as others have said, belongs to the district council of Chester District, which is why it is best on that page, and not on this one, as there is more to Chester District than just the settlement which is the topic of this article. Remember, that wikipedia itself really can't be said to be a reliable source with which to verify other bits of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Fair Point. Onwards and upwards then eh?  Tony Swaine  22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinney12 (talk • contribs)