Talk:Nottingham/Archive 1

Patterned after Bristol
I patterned my rewrite after Bristol, getting rid of the various stubby lists at the end by folding the people and places mentioned in them into the main text. Hope this doesn't upset any apple-carts.

The website www.nottshistory.org.uk is rather splendid, and I could have added a lot more material from there given time (and may well do, at some point in the future). It's particularly notable in the Wikipedia context because the idea behind it is to make out-of-copyright works on the history of Nottingham available online -- kind of a local Project Gutenberg. --Bth 14:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Crime Survey post
I removed the following post today: "Additionally, and despite Nottingham's recent bad publicity for crime, a recent survey in The Independent Newspaper (dated October 27th 2006) ranked Nottingham as only the 17th most violent place to live in the country

The report features the following quote:

"Despite all the publicity Nottingham has received for fatal shootings in recent years the city comes 17th on the list, with one firearms incident for every 1,141 residents"."

The reasons for removal are many. Firstly, the report by the Independent clearly stated that the figures related to guncrime offences committed from April 2004 up to April 2005. The figures are therefore well out of date. Secondly, the "firearms league tables" rate the 43 Police forces in England and Wales in terms of the number of firearms offences committed in each of the 230 police command units' areas. By taking the number of offences committed and dividing it by the population of each zone (from 2001 census data), a ratio is produced, by which each 'zone' is rated. A police command unit does not cover an entire city, the data has not been matched to produce figures for all Nottingham command units, and the boundaries drawn by the survey are somewhat arbitrary, with for example Derbyshire Police controlling parts of what we would call Nottingham. Thirdly, the journalist writing the article himself admits the survey is "...heavily slanted in favour of quiet, rural areas" and extrapolated, as I have shown, from confusing and misleading data produced by selective and arbitrary criteria. Fourthly, I really don't think that being 'only' the 17th most violent place to live out of 43 (50 in terms of this survey!) is really anything to crow about! Any opinions greatly appreciated. Codeye 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Greater Nottingham
They should incorporate all the suburbs around Nottingham into something like greater Nottingham. Then the population would be 750.000 and be one hell of a big city.

This article is about Nottingham rather 'Greater Nottingham' which a separate article, but in a few places seems to go outside of the city boundaries. I have removed a few places from the areas of Nottingham as technically they are not such as Beeston and West Bridgford. I also intend to reword a few bits such as the introduction to reflect this. Please let me know if I am going the wrong way Bevo74 13:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about the population figure - as it stands, this article makes it sound as though Greater Nottingham has a population of ~1m ('estimated city population of 275,100 with more than 700,000 in the surrounding conurbation' - so a total of 975,100?), but the Greater Nottingham article makes it sound as though the population of the Nottingham conurbation is 666,358. (I think all these figures are stated as being from the 2001 census.)


 * I'll leave it to someone with more local knowledge than I to make the appropriate edit(s) to clarify this. :-) Matthew 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that in some parts of greater Nottingham. Many people do not realise that it is not technically part of the city.--B3ntleg 19:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but when it has been suggested that these places actually go into the city there is an uproar. The local government commission suggested this in the early '90s and it was not met with favourably.


 * I have added a link to Greater Nottingham in the other uses section at the top of the article. This should help direct people to the section the need.--KlickingKarl 00:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"one of England's 8 core citys" [sic]
Suomi-morner added the following text on 2005 Jan 30:


 * Nottingham is one of England's 8 core citys.

Does this have a precise meaning? Does the term "core city" in relation to Britain/England have/deserve a topic defining it? (The existing core city topic refers only to Japan.) -- JTN 11:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never heard it used myself, so I suspected it was just one of these phrases that politicians come out with. A quick search and, well, what do you know, it is. . John Prescott, I could have guessed. Average Earthman 14:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Would be better to say "is classed as one of England's core cities"
 * It is pretty much part of the lexicon when talking about the bid cities in England now - but only in Government / NGO circles really
 * I think you're looking for the term English Core Cities Group 82.16.7.63 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Clifton
I thought that Clifton (estate at least), was within in the city boundary despite being south of the Trent. Friends who live there have City bins.

According to City of Nottingham Council website Clifton is within the City boundaries.


 * It is within the City of Nottingham. The boundary extension of 1951 brought in Clifton Village, Clifton estate and Wilford village. It also set the boundary between Nottingham and West Bridgford as the River Trent. It used to be the case that there were detached parts of Nottingham on the south side of the Trent in West Bridgford and detached parts of West Bridgford on the north side. (Peter Martin1891 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Taxis
I was thinking of deleting the taxi advertisement, as it can be considered POV. I thought again, if subsidised monopolies, eg the Trams and buses can have advertising, why not an independent firm.


 * While I can see something generic about the level of taxi service or something as possible material here, what was added certainly wasn't. As you mention it might be a good idea to change the stuff about the Trams/buses as well (maybe mention the extents and service level available, but less about how they are some award winning service, as that seems fairly POV). Consider this, Sfnhltb 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on taxis in Transport in Nottingham since other cities have this.--KlickingKarl 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Areas
Regarding repeated additions of suburbs outside the city, would it help to list areas outside the city boundary, but mark them as such, as is done with Bristol? Joe D (t) 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nottingham is a difficult city due to the amount of conurbation outside of the city proper. I take this page to refer to the city itself, but appreciate that most people from outside such as students, at some of the campuses or away fans at the City Ground, would fail to realise they were not truly in Nottingham.   Some rearranging needs to be done.  At the top of the page the 'city' and 'suburbs' are separated out maybe this is how the list at the bottom should be done.  Bevo74 08:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To add to the list of towns, I was wondering how far out of the city 'Nottingham' would sensibly be listed. I have listed the towns and suburbs listed under Greater Nottingham and a couple more by Dialling Code, Post Code,County and post town.

*Breaston	01332	DE	Derbys	Derby *Heanor	01332	DE	Derbys	Heanor *Ripley,	01332	DE	Derbys
 * Arnold	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Beeston	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Carlton	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Eastwood	01773	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Hucknall	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Ilkeston	0115	DE	Derbys	Ilkeston
 * Kimberley,	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Long Eaton	0115	NG	Derbys	Nottingham
 * Ruddington	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * Sandiacre	0115	NG	Derbys	Nottingham
 * Stapleford	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham
 * West Bridgford	0115	NG	Notts	Nottingham

From what I know the inhabitants of the towns in bold (and Ilkeston?) do not usually see themselves as being in Nottingham, especially when you consider that Kirkby in Ashfield has Nottingham as part of it's postal address and Mansfield and even Grantham have NG post codes. Conversely, I know people from Loughborough and Melton Mowbray who see Nottingham as their city. Just a thought! any more on this? Bevo74 00:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article should be about the City of Nottingham proper. If an area is not covered by the City Council, then it should not be treated as being in Nottingham. Nottingham has a Royal Charter to be a city (from 1897) and also since 1449 has had the right to be treated as being a distinct County. It enjoyed its own Coroner and separate Sheriff from the Shire County. I will admit I used to be a council tax payer to the City of Nottingham and feel that places like West Bridgeford (which don't pay Council Tax to the City coffers) should not be included until they formally become part of the city. At every proposed boundary extension - 1919, 1933 & 1951 the inhabitants of places like West Bridgeford and Beeston etc actively campaigned to stay out of the city. In the early 1990's there was the possibility of redrawing the city's boundaries so that all areas north of the Trent went into the City of Nottingham and that Wilford and Clifton went back to the County. This was opposed by residents in places like Arnold, Carlton, Beeston etc. as they felt they would lose their identity! (Peter Martin1891 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Skyscrapers in Nottingham
With regard to the required skyscraper citation, I think this link may show that Nottingham is low-rise but not as to why,http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=102753 Bevo74 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, while citations for all the facts in the articles would be good, what we specifically need is a reference for the "some people" - who say that? Wikipedia isn't a soapbox so editors can't go around saying "Nottingham council have a phobia of tall buildings", and using weasel words like "some people claim" amounts to the same thing.  We can say "Nottingham has few tall buildings compared to other British cities of a similar size" and we can say "In 2005, Mr Example of ExampleOrganisation/Nottingham based ExampleCompany accused the council of having a 'phobia' of tall buildings."  Joe D (t) 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood
Why is robin hood not mentioned much at all in this article? He has earned Nottingham worldwide fame, and yet he only seems to merit a brief mention! he should have his own section, possibly even a point in the opening sentence! If the caves are worthy, robin hood most certainly is. thoughts? - Jack (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The caves exist. That's easily proved. Robin Hood on the other hand... Average Earthman 12:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a discussion of the myth of Robin Hood? Whether he exists or not, it is a fact that he generates a fair percentage of the income from the tourism sector. Stressing the point of WORLDWIDE fame! 82.18.40.55 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise I'm a bit behind the times on this discussion, but think it holds a point that is still valid. The world outside of England has certainly heard of Robin Hood, even if it's not sure it's heard of Nottingham! I have travelled to remote communities in Indonesia, spent time with a nomadic Bedouin tribe in the Sahara desert, worked in a small farming community in Thailand and have friends from almost every continent - They all know about Robin Hood!


 * An Egyptian friend and colleague, who has never travelled outside the Arab world, thought it strange when I assumed his ignorance of Robin Hood, when in Egypt recently. He brought in some non-English speakers from outside, and every single one of them could relate Robin's tales with more clarity than I could, and I'm from Nottingham!
 * (My friend did think that Robin hailed from "Tottenham", however; I think this illustrates the point beautifully.)
 * Robin Hood is this city's greatest export, so I do think we ought to make a bit more of him on these pages.
 * Thoughts? Comments? Ta. Codeye 04:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So what do you suggest we do? I must say I don't know a great deal either, perhaps you should get your Egyptian friend to help? Lol. Or suggest a collaboration? - Jack (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Assassination city
This article cannot ignore the murderous image put on the city recently. It is what UK readers expect to see addressed in this article. Of course, proud / indignant Nottinghamians will excise these facts simply because they are personally objectionable.
 * This paragraph has now been deleted twice from the article, without explanation. The opinion of other editors on whether it should be reinserted for a third time is requested:
 * In 2004 Nottingham came under national scrutiny after a series of gun-crime related murders, earning it nicknames such as 'Assassination City' and 'Shottingham' . The city and local police force have denied that this reputation is fair, pointing out that a number of other cities have higher crime rates , and have sought to rebuild the city's reputation . Recent statistics have suggested that the number of offences involving weapons declined by nearly 50 per cent between 2003 and 2005 . According to research by Endsleigh Insurance, Nottingham has the worst burglary rates in the UK, though this is disputed by Nottinghamshire Police due to queries over whether their figures are up to date and compare like-for-like .DWaterson 09:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody would deny that parts of Nottingham have had a crime problem in recent years. but to use the references to 'Assassination City' and 'Shottingham' are weasel words. They just re-enforce a stereotype.  Cities such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle and Manchester have reputations for certain things, but they aren't included in factual articles. Bevo74 11:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with you. They aren't weasel words as they are a quotation from a referenced source. Remember that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, but with verifiability. Those phrases have been verifiably used in a national newspaper. That articles on other cities don't refer to their crime statistics might just be because no one has written the section yet. DWaterson 11:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The words are carried in the Daily Telegraph, but did they just use them as quotes to add to the their article, if the Daily Telegraph carries opinion does that make it verifiable?. What I meant about the other cities was that, I don't think it should be implied that Nottingham is crime ridden, the other cities I referred to have reputations for other things such as, 'binge-drinking' and 'shell suits' things that would not appear in Wikipedia.  I have no problem with showing crime figures, but sensationalism doesn't make for a good research tool.Bevo74 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I have noticed several times that anything "negative" about Nottingham seems to get removed very quickly indeed. The quotes above are indeed sensationalist but this Orwellian censorship of anything that mentions the very real, much reported crime problems that are affecting Nottingham, must stop. Can't help sensing the hand of self interested parties here... Saintjohnny 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I have also noticed this 'negative' information disappearing overnight too. It is fact (can't be bothered to search for the reference at the mo, but will when I get time; check the Nottingham Evening Post newspaper if anyone gets round to it first) that in late 2004/sometime in 2005, Nottingham City Council started employing 3 PR guys to oppose negative reports (even those based on stats like national crime survey) and generally negate or remove any unsavoury truths or opinions in the media. Obviously they are earning the £300,000 p.a. they were being paid at the start of their employ, which I would be willing to bet (and this IS conjecture as yet until I get time to research the point) that their wagebill has not reduced in any significant manner in the meantime. Can't wait to add that little nugget to the main site, appropriately referenced and sourced, of course. Then we'll have action to recourse when the council "Crime wot crime?" squad (or, of course, whomever else it may have been) obliterates the uncomfortable text!

I have also removed the mention of public order problems at Goose Fair as it is just not true. However the Fair has been marred because of the murder of Danielle Beccan who had been to the Fair but at the time of the incident, was nowhere near it. References such as this give Goose Fair an unjustified bad reputation. --Pica pica 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Bevo74 - maybe there is a place for such information but certainly not presented in the manner it has been so far. The article on Manchester doesn't seem to have large amounts about gun crime and Moss Side in it? Robertsteadman 06:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but Moss Side does... DWaterson 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the heavy emphasis on crime should be moved into the articles on the relevant parts of the city then Bevo74 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Ps I don't live with in the City of Nottingham so I don't have a vested interest.


 * Nottingham has recently topped the crime survey overall. and it was top for murder but not gun crime.--B3ntleg 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to live within the city proper. Unfortunately I have met several people who claim to have been assaulted or threatened in the city centre during daytime visits. This has happened to me on several occasions recently when I have showing people I know around the place on a Saturday afternoon. The perception of the city is bad in the rest of the UK. To remove all reference to the problem is not going to help matters. (Peter Martin1891 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

I agree with Peter Martin. The reputation of the City is bad in other parts of the UK. The 'Assassination City' tags are sensationalist. However, they are probably deserved as in the 1970's to 1990's I knew several Nottingham residents whom adopted a smug attitude towards other cities which they perceived to have crime issues that to be blunt did not match Nottinghams now! You have to move away and escape the local propaganda from the civic authorities and local media about the place to fully appreciate the problemGraemeMoughan 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article already contains a Crime section, any additional referenced info should surely go in here? Birmingham has a crime & policing section; other city articles mention crime in other sections such as Manchester (2), Leicester (1), Liverpool, Newcastle, London and Bristol don't even mention it.--KlickingKarl 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Greater Nottingham??
The Bristol guys will probably merge Bristol and Greater Bristol. Suggest that Nottingham and Bristol should both do the same thing with their 'big bits' since they're both broadly simlar cores and hinterlands. Bob aka Linuxlad 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * agree - it does seem odd having a separate article (or at least merge most and have a separate Greater Nottingham article if there really is anything too long to include in main article. I can't imagine anyone searching for "Greater Nottingham".Robertsteadman 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose - They are not the same thing, and the Nottingham article is already too complicated. Just a link to greater Nottingham should be enough - Jak (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also oppose. The City of London and Greater London are distinct areas. There should be a separation between the two. Wikipedia should serve to inform and merging the two together is not informing is it? (Peter Martin1891 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Stella Rimington
She is listed as having been born in or near Nottingham but she wasn't - although she was educated in Nottingham. Should she be on that list? Or should the list be relabelled?Robertsteadman 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oldest pub/building
There is conflicting information about which pub is the oldest and which one has the oldest building. I moved some information from the paragraph about the caves to the first bit in History about the other pubs, but now the text appears to conflict.

"The Trip, while the oldest building and oldest location, was for most of its early life a brewery and not a public house. The Salutation sits on the oldest recognised public house site, but the current building is comparatively recent. The Bell, although not in such an antiquated location, does boast the oldest public house building. There is also conflicting information available: dendrochronology dating evidence from roof timbers in the Salutation give a date for the building of c.1420 with similar dates for the Bell."

So is the Bell older? Oldest? Lower down, it says, about the Trip, "Although the pub's building only dates from the 16th or 17th century...".

The Trip can't be the oldest building if it really only dates from the 16th or 17th century unless the "building" in the first instance is talking about the caves.

--Lukeandrews 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crime
In attempt to stop this section from being repeatedly altered, here are the facts:
 * (1) The original Reform crime survey reported Nottingham as having the highest rates for certain crimes.
 * (2) Nottingham City Council and the Police force criticised the report for using 2001 population figures and for not taking into account the population of Greater Nottingham (even though the crime figures didn't relate to Greater Nottingham)
 * (3) Reform published a revised version of the survey in July 2006 based on 2004 population estimates.

If the City Council have criticised this version of the survey, please include a reference. The revised survey was published and backed up the original figures. The revised survey replaced the original version on the Reform website. Thanks. --Michig 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have also added info. re. the downward trend in crime according to the Nottingham City Council website/Home Office survey.--Michig 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Female to Male Ratio???
I have heard that to every male living in Nottingham there are 3 females? Is this true? I'm not thinking of moving there if it is true! Honest! lol


 * It's not true, I have been in Nottingham for years. It's roughly equal

I think that claim dates back to World War 2, when lots of Nottingham men went away to fight, leaving the women in the factories etc. AL


 * Actually, I think this may be something that is said about the student population, rather than the population as a whole. That is the context that I have heard it in in the past. 80.229.27.145 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Games Workshop
I wonder if we can add a bit more about the Games Workshop headquarters, more than the fact it is an employer. GW have their world headquarters in Nottingham, and the site includes a huge gaming hall, museum, and dwarven pub. It's a leisure facility as well as a business and attracts people from all over the world. Obviously it doesn't want to sound like an ad - but it's quite a big facility and deserves a bit more description - if there is a separate link - (it's called Warhammer World) I will link to it within Wikipedia. Magic Pickle 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this, I'm not a real fan of warhammer and have never played it but I went here once and it was pretty impressive --Timmywimmy 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is malmö twined with Nottingham?
On Malmö's Wikipedia entry the only British twin city is Newcastle, NOT Nottingham; on that page Malmö's there is a citation to a website of Malmös city council, which has a list of twin cities (the same ones as on Wikipedia) that does not include Nottingham. There is no citation for Nottingham's twined cities. Is Malmö twinned with Nottingham?


 * No, Malmö is not twinned with Nottingham - 82.16.7.63 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Waste Management
Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox should be converted to Infobox UK place
So far, all I can manage is on the right in the article. If anyone can add to it, or even complete it, it can be added to the article, bringing it up to speed. — Jack · talk · 11:44, Monday, 26 March 2007


 * OK, so I had a better shot, and put it in the article. Not finished really, and a lot of info had to be left out. But I still think it's an improvement. Perhaps the missing information can be added to the main text? — Jack · talk · 21:08, Tuesday, 12 June 2007


 * Someone reverted that. 82.16.7.63 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved Nottingham Murders
There are many unsolved murders in Nottingham but the two murders that stand out are those of pub landlord George Wilson and the 'Birthday Girl' murder Lucy Tinslop.

GEORGE WILSON

In 1963, publican George Wilson was stabbed outside the Fox & Grapes pub (now the Peggers) in an apparent motiveless murder. Mr. Wilson was unlocking the door to the pub when the killer snuck up from behind and stabbed him 13 times. For several months the police investigated the death and Scotland yard were even called in to help. There were several promising leads but unfortunately, none of these led to the finding of Mr. Wilson's killer. A massive development came when two school boys found a knife which is now believed to have been the murder weapon. Nothing of any significance came from this discovery. The killer, if still alive, remains at large.

LUCY TINSLOP, THE 'BIRTHDAY GIRL' MURDER

On June 10th 1965 Miss Lucy Tinslop was making her way to her parents house from a friend's home. Taking a short cut through the St. Mary's rest garden on Bath Street, she came face to face with the person who viciously raped and murdered her. She had been strangled to death and an autopsy showed that she had suffered aggressive sexual abuse at the hands of her attacker. What makes this unsolved murder even more horrific is the fact that it was Lucy's 37th birthday. She was on her way to a party organised by her mother. Her body was found by Michael Norwood, a married factory worker. For a while the police believed Mr. Norwood, 42, could be the killer but an alibi from a co-worker soon dispelled that theory. Lucy Tinslop was born on June 10th 1928. The police investigation of the time uncovered very little but it was believed that Miss Tinslop was a lesbian and that she knew who her attacker was.


 * Why do these stand out? And why should Nottingham have any more unsolved murders than a typical city? — Jack · talk · 18:59, Tuesday, 5 June 2007


 * My biggest concern with these are that they are unsourced, sensational, and original research. However, they may be vaguely notable; if confirmed, then I'd think separate articles would be more appropriate, rather than lumping them into this page. Cheers, DWaterson 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This section as it stands violates most policies I can think of. – Steel 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I support this view. If you want to write about famous murders, why does it need to go in the section about the City of Nottingham? ===fifthmonarchy

Proposed split to Notable Nottingham residents
The list of "people who live(d) here" is beginning to get very long, and should probably be split off to a new article, replaced here by a summary in prose — Jack · talk · 14:55, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
 * I agree, this article is very long as it is. Halsteadk 12:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, lists of notable (and less notable) folk, who just happen to be from Nottingham, doesn't add to the article. Bevo74 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I went ahead and did this. Bevo74 11:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested split out of History section
I am simply responding to someone else's suggestion. The history section is interesting and relevant because Nottingham's past has a major impact on Nottingham's present. The history is helpful to the average reader wanting to find out 'something' about Nottingham. In addition, I do not think it stands very well as a separate article. Therefore - leave it as it is! fifthmonarchy


 * Fair enough, though I'd like to get a bigger consensus before removing the tag. It was my idea, as the section is getting a bit big, and it's not too uncommon for cities to have a separate article on its history. For example, if you look at Nottingham's sister cities, two of seven have their own separate history articles. If the section gets much bigger, we're gonna have to split it. — Jack · talk · 15:11, Monday, 18 June 2007


 * I think it needs splitting out as the article is getting too longBevo74 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cave dwellers
I recently edited the caves section to say that they were still inhabited well into the 20th Century. However my entry has been edited and it is stating that they were abandoned in at the end of the 19th Century THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!! My grandmother's family were the last family to inhabit the caves and left in around 1924, they were the Shore family and inhabited the caves on Ilkeston Road. My grandmother was invited to open up the caves as a tourist attraction, but refused as she was ashamed.


 * Sorry, there's no way we can tell if you're telling the truth unless you can provide a verifiable source. Stuff written here should be bona fide facts. 82.16.7.63 13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at my copy of Sandstone Cave of Nottingham by Tony Waltham published in the Mercian Geologist (1992 13 (1)). This refers at page 6 to the fact that a cave at Lenton Hermitage "was in use as an office until 1962.". Therefore the contention that the caves were occupied well into the 20th century is correct.

(That said a visit to the Brewhouse Yard Museum is sufficient (or used to be) to verify the "well into the 20th century point". They used to display a photograph of Sneinton Hermitage and suggested that that cave complex was condemmed as a place of residential habitation as late as the 1930's.)

Pages 6 and 7 of Sandstone Caves of Nottingham then turn to Sneinton Hermitage. These caves were inhabited until the last sections were removed in 1903 - (this year was 20th century the last time I checked). It also states:

"Paupers lived in various caves alongside the main roads out of Nottingham. Mansfield Road (up to the top of the Forest) Derby Road (up to Canning Circus) Hollow Stoen (eastwards out of the Lace Market)......Records describe people living in caves alongside all three roads at various times between the 14th and 19th century....However, to this day, some of the caves on Hollow Stone adn Garner's Hill (and probably others) are used by the city tramps for occasional sleeping and heavy drinking - though this can hardly be called "living" in the caves."

Tony Waltham is described in his article as being "Dr Anthony C Waltham of the Civil Engineering Department of Nottingham Polytechnic". I propose to use the comments in his article to amend the comments in the caves section UNLESS someone can cite a contradictory source by mid-September 2007. GraemeMoughan 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous People
The famous people section should only contain people whom are genuinely connected to the CITY of NOTTINGHAM. D H Lawrence was from Eastwood. My understanding is that D H Lawrence referred to being from the County not the City. His education was at Univesity level.

Lord Byron was born in London to a father with a home miles outside modern Nottingham. His mother was from Aberdeenshire. He spent his first ten years in Aberdeen and some sources recount a very soft Scottish accent. He is buried in Hucknall outside the City. So I am not sure that Nottingham as a City can claim him. If this was the Nottinghamshire page it would be different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GraemeMoughan (talk • contribs).

I have added the legendary Xylophone man to the list of famous people since i think anybody from Nottingham (and some who arn't) all know he definatly deserves a place on the list. --78.145.150.19 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems raised could be avoided by using the heading of FAMOUS RESIDENTS, as has been done in the case of other cities. For example one of our most celebrated modern novelists, Graham Greene, worked for the Nottingham Journal in 1926. The city appears as Nottwich in the novel The Ministry of Fear. Father George Trollope at Nottingham Cathedral baptised Greene into the Catholic church.

This seems an important cultural reference - and no doubt there are others which could be included under a RESIDENTS heading.

Bandalore (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture
If you read the magazine 'Leftlion' it refers to the steps of The Council House as THE EMO CRECHE. Every time I add this bit of information it gets deleted. Who are these people who just delete for the sake of it? Make you feel good does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.71.55 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason it keeps getting deleted is because, true or otherwise, it is not notable and unencyclopaedic, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion. It's not even very interesting IMO... Sorry, DWaterson 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on my blogs about the people who think they own wikipedia. YOUR opinion that it's not interesting is a typical example of what's wrong with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.71.55 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If several people delete the same thing due to the reasons above and it is put back in by one person it is they who trying to own Wikipedia. Keep writing your blogs rather than adding unnotable stuff here alse elsewhere on Wikipedia. 86.159.234.180 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it twice. The reasons were given in the edit summaries, and I have yet to see any attempt to follow the guidelines in WP:NOTE concerning establishing notability, or, until now (and only on this talk page) any attempt to follow the guidelines about not adding unreferenced material (see WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References.) I would gently suggest that if the entry could satisfy the guidelines of notability and also be referenced, time would have been better spent adding the information and supplying arguments as to why it should be included on the basis of satisfying the guidelines, rather than complaining about editors who removed the unreferenced or unsourced material for which notability had not been established. There is enough long-standing unreferenced material already in the article, and any additional material should not add to it. If the information is notable enough and it can be referenced adequately, then arguments in its favour should appear here prior to it being added, and critical comments about editors who up to now disagree about its inclusion should be avoided (see WP:CIVIL.)  DDStretch    (talk)  08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some additional information: The information seems to have been added and removed about 6 times. As far as I can tell, although I left two messages about its inclusion, I may have removed it only once (I haven't had the energy to go back and check.) The reason for the lengthy first message left on 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC) on User talk:81.96.71.55 was to explain why it had been removed about 4 times already and to give advice about how to go about adding the material. Given that no evidence was apparent that this advice was followed, and the ip address had been associated with editing problems before in June 2007, the next addition seemed to me to be worthy of an immediate stern warning, which I issued. Indeed, this final warning seems to have worked and at last been effective, for only now are we seeing some kind of discussion with the editor who keeps on adding it. If something gets added by an editor and then removed by a variety of people repeatedly, the advice is that a discussion should be opened about it. The first message I added to the talk page did this, but I am sad that it took a further message in the form of a final warning to finally bring this discussion about.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the extensive explanations of how verifiability is required for the claim, and despite the IP address given above appearing to have the references, it was added again early this morning, and without references. It was remoevd by someone,a nd another person posted a message to the talk page emphasizing the verifiability criterion (which isn't sufficient, as notability is also required). So, what are we supposed to do now if such behaviour is repeated? My inclination is that since adequate and repeated attempts have been made to advise the editor, without apparent success, we simply start to issue warnings, as I had started to do previously, for disruption.   DDStretch    (talk)  10:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Population table
Year Population

4th century <37 ...

Where does this seemingly random number 37 come from? so less than 37, definitely not 38 or 39?! Any sources on this, I would love to hear about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction section seems to deviate from the template employed by the entries for other cities. These seem to stick to detailing very high level things such as population, location, employment and maybe famous historical associations. The entry for Nottingham includes references to current affairs which don't belong in a summarative introduction.

For example when talking about the market square the redevelopment is labelled as controversial, along with a citation. While undoubtably controversial its a discussion point rather than a fact and is related specifically to the square rather than Nottingham as a whole.

Additionally the closing line 'Recently, Nottingham was voted the 4th worst city to live in, based especially on its crime rate' seems completely out of place within the introduction. Surely this belongs within the crime section. 87.80.142.201 (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)A Caudwell

Recent changes
I have some concerns with some of the recent changes by User:Williamenicholls (diff). At the very least, the lead paragraph seems inferior to me, removing factual information and adding flowery opinion on the merits of the city. I don't wish to revert such a large change without discussion, so does anyone else have an opinion on this? DWaterson (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This statement is pure POV 'Nottingham is a popular city amongst many people who come, to marvel at the city's rich culture, architectural splendour, to shop and to explore Nottingham's history. The city's population is rising rapidly due to its status as a hub for shopping, entertainment, tourism and gigs'. Like you say I'd be loathe to revert it without a discusion, but a lot of editting is needed. Bevo74 (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is that really how people say it? I would expect a schwa (if at all) in the last syllable, and no secondary stress.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any objections, I'm changing this.--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Could someone upload an image of the coat of arms of this city to Commons? Thanks. --Pabletex (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

xylophone man
I'm going to add xylophone man once again, i have no idea why he was taken off, if you ask anybody from nottingham (and a few who arn't) they will know who he is and know he is legendary and famous Nottingham figure. He has his own wiki page and is most definatly a notable person so please do not delete him from the section. --78.145.163.219 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He was removed because he was already correctly listed at List of people from Nottingham as explained in my previous edit summary. Bevo74 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs
The British premier screening of this film is mentioned twice in the article, but the location is inconsistent. In the Architecture section the cinema is named as the Screen Room. In the Culture section the cinema is named as the Broadway. I have no idea which is correct, and I hope an expert will be able to remove this inconsistency.

The article on Hockley Village says that the Quentin Tarantino film premieried at the Broadway was Pulp Fiction.

Perhaps the comment about the cinemas and Reservoir Dogs could be removed entirely from the Architecture section of the article? It doesn't comment on the architecture of these cinemas; it reads more as an aside when discussing Hockley. The Culture section is a much better place for this information. 213.162.112.223 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Education
I just updated the education section as they were quoting statistics from 2006 and not 2008 ThirteenSenses (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nottingham Image
User Willednic replaced the Rivertrent.jpg image with RSCN1170-1-.jpg which I felt was not acceptable. His image was not identifiable as being Nottingham and the original image was good enough and clearly unique and identifiable to Nottingham. I have changed this back but I would like to know what others think on this? Flibblesan (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"rated as the Nth best place to shop in the UK"
I've removed this statement entirely, since it's inherently POV and prone to flap around unless someone's willing to state who rated it thus. (In this article, it's been at various times "best", "fifth best", and "fourth best", never backed by a citation.) -- JTN 22:18, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * It was Experian who did the survey thing, So you can put it back :-).


 * indeed it was an Experian survey - you can see the Guardian article stating that it was 4th in 2003 and 5th as of 2004.


 * OK, thanks. Was the recent edit (yours?) that rated it as "best after London" based on something similar? -- JTN 16:30, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * not mine.

Demographics
Can we clear up this section. The wiki claims: "Hyson Green is the most multi-religious and multi-racial part of the city with Radford road being the hub of activity." However the wiki's for Hyson_Green and Radford both list them as being areas of Nottingham but not related (although they are roughly neighbours). Infact the Radford artcile even mentions: "In recent years it has suffered from problems related to crime and anti-social behaviour (akin to the nearby district of Hyson Green)..." so are they different areas or the same? Surely we should rephrase the original statment to be something like: "The Hyson Green and Radford areas of Nottingham are the most multi-religious and multi-racial part of the city" However we still need some sources to quantify this. brob (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with the current phraseology. Hyson Green is the most multi-racial part of Nottingham (and yes we do need a reference for that). The neighbouring area of Radford is less so. And Radford Road (as opposed to Radford) is indeed the hub of Hyson Green.
 * I do think the opening sentence of this section needs changing: I have no idea what the phrase "embraces multi-culturism" actually means, if anything. 82.1.57.47 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Its been a long day. My apologies. I didn't read the "road" bit. brob (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This section as it stands is absolutely ludicrous. It refers solely to the city's ethnic minority groups and makes no mention of the group that constitutes 85% of the population.Shiresman (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nottingham/Tehran twin?
I cannot find ANY evidence that they are twinned! Looked on various new sites, and the Tehran page has no mention of Nottingham. Should this be removed or does anyone have evidence for it. (82.18.41.78 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Good spot - here's the list http://gossweb.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/nottingham/index.aspx?articleid=2636 I'll take Tehran out as a probable hoax.  Were Spiel  Chequers  18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

'Capital' of the East Midlands
Nottingham is probably the most 'important' city in the East Midlands, it is not the biggest Leicester is, but Nottingham has a bigger conurbation, as per the reference I tidied slightly further down the page (it's obvious 7th is between 6th and 8th). The East Midlands Development Agency is based in Melton. Yes Nottingham has goverment offices such as the HMRC, but these are national, not serving a regional function. Bevo74 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the EMDA is based in Nottm, but the EMRA which is the actual regional government assembly is based in Melton. The East Midlands doesn't have a capital city - it's a silly idea that only Nottm City Council seem to believe in. Nottingham has no such official status. The "Queen of the Midlands" in the infobox is rather dubious also - I don't think that's appropriate there - it's neither a former nor more common name for Nottingham.--Michig (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct it is the East Midlands Regional Assembly I muddled up the QUANGOs. Queen of the Midlands is only a nickname, so I'd be fine with it going.  Bevo74 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Queen of the Midlands was I thought a reference to it having the largest gay population in the Midlands. But I don't have a source for that.--KlickingKarl 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOLOL!!! :p Codeye (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Major tidy imminent!
Every time I re-visit this article I find it's been effectively vandalised, with almost all negative references to Nottingham removed, much of the information already present on the page repeated elsewhere and ever more businesses using the page as an advert. A few other people have noted on this page that they have also found legitimate (usually negative) points repeatedly disappearing: could I ask that we keep a collective eye on the page for a while, please?

POV, opinion and adverts just should not be present on Wikipedia, and articles should not present a highly-selective and biased account which has been sugar-coated, with certain facts edited out! I intend to give it a good shake-up and update it over the next week or two. I don't really see why any employer or business, large or small, should get a mention on the page merely because they exist in the city? I intend to replace the list of free 'plugs' with relevant info, for example, a statistical breakdown showing how many people work in each sector, given as a percentage. Obviously, companies that historically employed large proportions of the city (ie Raleigh, Players, Boots) may warrant a mention in the correct context. I won't touch anything that's named in the article with good reason, nor will I alter references to now-defunct firms (ie Shipstones) if I find them. I welcome opinions on doing away with as much of the present lists as is poss? Also, if anyone can provide a legitimate reason for why a certain company/firm/shop etc should actually be included in an encyclopedia entry about Nottingham, I'll be happy to add (or reinstate) them to the page.

Since much of the info about Nott'm has been moved to other, more tightly-defined pages, (ie the city's history now has a page of its own) I'll continue the trend of trimming and shifting stuff to the most relevant 'subpage' wherever poss. (unless it really does deserve a mention here too!) I'll also move the references to things like Creswell Crags (which are in Derbyshire, 33 miles away from Nott'm city centre), and places in the county not specifically linked with the city, to wherever they actually should be. My intention is that when finished, the page will no longer resemble a tourist information pamphlet or a page from a holiday brochure, but instead will once more approximate a proper encyclopaedic entry! Thanks. 86.5.7.153 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I made the last post but it appears I'd been logged out at the time. Thanks again. Codeye (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think in the industry section certain companies do deserve mentioning. I don't know if this is the section you were referring to about the 'plugs'. I think some info about sector analysis would be great.
 * Experian was founded in Nottingham and has it's operational headquarters there.
 * E.ON UK took over East Midlands Electricity which had it's headquarters in Nottingham. It was quite important to the development of electricity in Nottingham. E.On itself perhaps doesn't need a mention though. I'm undecided!
 * John Players was another large company in Nottingham, these companies I feel indicate the strengths of industry in the historical the city. Moving them all to the history section leaves a hole in the main article.
 * Gala Vision Express and Speedo have their headquarters in the city.
 * Siemens I can't see any reference to Nottingham in the main article and I've never heard of them being a major employer in the city.
 * Games Workshop is known by many hardcore fans as having it's headquarters in the city.
 * Serif Europe although relatively unknown, indicates the diversity of industry.
 * Capital One, HM Revenue and Customs and Driving Standards Agency are major national and international companies / services, that choose to use the city.


 * All of these choose Nottingham for one reason or another. I think this list has been compiled by Wiki users rather than snook in by the companies themselves for a free plug.
 * It says something of the city in terms of it's central location, accessibility to road, rail and air links and wider appeal that some companies relocated here. It says an entirely different thing of the people who were born in the city and created these large and successful companies.


 * Beyond this introduction paragraph, the relatively unknown companies that only link to their external websites should be cut and that section reworded. I agree the layout of the section is poor. I think it would be better if companies were listed under industry sectors such as service, government, creative industry, science / pharmaceuticals. Some do just appear to be tagged onto the end of sentences. There is definitely development needed in this section in comparison to 'Economy' sections of Bristol, Leicester and Leeds (which has a separate article on companies based there). KlickingKarl (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. You've really got me thinking about this one. My initial problem with having pretty much any company listed is that other, smaller/less well known companies inevitably miss out. Is a company really worthy of note simply because it's bigger than another, or because it employs more people? Surely these 'big fish' are the last people to actually need the 'advert' on Wikipedia?! 'Trent Cars' is one of the largest taxi firms in the city, employs over 500 people and (obviously) has its' HQ in Nottingham. It's a company virtually unheard of outside Nott'm,(I should imagine) but it does a hell of a lot for the local economy; is the fact that people outside of Nott'm may be unaware of it, enough reason to not include it? If we mention them, what about 'Central Cars', A2B, County Cars etc etc? They're all based in Nottm too so must also be noteworthy? Those seemingly small companies employ, in many cases, more people than the 'big boys' like the DSA, Serif or HM Customs. So, in the interests of fairness, if we allow, say, Gala to have a mention, we must also let Bell-Fruit have a mention, as their hq is also in the city, and they are both 'national' companies.

Even then, what about businesses 'notable' for having been in the same family for over 100 years, or for being the only place in the country doing bespoke repairs to ancient Rolls-Royce cars? (Nottm has both.) And if we mention Experian (who incidentally recently laid off hundreds of workers in Nott'm), why shouldn't Lloyds Finance also get its' fair allotment of space? (They are also, incidentally, in the process of making all 850 staff redundant at their Nott'm offices, but I'm sure you appreciate my point?!)

There are too many 'notable' cottage-industry type firms to list (just) all of those. I feel it has to be 'one-out, all-out', ie if we're against wikipedia becoming free advertising space for larger firms, we have to get rid of every brand named to ensure balance. As I said before, this doesn't apply to firms with a large historical significance or with other significant reason for inclusion, and it's here the real problems start...

I agree that some of the companies have (had) a wider significance to the community than others, but what is the yardstick we are measuring by here? I also agree that there are a number of reasons why firms may find it expeditious (expedient?! In their own best interests..!) to set up home in the city, be they geographical, political or financial. Most of these reasons are stated elsewhere on the page as general facts, (or indeed, are specifically covered by a page of their own); I don't think we need to bring them up again as part of an exposition on the relative merits/demerits of siting a firm in Nottingham? (!) For example, the (actually not all that good at times) transport links in and around the city are documented both here and on other pages, with East-Midlands Airport, major roads and Motorways, all the bus companies and stops (with timetables), the tram, (with stops and timetables) and the train (again, with all stations and timetables) enjoying pages of their own/mentions in their own section. Is it really necessary to then say "Nottingham has good transport links" in as many words? Of course, that statement in itself is essentially meaningless anyway (The transport links are good when compared with where? How were they compared? According to which scale can transport links be considered 'good' or 'bad'? Isn't it all subjective, really, anyway??) and should be avoided as opinion, or bias.

We should never presume to know the intentions of anyone doing anything, even when it appears obvious, unless it's factually provable. Why any company chose/chooses to have a base in Nottingham is essentially unknowable: we do not know what motivates their decisions as independent companies and we will never be able to find out! Even if we did, can you imagine the size of the page?! Luckily, it's not the job of an encyclopedia page about a city to point out reasons why business works the way it does, or why it works where it does. The page shouldn't be a little advert aimed at attracting businesses who may be thinking of expanding; neither is it here to promote tourism or indeed engender feelings of local pride. Even in times of recession, we don't need to let the (very high) standards on Wikipedia slip, and we don't want to reward only certain and such of the businesses. So, by what yardstick do we measure how important/relevant/worthy of mention any firm is against any other? Opinions please!! All comments welcome! PS The largest employers in Nott'm city, I can confidently predict,(?!) will be the NHS and then the civil service. Does that mean we need to begin listing departments in Guildhall, and wards in the QMC?!? Where does it all end? :) 86.5.7.153 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Damn thing logged me out again, but last edit was mine. Codeye (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, and so I'm not clued up on all the policies, but after a bit of reading about notability and notability (organisations and companies) I've been trying to re-think this. I understand that this policy is written in the context of creating whole articles, but I'm using it here as a guide to inclusion in the article. If there is a better policy I'd be interested to see it. It says there about "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Perhaps this could be a benchmark. A company certainly isn't worthy of note simply because it is bigger than another.


 * I think there has to be some mention of most of these companies, even if we follow the example of Leeds and create a different article about companies created or based in Nottingham. The points that you make above are interesting, especially about by which yardstick do we measure notability. Perhaps it is a combination that we need to fine tune. I approached the issue from a rather simple viewpoint, being that if I didn't know anything of industry or economy in Nottingham, which would give me a simple idea of the city's major sectors and an outline of the history.


 * On the point of the largest employer being the NHS, I think you may be right. To play devil's advocate here, Queens Medical Centre is the largest hospital in the UK, largest teaching hospital in Europe, employs over 6000 people and since merging with City Hospital to create Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, is one of the largest trusts in the UK... Perhaps noteworthy?! :P KlickingKarl (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've just re-read what I wrote above and it is phrased a little more harshly than I intended in places. I'm really glad you didn't take what I was saying the wrong way, and I'm genuinely sorry if I affended you/anyone else with my point. Anyway, Thanks again for your help. Some good points, well made. You've brought me round to your way of thinking: I'll leave that section alone for now and consider making a page about companies created/based in Nott'm, modelled on the 'Leeds' example, at some point in the near future. Thanks again for your input. Forgot to sign last edit, but it was Codeye (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)!
 * I'm impressed and a little scared by the power of my argument that it won you over so quickly! No offence was taken, I may be able to help you move some info over if you create that page. Still some edits are required on the rest of the page. KlickingKarl (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Project Nottinghamshire Proposal
I have proposed to the WikiProject Council that I create WikiProject Nottinghamshire. Please go to the WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Nottinghamshire to add your support or comments. KlickingKarl (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The project is now up and running, you can access it from the banner at the top or at WikiProject Nottinghamshire —Preceding unsigned comment added by KlickingKarl (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham Eye
Why is the Nottingham Eye section in Air Transport? It's not a type of transport. Surely it would be better placed in the culture section, either under the main title or tourism or entertainment. Opinions greatly welcomed. KlickingKarl (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting! British Airways, who as we know, operate the London Eye, recently obtain an order stopping the Nottingham Wheel being called The Eye, as they felt that people would link the two. I thought "no one would be that daft." clearly I was wrong and someone is associating our wheel with BA's London attraction. it will be moved (no - not the wheel, just the text!) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * whoops, just rechecked, and BA no longer involved with London Eye in any case - just shows how some ideas stick long after the factas change IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood in first paragraph.
I have reworded the reference to Mr Hood in the History section, to include the words legendary and supposed. I feel that this is far better than have a this might not be true qualifyer in brackets, which does not IMHO look proffesional. cheers --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also better than stating that he was a real person that lived near Nottingham, which was the worst version of all.--Michig (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham or Nottingham?
Is this article about the city of Nottingham, or the City of Nottingham?

The hatnote suggests it is about the City of Nottingham (i.e. the central part of the the city, covered by the city council), and points to a separate article Nottingham Urban Area which turns out to be a non-article.

However, if the article intends to exclude areas covered by Rushcliffe, Broxtowe and Gedling why does it contain information on Nottingham Forest, Trent Bridge, Holme Pierrepoint, Serif Europe (all in Rushcliffe), the tennis centre, Siemens (both in Broxtowe), the motorcycle speedway (in Long Eaton, Derbyshire!)?

My opinion is that the article should be about the city as a whole (i.e. the entire built-up area), and therefore the content is fine as it is, containing all the information you would expect to find in an article entitled "Nottingham". In which case the hatnote should be removed. 82.1.62.101 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the unitary authority area of the City of Nottingham. Areas outside of this are covered in separate articles. Keith D (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article clearly is about Greater Nottingham, as inclusion of the aforementioned items shows. Do you mean it should be about the unitary authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.62.101 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, when the majority of people think of Nottingham, they are thinking of the entire urban area. It would, therefore, be more appropriate for this page to be about Greater Nottingham than the area known as the City of Nottingham which is more a political entity than anything else. If somebody suggested that the London page should only contain information about the City of London, everyone would ridicule them. Nottmlad (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed Link
Hi. I recently added an external link about the history of Nottingham onto the Nottingham Wikipedia page that was subsequently removed shortly afterwards. Please could you tell me why as the content on the page was relevant to Nottingham. 81.156.155.237 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Politics
Wot, is there no politics in Nottingham? This might help: Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the same thing. I even have images from Commons - commons:Category:Politics of Nottingham. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been something I'm wanting to do to the article. Perhaps you could help and start a basic section and we can all add some details as we go along? KlickingKarl (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, but unfortunately I know frak all about Nottingham politics. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that much myself but I'm going to look at politics sections on other major cities and have a stab at something soon. I'd appreciate any help with layout and content when I do. KlickingKarl (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Snotingaham or Snotengeham?
I've seen published references to Snotengeham or even Snotengaham rather than Snotingaham - is it possible to incorporate the alternative spellings (one is taken from p350 of "Annals of the Coinage of Britain and its Dependencies", printed for Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor and Jones; Finsbury Square, London, 1819, the other from the University of Nottingham's site)? AncientBrit (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think just add it in alongside the Snottingham bit, then reference it, nobody should have a problem with that. It's published and from reputable sources. KlickingKarl (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)