Talk:Rochester, Kent/Archive 1

Name
The full name for the city was always Rochester-upon-Medway. I realise the full name is rarely if ever used officially these days but is there anyone who could clarify whether it is still correct? If so, and perhaps even if not 'Rochester-upon-Medway' should be mentioned at least as an aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamE (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It was the name of the borough at one stage. It is mentioned in this article Medway. MRSC 11:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I live in Rochester. Mrsteviec is quite right, it was at one time the name of the borough, which comprised Rochester, Chatham and some smaller places. The name of the town is just Rochester, and has always been so; to refer to the town as Rochester-upon-Medway would be wrong. AndyofKent 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a City
Not to be slightly pedantic (and you know, rub it in) but shouldn't the references to city be removed as it's.....well.....not, maybe make the council balls up that lead to this slightly more prominant in explaination however.......--ElvisThePrince 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My gainsaying of the illiterate comment has been deleted along with the comment. No, the unsigned writer at the top of the page is wrong. The name for the city was not always Rochester-upon-Medway. It was Rochester and the charter was granted in the 1100s (1160 from memory). The former Medway borough (which was created in 1974 and had jurisdiction over Rochester, Chatham, Strood and outlying vilages) wanted to become a city, but was told it had to have the name of the original city, Rochester, in its title. Thus the borough became Rochester-upon-Medway for a brief while in the 1980s & 1990s. When the unitary authority of Medway was created, sucking in neighbouring Gillingham too, some damn fool at the council - popularly supposed to be the chief executive of the time - neglected to have the council's city status updated. Thus 800 years of city history were swept away. Woe betide anyone in Rochester who refers to it as a town. --Cunningham 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * amen Pickle 18:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this be mentioned in detail within the first paragraph or nearby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rochester, Kent to Rochester, Medway
I missed this move, but seeing a bot doing language links has got me thinking, everyone still referees to us being in Kent so why are we (ie the English wikipedia) calling Rochester by this artificial name .... ??? (the same goes for the other Medway Towns) Pickle 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

History
Aveling, The reference book you need is JMPreston 1987 book, Aveling and Porter Ltd., which I do not have, but memory tells me that Aveling and Porter was a manufacturer of agricultural engines and the occasional road roller so the claim made cannot be justified.ClemRutter 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My information comes from a huge (18" square!) 1976 book I inherited: "Pride of the Road - the pictorial story of traction engines" (which is much more than a picture book, thankfully - about 50% text!). Page 145 describes how Thomas Aveling made arrangements to manufacture the Batho patent roller design "...which unquestionably made the Aveling and Porter concern the world's largest manufacturer of steam rollers. They subsequently produced more of these machines than the combined total output of their other British competitors." Later on it states that 6000 steam rollers were produced for GB use between 1845 and 1940 (plus hundreds for export), but it is not clear if this was just from A&P or not!  I have no idea about the size of their 'agricultural machines' business, so I just stated what I knew.  I was just updating 'traction engine', and was surprised to find no (direct) mention of the firm in the Rochester article.


 * EdJogg 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a subtle point, but Aveling and Porter relocated to Strood in the 1860s, and was celebrated in the 1990s with the Strood Steam Festivals which were abandoned with the change of political control. If we look at the city's boundaries as the result of the 1835 Act when parts of Strood were attached to Rochester, Aveling's Strood factories were indeed in Strood Intra, but the map I a looking at omits Jane's Creek and Pelican Creek, which draws into doubt the road alignment--- more work needed here.ClemRutter 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As of today, Strood is in Medway though we think of Strood as part of Rochester and Rochester a City. Whether Stood firms should be discussed on the Rochester page ( I have included it on the Strood page)I am undecided, there are reasons both ways. Little of Rochester's industry has been mentioned, there is work to do.ClemRutter 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having never visited either place, I hadn't realised that they were on opposite sides of the same river! You may well be right that the main references should be under 'Strood', but Aveling still needs a reference under Rochester.  As a quick straw poll just now, a Google for "aveling rochester -school" generated 1300 hits, while "aveling strood -school" generated only 300 or so. There is also the small matter that the manufacturer's plate on the side of the engine always said "Aveling & Porter, Rochester"!


 * This exercise has been useful for me too. I hadn't realised that Thomas Aveling was regarded as 'the father of the traction engine', and that the majority of traction engines built were using Aveling patents. See the link to the 'Steam Dinosaur' I have recently added to traction engine and steam roller, if you're interested. (It's a fascinating story - discovery of the oldest Aveling down a mine...)


 * Over to you... EdJogg 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another reference: "Discovering Traction Engines" (Shire Publications 1975). In the section on steam rollers, only three manufacturers are mentioned, and two are just 'in passing'.  (The other book lists 5 other major, and 8 minor, manufacturers.) "Aveling & Porter was the most famous of all the steam roller firms. Of the 12,700 steam engines which they made, no less than 8,600 of them were steam rollers."


 * Still wouldn't like to say that A & P were the biggest agricultural machinery manufacturers in the country, but they sure did build a lot of rollers!


 * EdJogg 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Thomas Aveling" school is the "secondary modern" / "high school" / comp (the only) for Rochester, and thus its name does need explaing in a Rochester context as well as a Strood and even Medway.
 * Pickle 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Chronology
There are many items missing from this chronology, that are detailed in " Rochester, the past 2000 years", A4 and 96 pages, 1999 City of Rochester Society. More important is the bibliography it contains, that cites 74 books. I have a copy.ClemRutter 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was just 'passing through' and it seemed a little odd, that's all.
 * EdJogg 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The contribution by the unknown user 90.194.127.111 seems to be a personal opinion that is highly subjective, and unless supported by a source, should be removed. Could 90.194.127.111 name the source please. ClemRutter 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sport
It says that the most popular team is Rochester FC. Not sure how this is as they dont exist. I think this is referring to either Rochester FC who are based in Victoria, Australia or a team from Rochester, NY. There's also no mention of the Rochester & District Football League which is over 100 years old. 86.154.49.64 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We "be bold" and change it! Pickle 08:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the Article
I have compared the structure of this article with Cambridge, which share many characteristics- and is vastly different in others, and have come to the conclusion that Rochester is badly structured, bloated with medway detail, and missing vast sections. Geography, Transport, Education, Demographics, Sport, Health, Religion. I am calling for comments before I "be bold". ClemRutter 09:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you are not wrong! As a relatively inexperienced editor, I feel a bit diffident about launching into a major rewrite, but I have to agree that the article could use one. I've started by tidying up the first paragraph a bit, and will return to it as time permits.AndyofKent (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to have you on board. Go for it. If you are nervous about being too bold work up the section in your sandbox, and discuss it here before posting. ClemRutter (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep adding old williamsonians, as a local rugby club, whichthey are, playing next season in kent two, and it keeps being deleted, how do I avoid this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.201.29 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

City status?
The text says that the council have written to the Queen asking for city status to be restored. That text has been in the article for ages: surely there's been a response from the Palace by now? 81.158.1.233 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)