Talk:Staffordshire Potteries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed merge with The Potteries Urban Area - two articles one topic. Saga City (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Potteries Urban Area and the Staffordshire Potteries are not the same place or the same topic. The Staffordshire Potteries was the old name for what is now the City of Stoke-on-Trent; famous for the pottery it still makes to a limited extent. The Potteries Urban Area is a name recently invented by statisticians for the conurbation which includes Newcastle-under-Lyme and Kidsgrove {though neither were pottery manufacturing towns) as well as Stoke-on-Trent. There is no case for merger. NoelWalley (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
They could both be merged with the title "The Potteries" which is currently a redirect to "The Potteries Urban Area", it could be about the Potteries area with a section about the Urban Area, i.e. move this article to "The Potteries". I don't know what should be done with the page histories, as "The Potteries" was a separate article which was merged into this one, although it has now been redirected to "The Potteries Urban Area", which was created more recently. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, this was merged to The Potteries, which was redirected to Stoke-on-Trent, then the article was recreated at Staffordshire Potteries. If the articles are merged, as The Potteries, the history from when it was recreated in 2007 should probably be merged with The Potteries. --Snigbrook (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This misses the point that Newcastle-under-Lyme and Kidsgrove were never part of the Potteries. If a merger is required then the Staffordshire Potteries article should merge with the City of Stoke-on-Trent article since they are about the same place. NoelWalley (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This page should just be a redirect to Stoke-on-Trent or an article about the pottery firm Staffordshire Potteries Ltd Nthep (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The name refers to the same area, it is just the "Urban Area" includes places that were not traditionally part of the Potteries (such as Kidsgrove). --Snigbrook (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The urban areas are just statistical constructs. The urban area articles should not have any content other than demographic information. They are not the primary articles about the places they cover: that role belongs to the main articles about the relevant towns and cities. Alex Middleton (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge, expand please[edit]

Very strongly against the merger: a ceramics industry and an urban area (which is a mere statistical construct - how many people in Bradford would say "I live in the West Yorkshire Urban Area", when asked their place of residence?) are two totally different concepts. The ceramics industry known as the Staffordshire Potteries predates the introduction of the concept of the "urban area" to academic geography by two centuries.

The articles about the Staffordshire Potteries and the city of Stoke on Trent (which did not exist in the key era) are also about two totally different things, i.e. and an industry and a city, and should therefore remain separate. This allows both articles to be structured so as to provide a balanced overview. The article about the Staffordshire Potteries should be as long as the one about Stoke on Trent, because the industry is nationally and globally important in the history of ceramics and the history of industrialization, but the appropriate depth of coverage would skew the article about Stoke on Trent too far from what is relevant to the city as it currently exists.

This article needs massive expansion. It is one of the major topics in global (not just English) ceramic history. Its current state is pathetic. No doubt if it was part of Star Wars it would run to thousands of words already, but topics of serious importance are often neglected in wikipedia. Alex Middleton (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Category link[edit]

Of course category links are "not generally relevant to the lead" BUT THEY ARE HERE!! There is a pathetic 3 lines, followed by a short para on a works apparently too minor to be worth its own article. Have you given any thought as to what this looks like to the average reader? Meanwhile we have a huge category of articles, some rather good, but as we know, the vast majority of readers don't understand or use categories. Unless I receive a reasoned rationale here the category will be re-added - or unless you feel like doing something useful and actually adding to the text. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted this addition. Your claim the most users do not understand categories is no reason for this to exist in the lead. This is a misuse of categories and people who do not understand them will be confused by a category page anyway. noq (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Policy refs please! Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well as there is a perfectly good see also section in the article already wouldn't that be a more appropriate place if you insist on it. noq (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't at all a case of "see also", but just "see" - the text of the article as it stands is so inadequate & misleading in giving the impression the small works in para 2 is what the subject is about. Your argument about categories is just silly. I have yet to see any reference to policy here. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heron Cross Pottery[edit]

What is the point of this section? It's just one not very important pottery firm and irrelevant to an article on the Staffordshire Potteries as a whole. If specific firms are to be described, I'd start with Royal Doulton, Wedgwood and Spode. Ef80 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it.TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but Heron Cross Pottery are still manufacturing in Stoke on Trent and employ local craftsmen whereas the other companies you mention import the majority of their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.224.235 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)