Jump to content

Talk:Rochdale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Exnihilox (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 23 June 2023 (→‎Collage: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quality of photographs

This is just to support the recent ejection of a poor quality photograph. Some old photos may be of interest even if the quality is poor (although perhaps they can be retouched before publication), but there's no reason to include poor photos of existing buildings. If you're not good at photography, leave it to someone else. Otherwise, we have the Wikipedia equivalent of the holiday slides: "And this one is Rochdale Station. You could almost make it out if it weren't for the trees and the cars parked in front". Mike Shepherd 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution

It's not clear that the reference to prostitution distinguishes the town from any other of similar size and, hence, the value of this section is questionable, since the article is about a specific town, not general urban history. While "Pickup Street" is certainly in a prostitute "pick up" area, the reference and photograph appear to add little but second-rate humour. Mike Shepherd 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems this one guy has an unhealthy fascination with editing about prostitution around Rochdale. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Third rate if you don't mind. What is the true origin of Pickup, assuming it did not always mean women pushed onto the streets with heroin in order to provide a facade of work for far more than averagely useless Social Workers?
The Prostitution in the UK article suggests finding "business" from the many cards left in London's public telephone booths, with a photograph to demonstrate. Why not tell them to fly into Ringway, get a Rail Ranger and visit Rochdale - it's cheaper, so we'll get more customers and more Euro in Rochdale - and it may even stop the young darlings hurling mindless abuse at me.

205.212.72.116 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with this article exactly? And for that matter, Wikipedia? You want your local council website if you want to complain. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Creates an accurate description of Rochdale that is also useful, if you like taking advantage of young women pushed into heroin addiction and prostitution by Social Workers with nothing better to do.
Do you have evidence and citations for this? If you do, by all means add a sentence or two about it. Don't make whole sections though, without talking about other topics. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 15:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.137.254 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to find this topic on Wikipedia! I have sometimes donated to and worked with anti-prostitution charities, and I can't say that I've ever heard Rochdale mentioned as a particular hotbed. It generally happens in large places; Doncaster is the only one that seems to have a problem well beyond its size. I think that some decent references would be needed for such a change. You shouldn't post such things up without thinking about the consequences. Epa101 13:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visit Rochdale and see for yourself. Yesterday, walking home, heard woman say to man, "sex is twenty." You may not have heard about it. Have you heard of Hyson Green?

I can visit it any time that I want; I don't live that far away. Still, I think that you should travel elsewhere, perhaps to Doncaster. Rochdale does not seem to have any particular problem with it. I'd say that Wakefield was probably worse as well, but still not as bas Doncaster. You need strong evidence for this. Just saying "I went there and saw prostitutes" is not enough. Anyway can say that. I could just go on the York page now and say that. Without evidence, it means nothing. Epa101 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. with your last question, I have heard of Nottingham's problems, and spoken to their Prostitute Outreach Workers group before in a failed effort to get them to do a talk at a law college. Nottingham does have a very big problem with it, from what I've heard and read.
All of that doesn't matter - it's either here nor there are far of Wikipedia is concerned. It's like if I wanted to put sections about underage drinking on this page, just because I personally suspect Rochdale has a high rate of it because I see kids drinking on streets. While it may be the case, unless you have references, don't add it. Can we please stop discussing this now, we are wasting time and energy. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:82.69.96.41, User:72.50.23.21 are both well in breach of the three-revert rule - further edits will result in your account being blocked. Please desist immediately.

Read WP:3RR and WP:EL for further information. Aquilina 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This daft edit war has led to the loss of all the interwiki links and categories. Moreover I strongly suspect one of the links added is to the editor's own website - contravening WP:SPAM and WP:EL
Moreover, the external links section is not a place to advertise your own website, and it is plain vandalism to delete other useful links, such as that to the Rochdale council website in an attempt to give your link prominence.
Furthermore, this section is not a small article to extol the virtues of your website - a link and a short description are more than sufficient.
To try and repair the damage done I will revert to the last good version, and then reincorporate the new links in a more suitable fashion. Before editing these further, please read WP:3RR and WP:EL.
Further editing of this type will be interpreted as wilful vandalism, and will be treated as such - blocks may well follow. Aquilina 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other user...

Please sign all your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~ before saving
All relevant links should be included in the form I have proposed above. In this case this would take the following form:

However, so much other information was accidentally deleted by you both that I will have to restore to an earlier version before I can make this edit. If you both agree to stop editing to let me make the relevant changes, I can do so immediately.

If youu disagree with this proposal, please explain your grievances here and achieve a consensus through discussion.

Please remember also that this is an encyclopaedia, and nota link farm or an advertising space. Aquilina 19:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for messing up the links.

I think that your method is just fine, i actually have no disagreements with it.


72.50.23.21 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent..

I have NOT made any further edits. I have left everything in your hands now.

72.50.23.21 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done, all is well again. The data at the bottom points to Rochdale article in other language Wikipedias and puts the article in various categories - it's quite important, so it had to be put back. I've put all three important external links now, in the format laid out in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

If you have any further questions about editing, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, but leave questions specific to this article on this page. Aquilina 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the long info was added

Like i have said, i've not made any other changes to anything.

72.50.23.21 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for staying out of this, I have noticed. Do not worry; if the other user persists in readding advertising and refuses to discuss his edits here, he will be blocked very soon, and the offending content removed. Aquilina 19:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Isn't it obvious that Rochdale derives from the element Roch plus a Germanic/Anglo-Saxon element dale (probably OE dal) rather than OE ham? Wathiik 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... in short... Yes! However, there is some kind of history with "Recedham" I've heard of... To elaborate a little more about Etymology- such statements should really be referenced. This can be done provisionally using a source that you may find on a simple Google search about Rochdale's origins, although ideally, a local history book whould provide a proper verification. I'd look at local-town articles Shaw and Crompton, and particularly Oldham as good examples of this.
On the subject of such local towns... in the spirit of healthy competition, I think it is safe to say that these articles of Oldham and Shaw and Crompton are considerabley more comprehensive than that of Rochdale. I think it would be great if an editor from the Rochdale area could use these local towns as examples to which to work towards, if not surpass, in terms of encyclopedic content. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing!
Hope that helps a little! Jhamez84 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Domesday book records Rochdale as Recedham, but this seems to have been changed over the years from ham to dale. Interestingly, the river name Roch is regarded by some as a back formation. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 10:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I did find a lot of this guessing and also rambling - apologies Exnihilox (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I'm curious to know how people might think Rochdale is pronounced other than how it is. Rosh-dale or Rokh-dale maybe?? Is there really any need to give the IPA pronunciation in the first line (or at all)? --Blisco 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may pronounce it "Roach-dale", like the river it lies on. The IPA is just to help folk, and WP guides people no to delete info from articles (unless spurious). -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, OK, I didn't know about the different pronunciation of the river. (Interesting that it's the other way round, in terms of vowel length, from Cambridge and the River Cam!) I'd counter your second point with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but it seems justified here. Perhaps it would be better to mention the difference in the body of the article, rather than just give the bare IPA in the first line, to give the information some context? --Blisco 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IPA format given is similar to many other articles with ambiguous pronunciation. See Leicester, Gloucester, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and foreign cities ie Barcelona. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The difference being that Leicester, Gloucester and Berwick are pronounced differently to how one would expect according to the usual conventions of English spelling, whereas Rochdale is pronounced as spelt. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be included, but it looks odd to have a seemingly obvious pronunciation in the first line when the vast majority of geographical articles don't. More importantly, to the vast majority of readers who don't understand IPA it suggests that there's something funny about the pronunciation, when in fact the opposite is true. --Blisco 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the pronunciation to the etymology section, and hope it's acceptable to all. I'm well aware that the IPA I've given for the River Roch doesn't reflect how the majority of Rochdale folk pronounce it, but I think it's standard practice to give RP in cases like this. --Blisco 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale Principles

I would like to add information in the header section of the page (above the table of contents) linking to the Rochdale Principles page. I believe this is justified because "Rochdale" is a likely search term for Rochdale Principles, and the rochdale disambiguation page lists rochdale principles second from last. For the last paragraph in that section, how about-

"Rochdale is perhaps best known for being credited as the birthplace of the Co-operative Movement.[1] The Rochdale Principles, a set of ideals for the operation of cooperatives, take its name."

Or, perhaps:

"Rochdale is perhaps best known for being credited as the birthplace of the Co-operative Movement.[2] It lends its name to a set of principles for the operation of cooperatives."

Thoughts? I'm new, so if this doesn't make sense I would appreciate being pointed to a relevant WP page. --LesAziez 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who inserted the lead as it currently exists. I wrote it quickly, hoping someone with greater local knowledge could improve upon it. This seems to now be the case! I personally like your first example, seems like a great improvement. Jhamez84 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rochdale - The Birthplace of Co-operation. URL accessed January 1, 2006.
  2. ^ Rochdale - The Birthplace of Co-operation. URL accessed January 1, 2006.

Baron Byron

Lord Byron, the famous Romantic poet, is mentioned as a notable resident. However, it seems to me that while he was connected with Rochdale through his inherited title, he is not mentioned in the Byron article as having lived in Rochdale - at least for any considerable amount of time. For this reason I disambiguated it to the wider title holder. Since he didn't live there notably, should he really be under notable residents? M A Mason 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rochdale Town Hall"

This Hitler wanted Rochdale Town Hall's windows is degrading. Aside from all the logic, AH would have had to say don't bomb Manchester at night, but the German did. See numerous good Wikipedia articles on the capabilities of German bombers in 1940/1 (better than the Allies at the time).

Notice this rumour has even been removed from Rochdale Council's own web site, not an organisation noted for anything worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.72.116 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

90% white, 10% asian? try 40% asian and you'd be a bit nearer the mark. at least half the people living in rochdale are of pakistani/bengali decent. bearing in mind we're talking about the town of rochdale and not the borough as a whole. i suspect the (uncited) claim is from a borough wide census

It's true the 90% figure is from a borough wide census, but I doubt it's as high as 40% because Rochdale is by far the biggest settlement in the borough and 40% of Rochdale's population would be more than 10% of the borough population (assuming all other towns were 100% white, which they aren't). I agree, it's probably higher than 10% though, probably around 15%-20%. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Statistics are hard to get at a sub-borough level, other than from electoral wards used in the 2001 census. That said however, Oldham's Demography section tackles this problem well. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took data from 2021 census. Exnihilox (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - it looks better than constantly going back to the 2011 data. I would request help removing the template from the 'Demography' section - citations have been added and I think it would be a conflict for me to remove the citation warning template - or whatever it actually is. The source data is in the UK Census data - though deeply buried in parts. Many thanks for the population add - it reads far better now. I had asked for collaboration but the 2011 data kept reappearing - and I understand the issue as to how the 2021 census data was reported. Exnihilox (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops and error - not the intended recipient for this note! Exnihilox (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Estelle was born in Crumpsall

Can someone tell me where the idea came from that Don Estelle was born in Rochdale? He certainly died in Rochdale infirmary and was buried in the town but most souces I've found on the web (from mainstream newspapers) say he was born in either Manchester or more specifically, Crumpsall. A friend of mine knew him well as a child and says he lived on Fountain Street, Crumpsall both before and after he was evacuated to Darwen. Does he have any connection with Rochdale at all, other than the fact that he died and was buried there? One webpage I found from the BBC says he was buried in his "home town" of Rochdale but then goes on to say that he was born in Manchester, so could this be where the confusion has crept in? Did he perhaps live in Rochdale in later life - or maybe he had relatives there? If there is no evidence to support the assertion that he was born in Rochdale the category for the "Don Estelle" article needs to be changed and the reference to him under "Notable people" removed from this article. Richerman 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Estelle lived in Rochdale for most of his life, in fact in one of the "Seven Sisters" tower flats in central Rochdale. Read "Alzheimer's Challenged & Conquered" by Louis Blank for a reference. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I'll have a look for the book when I get the chance. However, it says in the article he was either born or bred in Rochdale. He lived in Crumpsall until at least his early twenties so I would say he was born and bred in Crumpsall (and Darwen) and lived in Rochdale later. Can you remember if it said when he moved to Rochdale? Richerman 12:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reference to Don Estelle to make it clear he wasn't born or brought up in Rochdale. Richerman 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photograph and other issues

Hello Rochdale editors and watchers,

Having aided in developing articles on nearby places to featured article status, I have come to Rochdale (the article) and have been shocked on the low quality of the prose and images (sorry!). For such a major and prominent town I expected more! Oldham, Shaw and Crompton, Stretford, Manchester have all flown ahead in terms of quality set out at WP:UKCITIES.

Anyway, that said, I'll try to help improve the article, but it desperately needs some better images, particularly a high quality one for the infobox like that found in the aformentioned articles. I approached a photographer to obtain this photo, but sadly the owner declined to grant its use on Wikipedia.

Are their any budding photographers that could provide something suitable? A stunning shot of Rochdale could be taken from the appropriately named Fairview on the border between Rochdale and High Crompton... just an idea. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New media section

Jza24 - Media ownership is a vitally important part of any town's history and its present and I know a little about the subject and hence my contribution. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it, but your contribution isn't supported by a clear and reliable source for others to verify. Wikipedia don't allow work from people who "know a little about the subject" - it has strict guidelines on what is, and isn't allowed. Also, I suspect you have a conflict of interest. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, I've left a note on your talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was being modest, I know a lot about the subject, and I have left a note on your talk page. As for a clear and reliable source, how much clearer and more reliable do you need than links to the websites of the two media organisations?

I note from reading your page that you have a long history of conflict due to your habit of unilaterally taking editorial decisions. I don't seek conflict, I have better things to do with my time, however, I dislike bullies and hence I shall continue to resist any attempt by you to enforce your will upon me and the many people who are interested in reading about Rochdale on the Rochdale Wikipedia page. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go through this one step at a time. You're clearly new to Wikipedia, and thus you're perhaps not understanding how Wikipedia works and functions. My problem:
  • Layout: There are project guidelines at WP:UKCITIES that outline when and where Media sections should be introduced. Your change (because you are a journalist who owns a media firms), gives Rochdaleonline greater coverage than Governance, Geography, Demography, Economy and other key elements of what Rochdale is about. Remember, the page is about Rochdale, not RochdaleOnline. Can you imagine other encyclopedia's giving your firm preference in such a way??
  • Referencing: Your changes aren't supported by any clear, reliable sources. Wikipedia is built on consensus editting by volunteers who must be able to verify every statement entered here exists in a reliable, neutral source. Your changes just give "Rochdaleonline" as the source; well, which page/edition/volume/author/date? Accoring to a google search, there's nothing on Rochdaleonline about what you've added.
  • Conflict of interest: Wikipedia is an open website, which has its plus and down sides. It can be used to spread knowledge about a place or event and be used as a legitimate free educational tool. My concern is that you're using Wikipedia to promote a website you own by taking advantage of Wikipedia's open system. Wikipedia is not a directory of links, nor a free advertising space.
  • Population:, a small point, but Rochdale has a population of around 90k. The wider metropolitan borough has a population of 200k+. Please be mindful of that distinction.
  • Bullying: Implying I'm a bully is precluded in our principle of civility at all times. We're usually all here for one goal - the writing of a great encyclopedia. I object to your changes, but that's not a green light to get personal.
This all said, I'm going to request that our local WikiProject (or team of editors) take a look at what's been said and to pass comment. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:MSJ1958's additions to be in full breach of WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM and his tone is breaching WP:CIVIL. Rochdale is just a town and the local newspaper, which is poor by the way, barely warrants inclusion let alone a whole section dedicated to it. As for your blatant promotion of your website Rochdale Online, which is a commercial site, Wikipedia should not be used as a means of redirecting traffic to your own site for financial gain. I fully support User:Jza84's removal of this spam disguised as prose. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jza84 and Joshii. Reliable sources are not provided therefore it's fair to remove the content. That's without even taking into account that the site and media section was given undue weight, and I'm not sure if it's really notable enough to be included. As a compromise, perhaps if a reliable source could be provided asserting notability, a sentence could be added to the 'public services' section?
As for Jza84's actions, I hardly think he's been acting unilaterally. WP:CITE states "any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor". Nev1 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full agreement with Jza84, Joshii, and Nev1 here. Additionally, the two sources apparently given in the disputed section to verify the information do no such thing: instead they are merely links to the two home pages which contain nothing which backs up the numerous facts contained within the sections that they purportedly verify. The removed sections are disproportionate given the subject matter. Jza84's actions were completely understandable and justified here, though the comments made at 04:02 on 5 May 2008 by MSJ1958 were, I consider, uncalled for and unfair.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OK, let's go through this one step at a time. You're clearly new to Wikipedia, and thus you're perhaps not understanding how Wikipedia works and functions."

I do not need patronising thank you.

"Layout: There are project guidelines at WP:UKCITIES that outline when and where Media sections should be introduced. Your change (because you are a journalist who owns a media firms), gives Rochdaleonline greater coverage than Governance, Geography, Demography, Economy and other key elements of what Rochdale is about. Remember, the page is about Rochdale, not RochdaleOnline. Can you imagine other encyclopedia's giving your firm preference in such a way?"

I have shortened the inclusions so as not to give to great a prominence and media is one of the optional headings in the Wikipedia guidelines. I have included both the major media organisations in town, the fact that I own one of them is completely irrelevant and should be put to one side. Had I the motive you clearly suspect I could quite easily have hidden my identity, I did not. I also would not have researched and written about the Rochdale Observer. This should allay any fears you have about my motives. I was born in Rochdale, I live in Rochdale, I own a media company in Rochdale and I am also a director of the Town Centre Mangament Company. My heart is in the town and my intent is to record matters of significance.

"Referencing: Your changes aren't supported by any clear, reliable sources. Wikipedia is built on consensus editting by volunteers who must be able to verify every statement entered here exists in a reliable, neutral source. Your changes just give "Rochdaleonline" as the source; well, which page/edition/volume/author/date? Accoring to a google search, there's nothing on Rochdaleonline about what you've added."

I have now proivded links to the specific pages of the source material on each of the two sites. Regarding Rochdale Online, self promotion is something we do not major on and hence if you check the page you will note a 'no index' meta tag and hence why you will not find the page in Google. It is for the very reason that I am not seeking to promote the site that I did not initially link to this specific page. I accept this is what you want and hence have now done so.

"Conflict of interest: Wikipedia is an open website, which has its plus and down sides. It can be used to spread knowledge about a place or event and be used as a legitimate free educational tool. My concern is that you're using Wikipedia to promote a website you own by taking advantage of Wikipedia's open system. Wikipedia is not a directory of links, nor a free advertising space."

I am not using Wikipedia to promote a web site, I am contributing matters of signifiance to the town. As Wikipeida is not crawled by search engines there is no advantage to having a link form the site. Moreover, at over 72,000 pages and 2.5 million page views per month, Rochdale Online is not in need of promotion or site traffic.

"Population:, a small point, but Rochdale has a population of around 90k. The wider metropolitan borough has a population of 200k+. Please be mindful of that distinction."

Rochdale as a town ceased to exist when the Metropolitan Borough was created and hence it is more accurate to give the opoulation figures for the borough as a whole as the vast majority of statistics produced for Rochdale refer to the Borough of Rochdale.

"Bullying: Implying I'm a bully is precluded in our principle of civility at all times. We're usually all here for one goal - the writing of a great encyclopedia. I object to your changes, but that's not a green light to get personal."

I read your history and I was not implying you are a bully I was stating what was clear to me. If you disagree with someone you edit their contribution first rather than seeking to engage in discussion. Such unilateral action is the action of a bully and IS uncivil.

I note now that my changes are being removed by Joshii. I shall not be brow beaten by him either, I am a community minded man who seeks the best for Rochdale - perhaps you have not noted the 500+ community and voluntary organisations who are provided with a free web presnece by Rochdale Online? I include that purely to counter you erreneous allegations that I have a commercial motive, I do not.

Regarding external links. The link to Rochdale Online in this section has been there for many years. The Rochdale Observer site gives little useful information in comparison to the Rochdale Online site and in removing the Rochdale Online link and retaining the Rochdale Observer those doing the editing impoverish the quality of local information referenced on the page and show thier own motivations to be the ones that are less than honourable.

I shall not edit again at the moment as I have no desire to be blocked of multiple edits in 24 hours, but please do rest assured I will not be bullied. The information I am providing is legitimate and hence I shall ensure it is put back.

Now if you are Joshi would care to be civil then you would cease to remove the shortened notes and the link and accept you are wrong about my motivation and welcome the interest I have in the town and the town's page on Wikipedia. Over to you, do we continue this silly waste of valuable time or do you accpet a compromise? MSJ1958 (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your intentions are good but myself and Jza84 are just following the guidelines set out by the community of millions of wikipedians. Per your comment "Rochdale as a town ceased to exist when the Metropolitan Borough was created and hence it is more accurate to give the opoulation figures for the borough as a whole as the vast majority of statistics produced for Rochdale refer to the Borough of Rochdale." We do research here on Wikipedia and I can assure you that Rochdale still exists as a town as do the other towns within the borough e.g. Milnrow. Just because you often see the borough population published online does not mean we should put it on this article, we go off the facts from the Office for National Statistics not people's local opinions. You really should read WP:EL and you will see that the rules encourage external links to be kept to a bare minimum and avoid sites which are run for commercial gain (i.e. sites with adverts). We are not trying to bully you, we are just sticking to the guidelines which are there to ensure each article has a neutral point of view and is not just trying to promote an area or product. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have read the guidelines Joshi and I am within them and have tried to compromise to satisfy the subjective opinions of Jza84 and you but you refuse to accept any such compromise, that to me is unreasonable.

With regards to your point on Rochdale as a town, you betray a lack of local knowledge, Milnrow is not a town it is a district of Rochdale. Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton make up the Borough of Rochdale.

Regarding external links, explian why you retain the link to the Rochdale Observer website which is completely commercial and yet you remove the link to the Rochdale Online web site, which whilst partly commercial also has significant non commercial sections that are run by a not for profit community interest company set up to ensure the sites original ideals are always retained? MSJ1958 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rochdale Observer is owned by the Guardian Media Group, a very respectable national company. No offence but I don't know of anybody who has even heard of your website which you want to plug. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rochdale Online is co-owned by Hirst Kidd & Rennie, a 155 year old media company who own the Oldham Chronicle and FM Revolution Radio. Rochdale Online may only be ten years old but now has more readers than the Rochdale Observer. And I do not want to "plug" anything.
I note also you firstly say: "you will see that the rules encourage external links to be kept to a bare minimum and avoid sites which are run for commercial gain" and then when I point out that you have not removed the Rochdale Observer information (which I contributed by the way) you then say: "The Rochdale Observer is owned by the Guardian Media Group, a very respectable national company." So if you consider a company to be "respectable" that means that the bar on links to commercial sites does not apply does it? You are clearly being inconistent. MSJ1958 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all commercial links from the external links now as a comprimise but the Observer site would be more likely to hold up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please stop adding your promotional section called "Media" to the article as it is not helpful. A consensus needs to be reached on if we really want this advert on the article or not. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added material to the War Memorial and Parish Church sections and that material is also getting removed. It is cited from reputable sources. It is quite clear that your problem and that of Malleus is personal and nothing to do with the material. Moreover, your leading language, that is the deliberate use of the term "advert", is prejudicial, and shows you to be part of a kangaroo court rather than anything based on justice. I have made it very clear I am not advertising, it is not my intent, it serves no purpose, I have no need. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

small note not sure where to put it, end of the third paragraph states that spinning in rochdale came to a halt in the 20th century but i work in a textile mill and i know of at least one other, the source is bang wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.239.244 (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New photos

There are some free to use photographs of Rochdale here and here. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section.

Why does the history section stop short of the 20th century? --OfTheGreen (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the sources to finish off the history section? Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sadly, but isn't it odd how the early and industrial information above is well sourced and documented? And not modern history? Hmm. --OfTheGreen (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FUTON bias at a guess. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Branch, Freemasonry, etc.

Can anyone shed light, much better references, on why Special Branch are so big in Rochdale police station, and if maybe this has something to do with Cyril Smith's affiliation to The Mercurius Masonic Lodge, No. 7507(1), which apparently boasts of its connections to GCHQ?Jahbulon-13 (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. no point in doing so. Because before we speculate on why, we would to establish that Special Branch actually is "big in the Rochdale police station", and that Cyril Smith actually has "an affiliation to the Masons". Making an allegation that something is true does not make it so. Some solid evidence (and reliable sourcing) would be necessary. 74.65.198.112 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rochdale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale sex trafficking gang

Rochdale was known throughout the world before the Rochdale sex trafficking gang. In the article, no point why?--Falkmart (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rochdale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rochdale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People?

Can someone check if this edit qualifies as an entry for a notable person from Rochdale? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rochdale&diff=prev&oldid=914057357 Thanks, Not Sure (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

directions

within the first four lines there states directions which 

are the opposite (as on the compass) to my understanding.

--91.125.193.111 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions and suburbs

Is there any point in this list? It merely repeats the contents of the Nav box above it, which is a much neater presentation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@Exnihilox has made a wide range of changes to the article stemming from the lead to the established sections. They have added a wrong population figure at 224,000 which when reading the borough article has 223,000. So that's not quite adding up, readding large and calling rochdale a community when we use town and community is more for suburbs or Wales terms for civil parishes. I've reverted the lead and population due to conflicting stats. Would @Crouch, Swale @Eopsid @KeithD and @PamD wish to comment on this? I'm seeing a lot of unsourced material and wrong placed stats DragonofBatley (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct - there are linkages to specific numeric values - I actually tripled checked the populations citations and it is cited - it was an awfully written article - even by Wikipedia standards - it was very out of data - make any corrections if you think specifics are wrong - most of the data is from the UK's Stats folks - the awful use of the English language was the major issue with this - again, change what you wish - but be a little respectful. Exnihilox (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censuspopulationchange/E08000005/ Exnihilox (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The population debacle should now be at an end. I can live with the 2021 update - it only really became contentious when 2011 data kept reappearing in this article - without any discourse. Exnihilox (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Exnihilox I have been respectful, if you had the decency to check the edit summaries I made (two-three times) you disregarded them and I put why large is subjective. But you ignored it and carried on also you described Rochdale as "community"? You know it's a town which community doesn't apply to unless its a suburb or in Wales. Rochdale is a town, community is not the same by wiki standards. You'd say the town had a population not the community unless it's in Wales or describing a suburb. Maybe 🤔 check a bit more on terms you use before publishing? I have to DragonofBatley (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rochdale is a community - surely??? Perhaps you need to be less literal and actually realize how awful the prior data was - it was a decade out of date - as stated - collaborate rather than rant at me - thanks Exnihilox (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try to not be patronising then DragonofBatley (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to collaborate - but let's not get all shouty - this is not Fakebook I hope - Exnihilox (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you seems to focus on little details and not the bigger concerns - why does this article exist? What information are people looking for. Exnihilox (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please MODIFY THE OPENING statements and do use data from the 2021 census NOT the 2011 census as now written. Kindly add population for both the TOWN and BOROUGH - many thanks - the fact you reverted this back to 2011 after making such a fuss over trivial issues - is a total mystery to many people - kindly explain your thinking? I will change this back if you do not - and I am happy to debate this with anyone. I see no other reversions - perhaps there was a reason to go back to old data - kindly explain. Exnihilox (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that you are using standard English and be thoughtful of some of the things I corrected - there are reasons - as stated, the are many run on sentences, terrible grammar and whole blocks of nonsensical information. Talking about matters that do not fit an article about a town! Kindly discuss prior to mods - I know I did not - but the document is better as is than as was - thanks. Exnihilox (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on here long enough thanks so I know the standards of wiki, you have 86 edits to my few thousand so don't patronise me. Your the one ignoring edit summaries and maybe the article needed updates but some of your edits didn't reflect other similar articles. In future, try not to patronise other editors who challenge your edits and if you feel ignoring edit summaries is fine. Then you should really not be editing on this site. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do recognize how bad the original was? Or not? Exnihilox (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It needs updates - I am happy to collaborate - most citations lead no place... Exnihilox (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly respond - do you comprehend how badly written this was? Exnihilox (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are comparing what was with what is - the document does read a lot better - oddly, far less of this has changed - see the actual changes. Exnihilox (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A first quick point: on the question of "large", please note that the example given in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead starts "Chew Stoke is a small village and civil parish ...", suggesting that the removal of "large" as "WP:SUBJECTIVE" is not a consensus view but more of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. PamD 22:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change anything - Exnihilox (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second point: we certainly don't need to pander to US spelling/ignorance by giving an alternative spelling for "Woollen". Will fix that one. PamD 22:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol - apologies - change it - though I like to appeal to the anglosphere - these are minor comments - though I do respect them - let's collaborate on creating a robust deliverable not something that looks like a rambling hodge podge - I am happy to work with you - and I should have done so - it flows a lot better than it did this morning - Exnihilox (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change anything you desire - but the document needs to flow and not add data that is not really informative - it is not just directed at Brits nor Rochdale folks - there are billions of other consumers of this information - you are not the target audience Pam. Exnihilox (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Exnihilox The target audience is a reader of English, using the variety of English chosen for the article. This is about a town in England, so British English is appropriate. We do not need to offer a translation. PamD 22:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WHY are you folks using 2011 census data - use 2021 - one of the primary reason to make a change - you reverted this and I to challenge you on this matter!!! Exnihilox (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there a 400 million other folks who think at least some words are in error - and also the writing style is very weak as the intro is written - add town and borough from 2021 - not 2011 - why on earth not use the most current data? Exnihilox (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The more I process the comment the more I wonder about your terribly acerbic attitude - I have been generally tolerant but other than reverting back to the old census data - and slinging around many erroneous remarks ABOUT ITEMS I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH - what else have you even added? The opening PARAGRAPHS are still really awful - though you did actually space it better. We are still in 2011 in the opening - even though there is solid 2021 data - DID YOU NOT KNOW THERE WAS NOTHER CENSUS? Can you explain yourself to this community????? Exnihilox (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found - as did many others - as racist undertone in some content - read the 'talk section' - and it is full of this -- I added a 'MODERN ROCHDALE' snapshot - take a look at the content - I looked through prior older talks and I know Rochdale - I was born and bred there - I suspect you think I am not a Rochdalian! Much of the content was neve really well cited - the part about Henry VIII - what was all that about - if you cannot cite - be polite - please. Exnihilox (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated - fix the trivial - leave the substantive - and there are a lot of decent new sections that allow the reader to process the history section much better - fix anything you want to - but be thoughtful and polite - please! Exnihilox (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change anything - collaboration is the point - OR did I inadvertently change something you wrote - I do not actually think I did - not by intention anyhow - please be respectful. Exnihilox (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly: The article, in the state left after "quadruple checked" edits, shows a certain lack of attention to detail.
  • The start of the "Modern Rochdale" section ... seems to be a remnant of a section about the Town Hall, perhaps?
  • The "Industrial revolution" section meanders into the 20th century, includes inline links instead of proper references, jumps around from the 1950s back to 1844 for no obvious reason
  • Chunks of useful-looking text seem to have been removed in recent edits, but as there are very few edit summaries it's difficult to work out what people were trying to do.
  • "started in the1940s/1950s" - how about a space?
  • no, there isn't an apostrophe in "its" in the sentence "It's current demographic..."
  • More inline links instead of references in the "Population" section
  • The "Governance" section seems to be mostly history
  • The photo of the cenotaph and town hall is pretty confusing as it makes them appear the same height - not a great shot
But I'm not particularly interested in Rochdale and haven't the energy to try to knock this into shape. Good luck to the two of you and other interested parties in trying to improve this article, which is certainly not one of Wikipedia's finest at present. PamD 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good observations Pam - go ahead and collaborate with me - I am happy for you to change these little items - but again, take a look at what was - Exnihilox (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YOU DO REALIZE I DID NOT CHANGE A LOT OF THE POINTS you are floundering to make - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PICS - yes, I'm being shouty - lol. Exnihilox (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pam - why are you so acerbic - no need - I am happy to work with you and provoke changes to the prior terrible doc. Exnihilox (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note it is back to the terrible state - do you not comprehend how to use a PARAGRAPH. Exnihilox (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then leave it - if you have no compunction to change what is all the noise about Pam! Exnihilox (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. Exnihilox (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town figure should be mentioned in the infobox and first in text but the borough should probably also be mentioned after the town in text. We probably shouldn't describe it as large (even though I would) as it is subjective even if we may prefer it (I actually would) perhaps unless emphasized by sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some clarification as to the basic term ROCHDALE. I think this is the core issue - this article is without doubt about the town - but in reality in 2023 all meaningful references talk about the BOROUGH. Even the UK 2021 census and the Gov. Stats Office uses ROCHDALE and talks about the borough. In reality most of the rambling content is about the borough as it currently is in 2023. I think this likely not a unique issue - boundaries change all the time. I live in Rochdale and I could not tell you where the edges of the town are in 2023 - Exnihilox (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    serious - Exnihilox (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2011 data is consistent in the info-box and intro. The added intro language helps with clarity - I deleted any unnecessary comments on the matter - though, if one runs any query on ROCHDALE the data -will be about the BOROUGH - even the UK 2021 census data is termed 'ROCHDALE' - this needs to be clear. Thanks. Exnihilox (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Question - and I find this a very petty matter, as I am new to the world of Wikipedia - after 43 years in serios academia - I will reach out and ask. The word ETYMOLOGY as in the 'origins of any word' - being a little consistent with other articles/practices I can live with -- NAME ETYMOLOGY, I could also live with PLACE NAME ORIGIN or a dozen variations. In the British Isle I do think some 'chatter' on place name origins is of interest to any reader - I think it is petty as to the best subsection title - your thoughts on the matter??? Exnihilox (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#History: "If there is sufficient material to justify a subsection header, then it may be titled as etymology or toponymy.". Also note Featured Article Bristol. "Toponymy" is probably best. PamD 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And when I went to the article to fix it, I found that Murgatroyd49 had got there first: Thanks! PamD 09:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood - thanks. Exnihilox (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

As none of the demographic figures is specific to the town, but all relate to the borough, this section really shouldn't be here at all. There may be some figures for BUAs and BUA subdivisions for 2011, though I'm not sure whether the 2021 are available yet, which might be more specific to the town. In the ONS statistics, Asian means Asian, so I don't see what the relevance of US usage of the term is here. PamD 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a problem and not just in this one section. MOST of the actual content refers to the BOROUGH and we have had this chat before. It is problematic to many similar articles and I oddly think even seeing the TOWN as freestanding of the BOROUGH is silly in 2023. The whole article needs to focus on the BOROUGH with the town as a small part - there is an article on the BOROUGH and the two need to be combined to REFLECT THE REALITY of 2023. Many do feel the same way - see other comments - I DO PLAN TO PROPOSE THIS - but in a controlled manner using TALK rather than just 'going for change' thanks Pam. Exnihilox (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage

The infobox collage caption appears to be confused. PamD 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Be clear.
Though I do not know of the origins. The whole article needs to be re-done. As you correctly point out the vast majority of the content IS NOT REALLY about the town of Rochdale - I am not sure it needs to be - only you are hanging onto this as an issue. Role the BOROUGH AND TOWN articles together - Exnihilox (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rochdale&oldid=1161582543"