Jump to content

Talk:Cheshire

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.30.231.12 (talk) at 14:11, 17 June 2013 (→Warrington the biggest town?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Assessment Explained

  1. The re-sectioning carried out recently has been good.
  2. More expansion of the sections is required.
  3. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties for ideas on how to expand this article with new and expanded sections.
  4. The References and Citations need expanding (WP:CITE, and WP:V).
  5. Aim to apply for "Good Article Status" in the not too distant future, after expanding and editing in light of these suggestions.

 DDStretch  (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington the biggest town?

Are you sure about that, I would have thought Chester or Crewe were bigger (unless you were reffering to towns not populus areas.DannyM 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington is a lot bigger than Chester and Crewe put together!!!! David 15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chester is a City not a town.

Warrington is in Lancashire.

Only in one sense - for most purposes, it's been entirely in Cheshire since 1974. Guy Hatton 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Warrington is bigger than Chester and Crewe.--Vindicta 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening says Cheshire is between the West Midlands and The North West...We are PART of the NORTH WEST of England.....

Images

Do we honestley need four pics of basically the same place, just from different angles. Also, any pics the Coat of Arms (i.e. the one with the blue b/g and 4 swords)?. DannyM 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, current pictures are overlapping (two literally so); it would be better to have a range. Perhaps something showing the sandstone ridge? (I took Image:Bickerton Hill.jpg recently, but it didn't come out as well as I'd hoped.) A canal? Probably best to steer clear of buildings or towns because of the problem of selecting a representative one. Espresso Addict 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped one of the repeated images for a picture of a 'typical' timbered building snaffled from the Nantwich page. If it's not appropriate feel free to delete the link. I'd suggest deleting some of the other semi-repeat images but I'll leave it to someone else to implement. Espresso Addict 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It suggests that Wayne Ronney is a famous person from Cheshire, but he was born in Liverpool.

The map of the counties highlights the wrong area for Cheshire.203.97.171.66 (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings

I've added a new section on Cheshire buildings, sourced mainly from Images of England. An expert contributor would be great! Espresso Addict 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People

I saw that show about footballer cribs, the episode where they had Harry Kewell's house, and he said it was in Cheshire, so i'll add him, if anyone knows if he has moved recently or anything though, feel free to delete his name. --Nirvana- 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisse moved to France right?--Vindicta 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kim Cattrall and Tim Curry were born well before the transfer of the local governemnt of Warrington and Widnes in April 1974 into the administrative county of Cheshire, so by definition they ARE NOT from Cheshire! Try Lancashire. I hate revisionism. (AMD, Yorkshire). 84.67.152.88 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are correct. They can (and should) be listed in the relevant places of the articles for Warrington and Widnes, but they should not be put into the entry for Cheshire, for the reasons you give. I've removed them. If people feel strongly otherwise, then they can put them back and/or discuss it here.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about if the title was changed to "Notable residents" rather than "Cheshire people" as per the "How to write about places" template - then the question would be if Kim Cattrall/Tim Curry have lived in Cheshire since 1974? Life's too short for rv'ing :-) Salinae 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've done the edit.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Transport is a bit thin on the ground. Anything else need adding? MRSC 08:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the history section is the one mainly lacking, it isn't even mentioning its status as a county palatine, the Earl of Chester, its position on the Welsh Borders. Morwen - Talk 10:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eek. History of Cheshire is about the same length. MRSC 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

This edit attempts to show places that were, and places that are, in Cheshire on a like-for-like basis and this is not the case. It is clearer, and in keeping the way other articles are written to show a clear distinction. MRSC 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit does the same but as an added disruption corrupts the syntax of several sentences and adds a half formatted link to a non-notable person. This summarises why the edit is reverted. MRSC 12:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cholmondely

Why is Cholmondely pronounced "chumly"?

Wouldn't you? ;) Chris 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually spelled 'Cholmondeley'. There's a Marquess of Cholmondeley whose seat is Cholmondeley Castle; ask him. And what about nearby Cholmondeston, commonly pronounced 'chumston'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99ver1tas99 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Cheshire's Districts

I've noticed on the talk page for Chester (the city) that there is some confusion about what to include. I added a comment pointing out that there is confusion that fails to distinguish between the actual City of Chester and the District within Cheshire with a very similar name, but which is more extensive. Would there be anything gained from making the entries of and/or references to the districts clearer by adding "District of" to their titles and editing the text appropriately? I may be reletively new to all this, but it would potentially make things more clear and not be inaccurate at all.  DDS  talk 13:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Possible project (or sub-project) for Cheshire

I hope I haven't trodden on any toes by doing this, but I took as a precedent the project about Cornwall. I've listed a proposed project concerning Cheshire on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I think it can easily co-exist with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I would not want to diminish or withdraw from this other project. If you are interested in contributing to this proposed project, please add your name to list at the appropriate place. If you think it might be better placed as a sub-project of the dxisting UK Geography Project, please say so on that project's talk page, here, and let us discuss it. Many thanks.  DDS  talk 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Restructure like Dorset

Dorset seems to be the page that everyone refers to as the template for UK counties. In comparison, the Cheshire page seems a little disjointed. I am happy to have a crack at reorganising it into the following headings:

  1. History, the current History, Buildings, Identity sections
  2. Physical geography, the current Geography section
  3. Demographics, new section
  4. Politics, the current Politics section
  5. Economy and industry, the current Economy and Famous Products sections
  6. Cheshire people, the current Notable people section
  7. Settlements and communications, the current Settlements, Transport and List of Places
  8. See also, add links to List of places in Cheshire etc
  9. References, the current References section
  10. External links, the current External links section

Cheshire also has a Divisions and environs section, which does not appear in Dorset so not sure where we would put this - into Politics perhaps?

Anyway, anyone got any particular strong feelings about this before I rework it? Pixie2000 09:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking that this should be done at some point. So, good on you for offering to do it. I will try to help out as well, if you think it would be useful. At the moment I'm still trying to sort out maps of the boroughs and so on. As for where the "Division and environs" should go, I was thinking along the lines of having a section called "Administration" before you suggested the Dorset structure or model, which would describe the government divisions of the county, both present and past. If so, to keep with the Dorset model, may be that would be best placed in the politics section, as you suggest, but one could always change the title of the section to "Politics and Administration" to make it seem less about political parties?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are right - move it into a new Politics and Administration section. In that way it mirrors very closely the Dorset article. Something for me to work on, but I also need to complete my Vale Royal maps!! Busy busy! Pixie2000 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Transport could probably be spun out in to it's own section personally. There's enough to say when you take in to account roads, rail and canal transport to justify its own section . I also agree with your "see also" idea. There are two many lists in this article at the moment and that places of interest section is crying out to be an article of it's own. Personally I'm not so sure we should even have a section on people from Cheshire. Taking a look at that list none of them are notable because they come from Cheshire and therefore I'm not sure how significant their connection is to warrant a mention in this article. Also I can't imagine how it could be turned in to prose.  YDAM TALK 13:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly this might be related to, or rather might refer to, an article dealing with Public Footpaths in Cheshire as well?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lists (both Notable people and Places of interest) are not specifically relevant here - I quite like the way that Dorset has put their "places of interest" at the end of List of places in Dorset - this seems a reasonable compromise! As for the list of people, then there is a category Natives of Cheshire - perhaps we should just refer to the category? Pixie2000 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, there may be sufficient articles that could be called "thematic articles" concerning aspects of Cheshire, that it would be better to think of a "Cheshire Portal". I'm not sure we are at that stage yet, but it may be worth our while having an eye to this potential future possibility in designing our articles and what they should be about. (But may be this could be taken to the discussion on the Cheshire project's talk page?)  DDStretch  (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this. I have removed the Places of Interest - it is on User:Pixie2000/Sand3 at the moment and I am unclear what to do with it!!  Pixie2000 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the Places of Interest to the end of List of places in Cheshire, as Dorset has done  Pixie2000 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Neighbouring counties

The diagram with the compass in the middle that shows the neighbouring counties is rubbish. A map of counties would show the same information but more precisely, accurately and nicely. Bazonka 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this new-style compass table to the older one. This new one is overly large for the information it conveys.- The formatting of the old compass table seems to have changed so that it now destroys the formatting of what follows. In this respect, a map, as you suggest, would be far better. I'll get to work on it.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

what counts as a noteable resident?.. if it is just someone who meets the WP:notablitity guidelines (ie, has an article), and has, at some point, lived in cheshire, then there are loads more.. most of the Man U team for starters.. not sure why it seems to be so focused on the 19th C at the moment.. i will add a couple, feel free to remove them if they don't meet any guidelines anyone (main contributor(s)?) would like to state. ~ Bungalowbill

Thanks for the message. I think you have it almost correct, but if they were not born in the county, notable residents implies some kind of residence requirement along the lines of "lived there for a reasonable length of time) criterion, to avoid people being added who just stayed somewhere in Cheshire for a few weeks. It may be an idea to think separately about those born in the county versus those who became resident for a time after their birth, but this is not really in any guidelines. The problem is that it is better to work the lists into the article as text rather than lists, and their residence is best if it can be verified by appropriate citations. So, thank you for adding the names, and if you can, please hel;p out by adding the appropriate citations to them and any more you can discover. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the phrase can be pinned to a verified source and cited, I think it is better omitted or changed. In fact, if any re-cast claim about rich people is not verified by a citation, it should be simply removed. We are, after all, trying to write an encyclopaedia here.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citation given actually says "It is said that there are more millionaires living in Cheshire's Alderley Edge than in any UK village, town or city outside of London's Mayfair." which doesn't justify the statement (it is said by whom?, and Alderly Edge is a pocket singular). I've removed the statement. Salinae 20:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living people removed from the section in the article as advised

A lot of the names in the article are unreferenced and their notability may be questioned. They fall into two groups from the point of view of Wikipedia: people who are not still alive, and people still alive. The first group can simply have the facts tagged, which I have done by means of an overall template for the sectiuon; however in the case of the second group, WP:BLP comes into play, and unreferenced claims need to be handled differently. What I have done is move those names here (below). This is to avoid deleting them. Once verification of the facts can be completed by citing a reliable source for the facts, they can be transferred back into the article. The citations should follow the style used in the article, and unsuitable references should be avoided (the names will just get transferred back here again.) Note that wikipedia cannot be used to verify itself, so if verification for the facts can be found in another wikipedia article, the reference(s) that verify the fact should be duplicated in this article, rather than relying on people following a link to another article which may change in the future. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names to be verified

Dead people whose addition and/or notability is unverified

References
  1. ^ "Daniel Craig (1968-)". www.screenonline.org.uk. Retrieved 21 October 2008.

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

  1. On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
  2. The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
  3. New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
  4. Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
  5. The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
  6. You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.

Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)[reply]

Pronunciation

I live in Cheshire and the only two ways of pronouncing Cheshire I have heard is , Chesheer and Chesh-shire. I don't understand the IPA but I'm sure that there should be two IPA's due to the two ways I hear regulary. 安東尼 TALK 圣诞快乐 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too have strong connections with Cheshire, not only from my family's roots for centuries but my own birth there some decades ago. I cannot recall anybody in my family ever pronouncing it as anything but "Chesh-uh". Certainly not pronouncing the "shire" part as it is spelled, or as "sheer", with or without the final 'r' sound being left out, as it would be 'heah but not there.Twistlethrop (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandstone Trail

The Sandstone Trail is described as being 55km long in the official government website [1]. It therefore makes sense fot this article to follow this usage, especially as the rest of the article is metric first. Michael Glass (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The rest of the article has distances in miles. As discussed at MOSNUM, you can always find a source that will put metric first, it doe not mean the article should be the same. Stop trying to metricate WikiPedia. wjematherbigissue 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all relax, it's not a big issue. Secondly, per wikpedia's manual of style it essentially doesn't matter which one goes first as long as it's consistent within the article. At the moment, the Cheshire article is a bit of a hotchpotch with miles first in distances and km2 first in areas so Michael Glass was a bit optimistic in his statement that the rest of the article puts metric first. Nev1 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. One paragraph is miles first, as per the source quoted. However, the rest of the article - except for the Sandstone Trail reference - appears to be metric first. Therefore I would still favour the description of the Sandstone Trail to be metric first for the following reasons.

  • It follows the source.
  • It's consistent with most of this article.
  • It's consistent with the specific Sandstone Trail article.

However, if people still feel that it's a problem to make this change, please speak up. Michael Glass (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

This article ought to be the jewel in the crown of the Cheshire project, but instead it languishes at B-class, and shows no prospect of advancing beyond that.

I'd like to propose that as the beginning of a drive towards at least GA, that the Notable people section is dropped. Compare this article with Greater Manchester, for instance, which is an FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that for a number of reasons, not least of which is that if someone is worth mentioning they should be mentioned in the rest of the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my general argument against all trivia sections. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I plead guilty to adding a high proportion of the "people" –- but make the excuse that it was in my early Wikidays when I was innocent and enthusiastic. I agree that the section should be deleted; such a section in an area the size of Cheshire is unrealistic to create and maintain. Although I do think there is a place for the mention of a notable person (or two) when they came from a small community. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but my view for a while has been that if a person is truly notable with respect to a particular community, as John Rylands was to Stretford, for instance, then it ought to be possible to weave him into the article at an appropriate place. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent idea and I'd be glad to help - if I can stop procrastinating! Majorly talk 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheshire Wikiproject has a problem. It was founded by Ddstretch, and he is the main editor for this article. Unfortunately he has been inactive since March 2009. Another major contributor to the project was Espresso Addict but she has been effectively inactive for a similar period. I have contacted both of them and hoped they would return, but so far, no luck. I managed to rescue the articles on Runcorn and Widnes from the pits, but since then my interest in geography articles has waned (they're hard work and I'm lazy). And my interests have moved on to (more superficial) articles on heritage and architecture. Which has left virtually no-one doing much to the "major" articles in the project. So, strength to Malleus! If anyone out there, in the GM project or elsewhere, can help Cheshire, please do so. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sad to see that neither are around any more. Ddstretch and I were also going to do something with Crewe. but that's fallen by the wayside as well. As the county in which I was born I feel that Cheshire deserves a bit better than this, so I'm going to see what I can do with it, with whatever help anyone else can offer. It really ought to be possible to get this to at least GA in the short to medium term. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I think you're right about geography articles; they do seem to be pretty hard to write. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hard work lies in bringing all the sources together rather than breaking new ground as we know what works and what to aim for. I've added a population change table based on the one in the Greater Manchester article (and it looks a bit better than the Somerset one). Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'm sure we can do this. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education

  • "All four local education authorities in Cheshire operate completely comprehensive state school systems. When Altrincham, Sale and Wirral were moved from Cheshire to Trafford in 1974 ...". When did the Wirral become part of Trafford? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's uncited and I guess it's a typo. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people moved here for now

As per our discussion, I'm moving this list here. Whichever of these is truly notable in the context of this article can be integrated in the appropriate place.

Notable residents

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative history

I think the material under administrative history could be merged with politics and administration under the title governance. That would leave the history section encumbered by explaining boundary changes except where necessary for the understanding of events. This approach may not work if the boundary changes are integral to the history of the county, but I think it's worth a try.

I've also separated the list of books that were listed under the bibliography section into further reading for stuff not directly referenced, and where books have inline citations they've been retained. A couple of books have no page numbers, and a couple are cited but aren't listed in the bibliography, ie: Ingham, A. (1920); Cheshire: Its Traditions and History, Roffe (2000); George, D. (1991). Lancashire; Davies, R. R. 'Richard II and the Principality of Chester' in The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of May McKisack, ed. F. R. H. Du Boulay and Caroline Baron (1971); Jones, B. et al. (2004). Politics UK; Chandler, J. (2001). Local Government Today. A couple of these will be easy to sort out, but Roffe might be tricky. The bibliography may be pretty long, so I think Template:Harvnb should be used. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population

The 2001 figures given in the demography section (674,000) are wildly different from the 2008 estimates given in the info box (>1 million). Both appear to check out from a quick scan of the references -- has there really been such an increase in population or is something up here? I'm wondering if the 674,000 set are excluding Warrington & Halton. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powers held by Earl of Chester

Cheshire was a former palatinate not a principality; the confusion may come because the earldom was taken into the crown in 1237 and eventually the territories became part of the Prince of Wales' land [Cannon, John (Ed): The Oxford Companion to British History; 1997. OUP].

If I understand palatinates properly, authority lay with a local lord or bishop and the county's taxes were paid to these people.

Robsllim (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not a Principality for a short period (1397 to 1399) under the reign of Richard II?  Pixie2000 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire East's Notoriety

"Cheshire West has a fairly large proportion of residents who work in Liverpool, while Cheshire East includes some villages that are notorious with the bourgeoise of Manchester." As a resident of the area I would agree with this evaluation but it's not particularly NPOV, any suggestions for a change?--J mortimer (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely POV. I've changed it to something more neutral. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

(discussion copied from my talk page) If you want to indicate local pronunciations, as at Cheshire, that's fine, but you need to mark them as local. When we indicate English pronunciations without any further clarification, they're just English, not any particular dialect. (And actually, is all of Cheshire non-rhotic?) — kwami (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For many words, you can't indicate pronunciations without any particular dialect. Both RP and the accents of most of North West England are non-rhotic. That's two reasons not to put the /r/ on the end. Examine the two isogloss maps at the start of Rhotic and non-rhotic accents#Development_of_non-rhotic_accents. You can see that even in the older map, Cheshire was non-rhotic. If you want a rhotic pronunciation, list it as an alternative, and discuss why it should be there, stop changing the standard pronunciation.PRB (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including /r/ where it exists is standard for WP. Read the IPA key you're linking to. I'm not sure you can even add a non-rhotic form as 'local' (which would be kind of silly anyway, since ar-dropping is automatic) because many people in Cheshire have a rhotic accent. I'm not sure what map you're looking at, because much of Cheshire is shaded yellow as rhotic. And then of course there's an /r/ in RP, not that anyone actually speaks RP any more.

Also, we've been over this a dozen times. (Also with Americans upset that we use RP vowels for American cities, Australians upset that we use RP vowels for Australian cities, etc.) Any change would affect hundreds of articles, so it would really need to be a coordinated change, not done piecemeal. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) The maps I'm referring to are "the two isogloss maps at the start of Rhotic and non-rhotic accents#Development_of_non-rhotic_accents". i.e. Image:RhoticEngland.png which, like the map lower down (which is specifically about the word "farmer", and not any other potentially rhotic words), shows the state of Rhoticism in the 1950s, and Image:RhoticEngland2.png which shows the extent of Rhoticism in the late 20th Century. The former with only a small part of Cheshire shaded red, the latter has no red area within Cheshire.
2) Both by headcount of population, and by area covered, rhotic accents are in the minority in England, so even without declaring one particular dialect as standard, the default position must be to be non-rhotic. See MOS:TIES for why this must be the case.
3) Declaring r dropping as automatic, and therefore irrelevant to a pronunciation guide is like declaring k dropping to be automatic in words like "knife", therefore it should be /knaɪf/, and everyone knows that you drop the k. i.e. it makes the whole IPA thing pointless.
4) There is a difference between using a phonemic transcription where certain segments may not be phonetically precise (such as the vowels you hint at), and adding segments that simply aren't there. I'm not saying that you are using the wrong kind of [r], but that it is as absent as the [k] in knife. In the case of your Australian and American places, again see MOS:TIES, they are (probably) incorrectly transcribed.
PRB (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the MOS for pronunciation, you should take it up with the MOS for pronunciation. (I've suggested a few times that we use superscript ar for this, but have been voted down.)
Also seems a bit odd to ignore RP for the UK.
There's no "must". Our conventions follow WP:COMMONALITY. "WP-en" doesn't stand for "Wikipedia-England". — kwami (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "WP-en" doesn't stand for "Wikipedia-England" but MOS:TIES states that the appropriate variety of English be used for articles with strong national ties. I'm also not suggesting to ignore RP, quite the opposite. RP is non-rhotic, and I'm suggesting a non-rhotic pronunciation. I'm offering three points in favour of a non-rhotic pronunciation:
1 - RP is non-rhotic, and is deemed by those who believe in such a thing to be "standard" English;
2 - Cheshire accents are non-rhotic, and this is an article about Cheshire - Cestrians would not pronounce it the way you have transcribed it;
3 - MOS:TIES states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." I don't believe you are arguing that this article about a place in England lacks a strong national tie, and since the majority of English Accents are non-rhotic, then a non-rhotic form of English is more appropriate than a rhotic one, even if you don't believe in there being such a thing as a standard form of English.
However, since MOS:PRON is more specific than MOS:TIES, I concede that it must be the one adhered to in giving pronunciations, and I'll leave it alone. That said, even MOS:PRON states that "Local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names." PRB (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's no problem with using the local pronunciation. See York, for example. All we ask is that you mark it "local". There's even a 'local' parameter you can add to the template, though you don't need to do it that way if you don't want. (I prefer "locally".) The reason for that is that the pronunciation of English transcriptions is supposed to be dialect-neutral, at least the best we can achieve that. (Scottish is not covered, unfortunately.) Cheshire ends with the sounds of either her or sheer, so if you match those words you've got the proper pronunciation in your dialect. Compare CHESH-eer : hardly anyone objects to putting an ar in there, even though they don't pronounce it. Same idea here. If we left out the ar, we'd be saying that speakers of rhotic accents shouldn't pronounce it. That's actually the case with some places—I came across a couple the other day where an orthographic ar is silent even in rhotic accents (and stupidly didn't take note of them)—but not here.
As for national ties, that's for the wording and orthography of the text, things like 'colour' vs 'color', or 'lorry' vs 'truck'.
Yes, RP is non-rhotic, but it allegedly does have an /r/ here, since supposedly (according to the British Library, for example) RP has linking ar. I suspect that premier institution of knowledge is simply wrong (people don't actually have linking ar, even in RP, but only intrusive ar), but that would an argument for keeping the ar even if you think this should be gouverned by TIES. (Though it wouldn't work for York, of course.)
BTW, the PRON guidelines were drawn up by people from at least three countries, the UK, US, and Oz. The UKers and Aussies were quite insistent or keeping phonetic schwas before /r/, rather than writing vowels phonemically, but didn't mind including a diaphonemic //r// (or //h//, for that matter) they didn't pronounce. We get similar arguments that the //j// should be dropped from the New of New York, even though many locals keep the /j/ and drop the /r/. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b "Bourne D. Gary Barlow takes £4m for his Cheshire mansion, Manchester Evening News (21 December 2005)". Greater Manchester Weekly Newspapers. Retrieved 2008-04-01.
  2. ^ Helps, Arthur (2006) [1872], The Life and Works of Mr Brassey, Stroud: Nonsuch, p. 25, ISBN 1-84588-011-0 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Walker, Charles (1969), Thomas Brassey, Railway Builder, London: Frederick Muller, p. 11, ISBN 0-584-10305-0 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Dick, Francis (2004) 'Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson, first baronet (1842-1919)', rev., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press [2], retrieved on 20 December 2008.
  5. ^ Koss, Stephen E. (1970), Sir John Brunner: Radical Plutocrat 1842-1919, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–68, ISBN 0-521-07906-3
  6. ^ Starkey 1990, p. 77–81.
  7. ^ "Daniel Craig (1968-)". www.screenonline.org.uk. Retrieved 21 October 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  8. ^ Richards, Raymond (1947), Old Cheshire Churches, London: B. T Batsford, pp. 255–259 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ Starkey 1990, p. 156.
  10. ^ Starkey 1990, p. 101.
  11. ^ Lemon, Nigel (2006–07). "A Blackcountryman at Bache Hall". Cheshire History. 46: 93. ISSN 0141-8696. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |month=, |laysource=, |quotes=, |laysummary=, and |coauthors= (help)
  12. ^ Crosby, Alan G (2004) 'Ormerod, George (1785-1873)',Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press [3] Retrieved on 20 December 2008.
  13. ^ Cottam, Rachel (2004) 'Weaver, Harriet Shaw (1876-1961), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, [4], retrieved on 20 December 2008.
  14. ^ Bloom, Harold (1994). Classic Fantasy Writers. New York: Chelsea House. p. 40. ISBN 0-7910-2204-8.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheshire&oldid=560299127"