Jump to content

Talk:Sheffield/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sheffield Template

I have created a Sheffield template which I propose to add to the foot of pages on Sheffield localities, buildings, or institutions. For the moment I have just added it to the Millhouses article. Please take a look at it, improve it, and make comments here. If no one objects, I will start adding it to more articles in a few days time. Thanks, JeremyA 04:17, 1 April 2005 (UTC)

4th. largest city debate

Valid point Gillian, but I think it would be interesting to maintain some indication of the city's "size" ranking ("one of England's largest cities"). I've linked an edited phrase to the Geography section of the Wikipedia article on England, which gives more details on the interpretations of a city's size. Wikityke 16:08, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the city boundaries of Sheffield encompass a large area of countryside. However if we are defining "city" as meaning urban areas rather than formal city boundaries, at least 90-95% of the population lives in the urban area. So on that basis Sheffield is certainly one of the largest cities in England. G-Man 16:26, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

Do you think we should own up and add Peter Stringfellow to the famous Sheffielders list? Rednaxela 13:21, 10 April 2005 (UTC)

e-Voting

Removed this POV marketing fluff:

In May 2002, Sheffield City Council ran an innovative e-Voting pilot scheme to increase voter participation. The project was funded by the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and entailed close cooperation between Central and Local Government to ensure that the broader benefits of the pilot extended beyond election day itself via the provision of a strong launching pad for wider e-Democracy initiatives.
This pilot was extended in 2003 to cover half of the city electorate in what was the world's biggest online governmental election to date.

In particular, to complete the story, it would be necessary to include the negative conclusions drawn from these pilots by the electoral commission, their general high cost and poor quality, and the failure to continue them in subsequent years. This would be a topic perhaps worthy of another page. --ExtraBold 13:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Elevation

I am not aware of any point in Sheffield being at 500m (or 10m in fact). I do believe the statement that most people live between 100 and 200 meters to be correct however. Do these figures have a reference? Thanks :)

here. It's over 500m in the peak district part of the city and 10m at Don Valley. --josh 19:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think many people would consider the remote area of Margery Hill "Sheffield", but as far as the municipality goes one must include it it seems! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.120.228 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sheffieldarms.PNG

This image, which is used only in this article, appears to be a copyright violation. The website of Sheffield City Council [1] states that the coat of arms should not be used without the permission of the council. I assume that we do not have permission, do we have a good claim for fair use? JeremyA 00:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

from the former:

"For images of coats of arms that were scanned from pre-1923 works, they should be tagged as {{PD-US}}. For images of coats of arms that were created by the uploader, they should be tagged as {{GFDL}} or whatever licence the uploader wants. For images that were created by the country or province in question, it's probably safe to use these under fair use (use {{symbol}}, which I haven't listed on this page yet, as I wanted to get the wording down first). Coats of arms that don't fall into the above categories are probably copyright violations."

and from the latter:

"A redrawing freely released is certanly free of copyright issues, and is a better choice when avaialble. For more modern institutional crests, badges, devices and logos, ther is generally only a single aproved visual desgin, adn all instances are mechanical reproductions of this. Thsi would apply to most military patches, for example. In these cases i think ther is a stronger case to be made for fair use, as the only possible copyright holder is the institution."

AFAIK, Sheffield City Council don't have any claim over the Coat of Arms beyond its copyright, except where it is used to imply that something has some sort of official status. Hope this is helpful, Warofdreams talk 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, there is a distinction between the Coat of Arms, which is actually a written desctiption, and the artistic representations of that Coat of Arms. The council own the copyright to their artistic representation, but not the description. From the above referenced discussions it seems to me that to use the council's copyrighted representation of the Coat of Arms and claim fair use might be on shaky legal ground. However, looking closely at the image that we have and the image on the council's web page, they are different. Which changes the question to that of who owns the copyright of the image that we have? JeremyA 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I contacted the persoon who was the source of this image. According to him it was originally in a magazine published by Fleetway, and was drawn 25–30 years ago by a heraldic designer called Dan Escott (now deceased). As such it seems that this image is not out of copyright, and it may be difficult to contact anyone who could give permission for its use. However, he was kind enough to scan an out of copyright version of the Coat of Arms that appeared in The Book of Public Arms, published in 1915. I have therefore replaced the Coat of Arms image with this scan. JeremyA 17:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Travel Expense

I have removed the statement "It has been noted that relative to other large northern cities, Sheffield's public transportation is very expensive. Recent fare increases further angered commuters, leading the dissatisfied to run a poster campaign calling for cheaper transportation." This was in the 'Local travel' section, but it is unsourced and weasel like (i.e. noted by whom?). JeremyA 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a rather accurate statement. Perhaps citing the tens of articles featuring passengers concerns, angers and remarks would persuade you to keep this poignant passage of the pityful state of Sheffield public transport.
  • I'm not against the statement being in the article, it just needs to be verifiable:
"It has been noted" — by whom? A citation would be good.
"relative to other large northern cities, Sheffield's public transportation is very expensive" — Is this true? Is there a report that we can cite comparing public transport cost in large northern cities?
"Recent fare increases further angered commuters, leading the dissatisfied to run a poster campaign calling for cheaper transportation" — again, a citation, ideally to a news report (e.g. BBC news or The Star), would be good here. JeremyA 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Star did indeed note this as their front page headline one day, although their report actually concluded that Sheffield's public transport wasn't particularly expensive; it was instead the dramatic recent rises which are out of step. I can't find this story, but there is a decent one on the third round of price increases [2]. The WWOBB campaign is the main group campaigning on public transport in Sheffield (e.g. [3]); also this Star article has some Green Party quotes. Warofdreams talk 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason I couldn't get the search function at This is Sheffield to work. I have reworded the section to include two of those citations and added it back into the article. JeremyA 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Quinary group

The "People" section says "The largest quinary group is 20- to 24-year-olds...". A quinary group appears to be some sort of quantile - am I right? I'm asking because I've never heard of a quinary group before, despite having done a certain amount of stats in my degree. I think it ought to be clarified in the article in some way. --A bit iffy 01:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The word comes from the cited source at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9090 — they break down the stats into five-year age groups (e.g. 20–24) and call these quinary groups. JeremyA 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Separation of city and district

I know this is probably a bad time, since this article has just been featured, but I think articles on cities should be separated from articles on the corresponding district in cases where these differ significantly. As mentioned in the article, the metropolitan borough of Sheffield extends right out into the Peak District national park, and to some surrounding industrial towns, areas that wouldn't normally be considered part of the 'city'. These arguments have been had with regard to Leeds and Bradford, with the result that there are now separate articles for Leeds/City of Leeds and Bradford/City of Bradford. As an example, I think the current info box is misleading to people who don't understand the distinction as it says the population is the 3rd largest in England (meaning the 3rd largest district after Birmingham and Leeds), whereas in fact according to the ONS List of English cities by population it is the 5th largest. — Steverwanda 14:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This was tried before, but it led to general confusion, and there were no objections when the two were merged back together. If you've got any ideas on how to clarify the article, that'd be great. Warofdreams talk 15:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
— Steverwanda: The List of English cities by population article contains a lot of inaccurate if not erronous data which the members who regularly take care of it have not grasped as yet. Information got rectified last year but was changed immediately back and dismissed so wouldn't touch that article with a barge pole. Sheffield is third after London and Brum. The correct figures (for Sheffield) are kept here: List of English districts by population. These are the ones published by Sheffield council itself whilst Leedshire council publishes its own which are smaller than Sheffield. Captain scarlet 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. The figures given are derived from the Office for National Statistics urban area figures, which is a carefully defined measure of urban areas in England taken from census information (IIRC an urban area is defined as an continually built-up area with less than 50m between adjacent residences). Each urban area is subdivided into 'places', which correspond roughly to the city or town concept people have in their head. For cities like Sheffield, which have no other 'places' within the normal limits of the city, this definition is perfectly good, so the population is 439,866 and the rank is 5. For somewhere like Manchester, it's a bit more questionable since the city of Salford is practically in the centre of Manchester which makes the city of Manchester anomalously low in population. In any casy, whatever you think of the List of English cities by population it gives far more accurate figures than the List of English districts by population, which has nonexistent towns like 'Kirklees' up near the top, and London with pride of place as the second smallest in the country! — Steverwanda 15:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposal. This article is about the city called Sheffield. That city includes some rural area within its boundaries, but so what? —we are very clear about that right from the start. We also already have daughter articles to give more details about all of the areas in the city, including the rural areas. To create some distinction between the city called Sheffield and some imaginary entity within that city, which is also a city called Sheffield, would be ridiculous. Case in point, to paraphrase the opening of the Leeds article, it states "Leeds is a city in the City of Leeds", it then goes on to spend the rest of the introductory paragraph trying to explain why wikipedia has two articles on the city of Leeds where one would clearly suffice. So I counter-propose that the articles on Leeds and Bradford be changed to follow the model used here—one that has, after all, allowed this article to develop and become a featured article. JeremyA 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JeremyA.
The two articles were split for a time (see the history of City of Sheffield) but I merged them back together, because A) It was clearly causing confusion amongst readers. And B) There is no other significant settlement within the city other than Sheffield itself, unless you count Stocksbridge which has a population of about 10,000 out of a total of over 500,000. Most of the countryside covered by the city boundaries is empty moorland. The argument for splitting Leeds, Bradford, Sunderland etc is much stronger because the namesake cities contain other large settlements. For example the City of Sunderland contains Washington. This is not true in the case of Sheffield, so I felt it would cause more confusion having the articles split, for the sake of a few empty hills in the Peak District. G-Man * 21:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
OK fine, I stand corrected - I was under the impression there were a lot more 'non-Sheffield' towns in the Sheffield metropolitan borough. I still think the population thing is misleading though. People will assume Sheffield is 3rd largest after London and Birmingham, as Captain Scarlet points out. In fact it is 3rd after Birmingham and Leeds. London is England's 353rd largest city by that definition... I would propose that the box should list three figures: district 516,100 (ranked 3rd), city 439,866 (ranked 5th), urban area 640,720 (ranked 6th). Then people are free to enjoy whichever figure they think most appropriate. — Steverwanda 08:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
quote: The figures given are derived from the Office for National Statistics urban area figures, which is a carefully defined measure of urban areas in England taken from census information (IIRC an urban area is defined as an continually built-up area with less than 50m between adjacent residences). Each urban area is subdivided into 'places', which correspond roughly to the city or town concept people have in their head. Which is exactly why such figures should not be taken into account as an urban sprawl might encompass areas which do not feel belong to the near large built area, Wakefield not beeing in Leeds, Rotherham, Dronfield not beeing in Sheffield. Data in these cases must the one relating to a defined area of people. Captain scarlet 10:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting a bit bored discussing this now. I'm only asking for three separate figures to be quoted, preferably in the intro blurb and the fact box, so that people can make up their own minds on the subject. This should be done for every city, not just Sheffield. Almost every encyclopedia I've come across (Pears, Britannica, Grolier etc) lists three figures for all British cities - city, district and urban. Wikipedia should do the same. IMHO. For the record, Sheffield urban area (total population 640,720) is subdivided into the following places: Aughton 13,456, Beighton 10,676, Chapeltown 22,665, Mosborough/Highlane 18,585, Rawmarsh 18,210, Rotherham 117,262, and Sheffield city 439,866. This is quite clear, quite well thought out and much more representative of what your ordinary Joe in the street would call a city or town. — Steverwanda 12:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that simple. Beighton, Chapeltown and Mosborough/Highlane are all suburbs of Sheffield making the figure closer to 490 thou. josh (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's really a matter of opinion. You can find plenty of people in the old villages incorporated into Sheffield who do not feel part of the city - say in Dore or Bradfield, and yet these are not separated in any of these lists. There's nothing wrong with quoting different official figures in the article, but while we musn't pretend that one of these is the "accurate" population, I believe it is useful to generalise a little and make it clear that we are talking about the City of Sheffield in this article. Warofdreams talk 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have altered the footnote on the population data to try to clarify what the figure given in the text represents. JeremyA 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield region?

This sentence was added to the article recently: The Sheffield region had a popualtion of 1,800,482 in 2001.

Do we have a definition of what the "Sheffield region" is. Without such a definition the above statement is meaningless. JeremyA 13:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe Sheffield City Council regard the Sheffield region as including the districts of Barnsley, Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Doncaster, NE Derbyshire, Rotherham and of course Sheffield. Warofdreams 01:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chesterfield, NE Derbyshire, Bassetlaw & Bolsover all have a Sheffield postcode but no one who lives there considers them to be in the 'Sheffield Region'
Sheffield Region is not an official region more an area of influence, the named above places are in that area and many of the inhabitants of these areas will tell others they live in sheffield even if they do not live in the city's boundaries. This also goes for the inhabitants of the Hope Valley to a certain degree. Captain scarlet 03:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The next question is, which of those areas is included in the "unofficial metropolitan area" with "a population of 1,366,200" and which are in the "region" with "a popualtion of 1,800,482 in 2001."? — I suggest that we choose one of these, define it, and delete the other (or perhaps delete both as the article is about Sheffield and not the surrounding region). JeremyA 03:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article also mentions a common border with Notts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this belong to Rotherham and NOT Sheffield. -- Rednaxela 12:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted both, as neither are defined nor (in my opinion) either useful or appropiate to an article about Sheffield itself. I have updated the estimated population to the 2003 figure from neighbourhood.statistics.gov Iain 09:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only <300 new Sheffield residents between 2002 and 2003 - that sounds low to me! Marky1981 10:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The ONS [4] consider the Sheffield urban area to be Sheffield, Aughton, Beighton, Chapeltown, Mosborough, Highlane, Rawmarsh, Rotherham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morwen (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield,England

I'm curious as to why this article is just "Sheffield" and not "Sheffield, England" like found in the nomenclature in some other FA place articles(Boston, Massachusetts; Dawson Creek, British Columbia, etc.)(Unsigned comment by Karmafist)

Probably because the England one is the most significant and well-known one of these various Sheffields, in the same way as Dublin is about the Irish city rather than the various other Dublins. There's a brief discussion on that at Talk:Dublin#Disambig --A bit iffy 09:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
North America has a policy of using city, state. The rest of the world uses city name unless there is no clear common usage of the name. josh (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Education section

I'm wanting to try and link from the Education section of this article into the Sheffiled LEA section of List of schools in Yorkshire and the Humber. Yet I can't find a good way of adding the list without rewriting a significant part of the section. I alsao don't feel like I should do anything major as rewritiing a section to such a good article.

If anyone can think of a good way of linking in that would be great. The list will, hopefully, include all nursey, primary, secondary and special schools, both state and independent and any furhter education colleges which are either managed by Sheffield LEA, or fall in the area managed by Sheffield LEA if they are independent schools. The list would include age range, type of school, any sepecialisms ~(and perhaps eventually the number on roll and a link to the schools websites.

I would also like to question the number of primary and secondary schools listed in this article. I have a list which shows more thna the numbers stated here. Which area are the numbers for? The city itself or the whole borough, as the LEA covers schools in the whole borough and I feel these figures would be best stated in the article. Evil Eye 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not write a separate (longer) article entitled Education in Sheffield? There could be a historical section dealing with the end of grammar schools in 68, the loss of 6th forms in the 80s (eg Myers Grove had a sixth form). The present article could then be modified if nec (eg I would like the 7 schools with sixth forms to be cited) to agree with the longer one. roundhouse 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Query "north"

In the north of England? ...or in the Midlands? --Wetman 17:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Sheffield is in Yorkshire, which is not a part of the Midlands. JeremyA 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. Sorry to be a nuisance. --Wetman 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This ongoing North v Midlands discussion seems quite surprising. The article Northern England states that "The major cities which feature in probably all definitions of northern England include: ..., Sheffield, ..." Sheffield is in Yorkshire, which is North. QED. roundhouse 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Population estimates

I've updated the population ref to include the figure from the Population Healh Register. The problem is that it is 25,000 more than the ONS. The figure is based on people registered with their local GP and so would be pretty reliable. The only errors would be by people moving and not registering with a GP, which would largely cancel itself out as it would happen with both people moving into and out of the city. The question is do we want a reliable figure at the top of the article or an unreliable one which is consistent with the rest of the country. josh (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with dataa from the Sheffield City Council website, I don't like the ONS' website and their measuring schemes and conventions are very particular. Their data might be accurate but regions they use is, well, absurd. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seven hills?

I have always been told, as stated in this article, that Sheffield is built on 7 hills? I am curious—can anyone pinpoint the seven peaks, and do they have names? Just using the topography of the river valleys I can only get to 6 hills. JeremyA (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Found this article and this thread. According to the thread hills 7 & 8 in the article are the same one. There no names for the hills. Never much cared for the statement myself. In the immortal words of Reg. What has Rome ever done for us. josh 05:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting thread with some useful information, but a 'guess' on a messageboard does not constitute an authoritative reference (WP:RS), and until we can find a citation for the seven hills claim I'm going to remove it. --VinceBowdren 08:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sheffield City Council say "7 hills" here, but there has never been any authoritative agreement on identifying them. See [5] --Dannyno 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I can find any number of repetitions of the seven hills claim on many websites, but it smells like a myth unless we can find an example of somebody actually listing and counting them, or something similar. --VinceBowdren 11:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm suggesting that the "seven hills" legend is common enough to be included (we have the local government citation if needed) - but as a legend. There has never been, and can never be, an actual list because it all depends what counts as a hill,and which hills you count. --Dannyno 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Putting it in as a myth is fair enough. But I do think it's reasonable to demand an actual list of hills - compare Seven hills of Rome for example. --VinceBowdren 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact Check.

The following was recently added to this article:

Sheffield currently produces more steel per year than at any other time in its history.

I have heard people say this before but I have never seen any numbers to back it up. Can anyone find a reference with numbers that show that this is indeed the case? JeremyA 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


reply: sorry I don't have the source, annoyingly. I'm sure I saw it in some decent printed publication last year, I also think I remeber hearing it from a middle manager from Corus. Would be great if someone out there could source it though, as it puts a great stop to the perception of Sheffield as a full-monty-esque 'former steel town'!

Whilst looking for q source of this stqtement (which I still regularly here), I found this document, this should give us enough information to enrich existing pages or maybe update some numbers ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The South Yorkshire area has the largest "aerospace manufacturing" cluster of companies in Europe, this can be verified I think by the people at Yorkshire Forward who are actively involved in promoting this manufacturing group. This also adds to the idea that the metals industry is very much alive and well. I have also heard that the production of steel is not far off that in "the good old days" but now, of course it is made with a fraction of the workforce, hence the impression in the general public that the steel industry is much reduced from that in the past. I have it on very good authority that the typical steel production level in Sheffield & Rotherham is around 1,000,000 tonnes per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.72.13 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My first Wikipedia edit... I hope I've got it correct! I've set up Chapeltown as a seperate link. The link that was in went off to Leeds. DavidM, 16-Nov-04, 22:52

sorry but you may have gone wrong there is a chapel town in leeds and chapel town outside leeds on the way to sheffield — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.7.218 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield WWII - Bombers

Hi Nick, I saw your edit regarding the photo' of Stukas, in the Sheffield article. You're right, of course, the photo'should have been of JU88s (or Dornier 17s or Heinkel 111s ) and not JU87s. Do you think any of the photo's already on Wikipedia in the above articles (or others) could be used as a replacement? thanks Wikityke 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please leave WP:CITIES banner

Please stop reverting the WP:CITIES banner. It is perfectly acceptable for articles to fall under multiple wikiprojects. That's why I've combined both wikiprojects into one. Thanks! Dr. Cash 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unconvinced of the necessity of having a WP:CITIES banner here. WP:Sheffield lists itself as a daughter project of WP:CITIES, so by extension all articles that are within the scope of WP:Sheffield are also within WP:CITIES. I also object to the tag because it suggests that WP:CITIES members are actively involved in maintaining this article, yet looking through the list of WP:CITIES members I don't see anyone that I recall ever editing this article—people looking to get involved with active editors of this article would be much better off looking at WP:Sheffield. Finally, I object to the seemingly arbitrary 'importance' classification that the WP:CITIES banner adds to this page. —JeremyA (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For one, the WP:CITIES banner is necessary on city-related articles for statistical tracking purposes. See this page. A bot updates this page nightly based on all pages that have the WPCITIES banner on it. Without it, the page is not included in the statistical reports. Dr. Cash 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the importance classification has been removed from the tag. Dr. Cash 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for compromising on the importance classification. Regarding the statistics; it may be just me, but I fail to see what purpose such statistics serve—it just seems like a distraction from the goal of improving articles, which is what I thought WikiProjects were for. —JeremyA (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am equally unconvinced so as to importance of the WP:Cities tag on the Sheffield article. Since the WP:Sheffield project falls somewhat below WP:Cities which constitutes a redundancy. Whatever the statistical job WP:Cities do, it whould not involve placing token tags such as the one edited in. Link to it or reconfigure you bot, placing the tag is placing our project as hostage and forcing the implementation of the WP:Cities tag which is not used and which as far as I know, doesn't atually maintain Sheffield in the first place. I'm not as compromising as my colleague Jeremy, it has to go. whatever work you do, do it differently. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the multiple project banner which automatically hides its content... Well it's a pain. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If you find the multiple project banner annoying, it's perfectly acceptable to list them the old way. The banner combinations are relatively new to wikipedia. Also, with regards to the bot, it's not my bot; it is operated by the Wikipedia 1.0 Project Team. Dr. Cash 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the vast amount of city articles in the wikiproject, and the relatively small number of members of WP:CITIES, I don't expect members of WP:CITIES to be editing the vast majority of the articles there. It appears to me that most city articles have multiple wikiprojects associated with them; the larger encompassing WP:CITIES, as well as anywhere between one and three more localized wikiprojects (e.g. Richmond, Virginia has WP:CITIES and WP:VIRGINIA attached to it; Los Angeles, California has WP:CITIES, WP:CAL, and WP:SOCAL attached to it.). The localized wikiprojects serve to provide the most localized content; most editors editing the page will find most of their resources there. The role of WP:CITIES has more to do with procedures and standards (naming issues, article templates, infobox templates, etc). It's a minor role, but still important. Perhaps if people used WP:CITIES more, we would've achieved some sort of compromise in the long-standing 'article naming' flame war that's been going on (e.g. should Los Angeles be at 'Los Angeles' or 'Los Angeles, California'; just to bring up one example; talk about a lame edit war there!). Dr. Cash 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can't moan about the hidden feature anymore ;) Still, it does seem WP:Cities is redundant of WP:Sheffield, whatever the boring and repetitive tasks it may perform. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The remit of WP:CITIES has been questioned elsewhere for English place articles. I don't personally think it translates particularly well to the UK. Some American users also are using it as a benchmark to fail British settlement (not even cities) articles on their WP:GA nominations (Middlewich being a recent example). I've proposed elsewhere that a WP:UKCITIES set of guidelines is drawn up. I think this would help establish consistency throughout the UK, on how we write and structure articles on UK cities, towns, villages, hamlets and other settled areas. I think it would also enable inter-city support between say the Greater Manchester, Sheffield and Bristol WikiProjects. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the reason to keep it IN WP:CITIES. We need to focus on worldwide applicable standards for wikipedia. Having cities in one country meet their own standards and cities in another country meet a different set of standards is not going to help create a quality encyclopedia. Also, I am the one that reviewed Middlewich, and to be honest, I did not look at the guidelines in WP:CITIES as much as I reviewed it against the good article criteria. The various suggested sections in WP:CITIES are only suggestions, and most of them outdated anyways. But most of the sections in Middlewich were (and largely still are) very short and much content is clearly missing. Dr. Cash 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines exist for US cities, but there is nothing for UK (or any other) cities. Perhaps this should be addressed at WP:CITIES itself, so that it is more inclusive? Jhamez84 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I should also add that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities, and that Middlewich is not a city anyway! Jhamez84 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you guys (and the Indians) would participate in the WP:CITIES wikiproject, then we could agree on some types of general rules for cities worldwide and WP:CITIES would not be so U.S.-centric. I've got to admit, I'm probably in the minority of Americans that actually recognize that there are actually other nations on the planet, and that we should try working with them instead of just trying to enforce all the U.S. customs and standards on everyone else. But I also don't like it when other groups apply their own standards to their own things, and ignore everyone else. I think it needs to be more of a two-way street. Dr. Cash 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the stated goals of WP:CITIES are something that I would want to sign up with. The standardisation of the content and format of all articles seems rather Orwellian to me. I also note that the stated goals of the project are all bureaucratic in nature (reorganise this; rate that), not one of them seems to have anything to do with actually creating good articles. —JeremyA (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
When you have a mature article which has evolved to achieve Featured Article status, it probably indicates that:
1) you have a critical mass of contributors willing to revise and reform the project on a long-term, ongoing basis;
2) the Wiki-community as a whole likes the way it's developing.
(or as the WPCities quality scale puts it, "Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information".)
In such cases, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the contributors are willing to make stylistic/format changes on the basis of other examples that have evolved in a similar manner and have good suggestions to offer.
It seems to me that this is where Wikipedia really shows its potential. Growth and improvement by gradual evolution, good examples and suggestions, rather than "general rules for cities worldwide", however well-intentioned.
Cash himself states above, "The various suggested sections in WP:CITIES are only suggestions, and most of them outdated anyways". Wikityke 12:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link at the top of this page. Hassocks5489 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater Sheffield!???

Is there such a thing, coz on some sheffield sites i've read that they reckon its the "new" South Yoirkshire?

Are you thinking of the Sheffield city region? There's also a "Sheffield Urban Area", but that's only used for a few statistical purposes. Warofdreams talk 04:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The urban area does extend continuously into Rotherham to the north-east, but one satellite town doesn't make it a real conurbation - in the way that the Manchester conurbation stretches well outside the city limits for example. Not sure it's useful to talk of 'greater sheffield' really. --VinceBowdren 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield has long been regarded by population demographers as being a conurbation and the new official Eurostat Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union initiative has identified Sheffield as one of the Large Urban Zones (LUZ)s that are worthy of definition - population 1.26 million, ranking 43rd in Europe. MarkThomas 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure this population is accurate? It's more than double what i understood the population was. JackRM
This seems to be the source: http://www.urbanaudit.org/CityProfiles.aspx?CityCode=UK010C&CountryCode=UK, and it does indeed admit that the city:LUZ population ratio is 1:2.46 though it doesn't tell us where it drew the line around either the city or the LUZ. --VinceBowdren 16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, I see what you mean by that now, thanks. Jackrm 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Article update

I've just read through the article and with a particular view to looking for things that need updating. As far as I can see the following needs some attention, or at least thought:

  • Lead: The population estimate is from mid 2005. I have had a quick look and cannot see anything more up to date. If this is an official inter census estimate I think we should say this in the footnote.
  • Districts: We say that there are 6 parliamentary constituencies, but I believe this will change to five (plus one shared with Barnsley) at the next election (see Districts of Sheffield). Should this be mentioned?
  • Economy and industry: This currently opens:
"After many years of decline, there are now signs that the Sheffield economy is seeing a revival. The 2004 Barclays Bank Financial Planning study revealed that, in 2003, the Sheffield district of Hallam was the highest ranking area outside London for overall wealth, the proportion of people earning over £60,000 a year standing at almost 12%"
My view is that this whole section needs overhauling to be brought up to date. Views?

I'll make a start on this - help welcome! Andreww 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These ideas sound fine. I have been planning to do some cleanup work myself. As you note, the main article for Districts of Sheffield has details and references for the changes to parliamentary constituencies. In addition, each of the individual constituency articles provides greater detail. I'm not sure whether updating that part of this article is needed at this time, but it should certainly be done before the next general election is announced. The music section is, in my opinion, currently the part in the greatest need of cleanup. I suggest removing all music groups and venues that do not currently have a Wikipedia articles. —Jeremy (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I just came to this article while checking through the featured articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography to check none of them needed WP:FAR, and was going to suggest a few changes myself. I checked the history and the changes made since this became an FA and a few things stand out:
  • A list of schools has been adeed. There is an education article where those can go, they don't need to be on this one.
  • A list of twin towns has been added. Can this be in prose form, outlining details like when the relationship began, and any notable details about them?
  • The transport section has been subdivided way too much. Single paragraphs don't need their own sections. Dividing into national/international and local transport was more than enough sectioning.
Incidently, I personally would not consider education part of "culture and attractions", but I would consider sport part of it. There are guidelines for sectioning at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography, though of course, they're only guides. Joe D (t) 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A new photo of the Peace Gardens is needed. MWLittleGuy 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration

I've reverted the recent additions by 80.193.179.50 on regeneration as the first half is a direct copy of Sheffield Development Corporation and the rest is unsourced and poorly edited. -- roundhouse0 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Population

Once again, I've replaced "Sheffield has a population of around 530,000" with the more precise 2001 census figure. I really think that a precise number with source is better than a rough number without source, even if it is a couple of years old. What's the source for the 530,000 figure? --Camembert

The 2005 Office for National Statistics population estimate for Sheffield is 520,700 (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/facts-figures/population/2005-population-for-sheffield) Dexterj 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am removeing the annons edits: the population figure is too precise (and too large, I think, compared to the 2001 census) and the likely hood of an international airport being opened in sheffield in 2005 is pretty minimal... If there are sources to be cited, please cite them. cheers, Iain 08:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assume the airport mentioned was Robin Hood Sheffield-Doncaster airport, or whatever it eventually gets called, which will be a Finningley near Doncaster and so has no more connection with Sheffield than the name. Warofdreams 12:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah! yes, see [6]. I had assumed (given the problems thay have using the current sheffield airport) that the reference was just sutble vandalism... I suppose that if the airport is going to have sheffield in its name there should be some reference to it in the sheffield article... Ill try and think of some suitable wording. Iain 13:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Town charter date

No doubt you're right, but how does "fourth of the ides of August" mean the tenth of that month? According to Roman calendar (which is where 'Ides' directs to) Ides means specifically the 13th or 15th day of a month. --VinceBowdren (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vince. Check the 'Months' section of the Roman calendar page. Dates are given as days before the Kalends, Nones, or Ides. If you look at the example month (September) you will see that '3 days before the Ides of September' is given as 11 September, so 4 days before the ides of September would be 10 September. Like the Ides of September, the Ides of August are on the 13th, so the day denoted by '4 days before the Ides of August' is 10 August. This page initially said the charter was given on 12 August because I mistakenly thought that the Ides of August fell on 15 August. —Jeremy (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Change to second sentence

"It has grown, from its industrial roots to encompass a wide economic base and is now the third largest city in England, the fourth largest in Great Britain, and the only one in South Yorkshire."

I've changed this to fourth largest city in England and fifth largest in Great Britain. See link - http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html

  • I think that the previous version was based on actual cities with royal charters—by this definition the City of London is actually very small. If you put Greater London at the top of the list (as the site that you reference does), why not put Greater Manchester in second (or maybe third) place? JeremyA 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"why not put Greater Manchester in second (or maybe third) place?"

I can see what you mean - the fact that London is split into smaller boroughs is a bit confusing. However, I think the best way to judge a city size is by the population within the limits of its council's jurisdiction. Greater Manchester is a county, and I'm not sure the residents of Rochdale or Wigan would agree that they live in Manchester.

The people in Dagenham do not generally consider themselves to be "London" either. Hackney even has its own mayor! Epa101 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a general question

This is just a geographical question: Most of my family is from Sheffield and it's surrounding areas, what part of Yorkshire would you say Sheffield is in? West, East etc? I'm curious because I'm searching the War Graves website for anyone I may be related to. 82.25.106.134 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior to 1974, Sheffield was in the West Riding of Yorkshire. In 1974 it became part of the new administrative county of South Yorkshire. For CWGC purposes it will be in the West Riding Mayalld (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That really helped! I can narrow down my searches now 82.25.106.134 (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some parts of Sheffield that were originally in Derbyshire but got transferred. If your family were from south Sheffield, I would advise you to search in Derbyshire as well. Epa101 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

James Toseland

" Sheffield is home to 2004 and 2007 World Superbike champion James Toseland "

His official website at http://www.jamestoseland.com/vital_stats.asp and http://www.jamestoseland.com/about_jt.asp together with some supporting evidence from the Births Register at Talk:James Toseland shows Toseland was born in Doncaster, and as he now lives in the Isle of Man may I suggest that this article is amended accordingly? M100 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Could someone upload an image of the coat of arms of this city to Commons? Thanks. --Pabletex (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already there: Commons:Image:Sheffieldarms.jpg, Commons:Image:Sheffieldarms.svg, or Commons:Image:Escudo Sheffieldarms.svg. —Jeremy (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
He's obviously not looking beyond the articles, judging by his copy-and-paste blanketing of his request. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation

Great article folks, wonderful pictures etc. Phdarts (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with page on United Kingdom

The article about the UK places Sheffield 6th behind Leeds in terms of population, saying it is only 440,000. Why is there a discrepancy between that article and the population given here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.217.62 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause different data sources have been used, The UK table refers to a List of English cities by population which gives the source as 2001 census data, and the entry clarifies it as excluding some areas. The Sheffield page has ref to the ONS figures as source, notes that the List of English cities by population figures differ. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Abbeydale picture palace

New entry ?, Have moved down section as not major attraction, and slight copy edit, but not happy with terms like wows, and the snooker bit, too advert like terms. Not totally convinced it belongs on front page in full even, probably better as a in text note with link to section on another page. Is it not listed building as well ? Opinion ? --BulldozerD11 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it; we have a serviceable entry on the Abbeydale Picture House which could perhaps use some of this information if it was heavily copyedited. The Picture House isn't a major attraction in Sheffield, and it should at most be mentioned by name in this article, with all the detail in its own article. Warofdreams talk 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Twin towns

The following text on twin towns was added without any references, I place it here so that if references are found it can be readded to the main page

Finding sources so I can re-add the following with sources... Ggoere (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Done! Go and see my work. Ggoere (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ggoere, there is already a section in the article on international links. —Jeremy (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, is there? Right, okay. Sorry! Ggoere (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Twin Towns and Sister Cities

Bochum, Germany (since 1950)

Donetsk, Ukraine (since 1980)

Possible Future Twin Towns and Sister Cities

Sheffield has been in talks with Chengdu in China a lot lately and decided to possibly make it a sister city or twin town. It will be announced if it will become a partner in 2010 and if it does it will in 2012.

Chengdu, China (possibly from 2012, decision in 2010)

Canterbury Tales image

Does this article really need an image of the Canterbury Tales? The link is rather tenuous. References like the one to Sheffield can be found throughout the text. Ypres is described as being famous for cloth-making, for example, yet you won't find a photo of the Canterbury Tales in the wikipedia article for Ypres! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.7 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the "activsheffield" link per the external links policy. These have been removed from other city pages as well, due to the small amount of genuinely useful information contained therein, plus the sheer amount of advertising. Please look here, to see this being discussed elsewhere. Willdow (Talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moloko

Under the music section it says "Artists such as Pulp, Def Leppard, Joe Cocker, Paul Carrack, Richard Hawley, The Longpigs, Milburn, Moloko" were born in Sheffield. Should moloko be mentioned as being born there? One was Irish and the other from Sunderland if i remember right. Souldriver x (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Carbon Footprint Nonsense

Why in blue blazes is there a "carbon footprint" section accompanying the main article on this town? Talk about undue emphasis. That's a violation of Wikipedia standards. JettaMann (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

Does anyone feel this article is ready to be a featured article again? I just had a look through the article and only found one citation needed tag, which I added a source for. What other issues do you feel the article still has that are holding is back from becoming a featured article again? Thanks. -- Jack?! 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Location Map

Please see the alternative location map below (it's a derivative of the files we use throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland for an Infobox location map for placename articles, adjusted to indicate the position of the city as a whole). What do people think about it replacing the existing location map in the Infobox?

To see how it looks on the page see here Skinsmoke (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The current map is in keeping with other articles where we cover a city and district together in the same article (e.g. Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle upon Tyne). I'm not overtly opposed to a change, but doing so would make this article different from other like articles rather that standardising it. We also have File:Sheffield outline map with UK.svg that is used as a location map within the city. —Jeremy (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of File:Sheffield outline map with UK.svg, and whilst excellent at showing locations within the city, it's not a great deal of use for showing Sheffield's position within the wider area. I also understand what you're saying about consistency. If this particular example went down well, I would envisage the design being rolled out gradually across the other borough/district/city articles across the country. This would bring them into line with the place articles, with the same series of maps. I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography inviting comments. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Alternative Location Map for districts/boroughs/cities because this is equally applicable to other districts. — Richardguk (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Happy to see wider discussion. Any change should not just be for this article. —Jeremy (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article nominee

The article recently failed to pass a featured article review. However, I feel this was simply due to lack of reviewing, I personally think the article is ready (but I may be bias!) Anyway, I nominated the article to be a good article, which it surely must pass. Check out the info at the top of this talk page to follow any reviews it may get. -- bydand•talk (formerly Jack, just so you know) 07:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it failed FAC, as all points raised were addressed. Presumably just lack of reviewers. I'll probably renominate it in a few weeks; see if we can get some more people to review it. —Jeremy (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I'm with you on that :). -- bydand•talk 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
May be worth asking the closing user to see if there was any other reason for the failure that needs addressing. Keith D (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sheffield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DrKiernan (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some concerns over the article, but they are probably addressable.

Verifiability
  • The article contains unsourced and unverifiable claims. For example, there are no sources on the stats in the infobox. In particular, there is no source for the population of the City Region. As I said before, it is counter-intuitive that the population of the city is larger than the entire county.
    • Ideally all the information in the infobox would also appear, with appropriate citations, in the article body. The Sheffield City Region is larger than the county, as it includes parts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. I'm not sure that the concept of the city region has achieved wide enough recognition to be worth mentioning in the article (I note that none of the other regions mentioned in The Northern Way are mentioned in the respective city articles). I'm happy to remove this statistic from the infobox.—Jeremy (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the lead the claim that the GVA has grown by 60% in recent years is unsourced, and "recent years" is ambiguous.
    • I think that I inadvertently messed up the source for this; it looks to be a calculation that someone has done based on the source previously cited for the GVA data, which gives GVA from 1997 to 2006. The increase between these dates is a little under 60%. In trying to update the article I changed the reference for the GVA to give the 2007 figure. How about changing the sentence in the lead to "Sheffield's GVA (gross value added) has increased by 60% since 1997, standing at £9.2 billion in 2007" and then qualifying this in the Economy section by giving the 1997 figure (+ref) as well as the 2007 figure?—Jeremy (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Are we certain that Egbert was the first Saxon to claim to be king of England? There are other possibilities listed here.
    • The other Bretwaldas are noted as having ruled all the kingdoms south of the Humber. Egbert not only achieved this, but also received submission from Northumbria, meaning that he ruled all of England. I'm trying to find a more modern source, but here is an example from a 19th century history book found on Google Books [7]: "He was crowned king of all Britain, and on the same day of his coronation, an edict was issued, that all the Saxons and Jutes should henceforth be designated English; and Britain itself bear the name of England." I don't think that any king before Egbert had claimed the title of King of England, but I'm going to do some more research.—Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think he was the first of his line to be bretwalda, and it was his line who became the kings of England. So, saying he was the first sounds like the perspective of his descendants, who wanted to play up their own claim and downplay the power of the other Saxon bretwaldas, like the Mercian Offa, who probably had similar levels of power. Another problem is that the article focuses on his defeat of Northumbria as the point at which he ruled over the whole of England, but from another perspective it was his later defeat of the Cornish in the south-west that united what we now know as England. Perhaps "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that King Eanred of Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex at the hamlet of Dore (now a suburb of Sheffield) in 829. This event made Egbert the first Saxon to claim to be king of all England." could be "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that the submission of King Eanred of Northumbria to King Egbert of Wessex in 829 at the hamlet of Dore (now a suburb of Sheffield) was a key event in the unification of the kingdom of England under the House of Wessex." DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I changed your wording slightly to "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that King Eanred of Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex at the hamlet of Dore (now a suburb of Sheffield) in 829, a key event in the unification of the kingdom of England under the House of Wessex" and added a reference to qualify the second part of the statement.—Jeremy (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Dee-dar" is not listed in the OED, and I've never heard the term. How current is it? What makes http://www.viking.no/e/index.html a reliable source?
  • "Some £250 million was also invested in the city during 2005." is unsourced.
  • "There was a thriving goa trance scene in the early 1990s." is unsourced, and if it was a flash-in-the-pan craze, it is unlikely to be relevant for the main article anyway.
  • The Tramlines Festival is "annual" but it has only run for one previous year. Phrasing such as "has run for two years" would be more appropriate here. Also, the 2010 event must have run already if it's held in July, so maybe this section needs re-wording?
Focus
  • Would a mention of Domesday Book or the Harrowing of the North be appropriate? Was it a village or wasteland after the conquest?
  • Again as I mentioned before,Whatever the Weather is given undue coverage.
    • When originally featured back in 2005 we didn't include a climate section at all; the rationale being that the climate section would basically say "Sheffield's climate is the same as that of the rest of north-eastern England", instead a climate section was added to the main article, Geography of Sheffield. When the article was a FARC one of the criticisms was that it didn't include a climate section. Someone responded to this by adding one, but unfortunately they did a straight copy/paste from the Met Office. It was this version that you previously objected to. During the recent FAC I had a go at cleaning this section up, but I am still of the opinion that the original decision to not have a climate section was a good one. Some further guidance here would be useful. —Jeremy (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you should keep the "Climate" section but cut at least half of the "Carbon footprint and climate change action" section. It could even be reduced by two-thirds. Once shortened, the section heading could be removed to make it a second paragraph of the climate section, or the remaining material could be merged into other sections. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of the "See also" links are duplicated in the navigation templates; so, are they really necessary?
    • I don't like navigation templates, so I'd prefer to see them go; but we can trim the See also links. The only one that I think is really necessary is the List of people from Sheffield, which, although in the navigation template, is not mentioned in the article. Some place articles devote a section to famous residents, but choosing who to include seemed to me to be OR, so instead we moved them all to a separate article. I think that we used to have this as a 'See also' link at the top of the Demography section; perhaps it can go back there? —Jeremy (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Images


Thanks for your review. I've added a few comments above. I'll try to address some of the issues that you raise later. —Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
That's great. All the points are addressed, so I've passed the article as GA. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the Wicker Arches?

The Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co viaduct in Sheffield, at the site of Sheffield Victoria Station was named the Victoria Viaduct. No entry for this can be found in Wikipeadia. It is almost always referred to as the Wicker Arches and has a wiki page of that name.

I did find a 19-Century map on the web showing the structure as the Victoria Viaduct, but I can't remember the URL, or find my copy of it. The Engineering Feasibility Study for the Don Valley Railway Project calls the structure the Victoria Viaduct. See the www.donvalleyrailway.org/downloads/DVRF4.pdf WebPages. Many firms located in the archways on Effingham Lane have their address as Victoria Viaduct, so presumably the Post Office recognises the name. The Network Rail signs in the Wicker, used to advise what to do if a vehicle strikes the bridge over the Wicker use the name Victoria Viaduct, which does give the use of the name Victoria Viaduct official authority.

The English Heritage http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=457493&resourceID=5 page and the Images of England page, refer to the structure as the 'Wicker Arch and adjoining viaduct'. Most local people certainly refer to the structure as the 'Wicker Arches' as do many newspaper articles, but the extent of the Wicker Arches is not made clear. The name Wicker Arches appears to be used to refer to both the single span over the Wicker with the two smaller pedestrian arches, and sometimes to the whole viaduct. From my own experience of talking to people local to Sheffield, many of them don't even know about the size of the viaduct, and use the term Wicker Arches to refer only to span over the Wicker. A few people call the Victoria Viaduct span over Furnival Road-Effingham Street the 'Dark Arches'. An Ian Allan Publishing plaque in one of the pedestrian archways, as well as another nearby plaque (unveiled by a former Chairman of BRB, I think) both use the term Wicker Arches, as far as I can remember.

Given the existence of a Victoria Viaduct spanning the River Wear on the former Durham Junction Railway the use of the official name for the Wicker Arches in Wikipeadia would require some disambiguation links. The other problem with replacing the term Wicker Arches with the term Victoria Viaduct (Sheffield) would cause confusion. Few people use the official name, or even know what it is.

As universally replacing 'Wicker Arches' with 'Victoria Viaduct (Sheffield)' would be both controversial and confusing, probably resulting in the rollback of edits, can someone come up with suggestions?

The issues are, as I see things:

an acknowledgement of the different scope of the term Wicker Arches, both in casual conversation and semi-official publications;

a definition, if any of the name 'Wicker Arches' when used in Wikipeadia;

the need for disambiguation relating to the Victoria Viaduct (Sheffield) and Victoria Viaduct (River Wear) when the official name is used;

the position (V or W) in the List of railway bridges and viaducts in the United Kingdom;

the extent to which the term 'Wicker Arches' should be accompanied by an explanation that this is not the official name for the Victoria Viaduct;

the extent to which the term 'Victoria Viaduct' should be given precedence over 'Wicker Arches' in Wikipeadia.

Any ideas? --Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the place for guidance on such issues: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." —Jeremy (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd statistics

it having more people per 100,000 employed in manufacturing occupations (187.6 for Sheffield, as compared to 146.1 for Leeds) and fewer people per 100,000 employed in professional occupations (41 for Sheffield, as compared to 65.8 for Birmingham, and 43.1 for Leeds).

So if 187.6 per 100,000 people were employed in manufacturing jobs, and 41 per 100,000 employed in professional positions, what did the other 99.7714% of the population do? Are we sure these figures are per 1000 rather than per 100,000?FrFintonStack (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Population

Well looky here. Seems the local nhs has a major disagreement with the Office for National Statistics over the population. The question is who do we trust. Local lads or the Taffies. josh 16:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would sugest going with the numbers from the last (2001?) census with a footnote giving: (1) source of this number, (2) any newer estimate from the Office for National Statistics and (3) any disagreement from the NHS or anybody else (with sources). Andreww 08:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Soon we will be able to get a more acurate figure with the 2011 census, until then we'll just have to go with Andreww's suggestion. George888 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Has the Sheffield page been vandalised? I do not believe Niggertopia and Anal Rape Zone are accurate. If someone knows how to restore the original article please do so.

The The Prince of Persia user has been banned following blatant vandalism . Captain scarlet 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Recently when I went on it, someone had changed the name to 'Smelly Town' and had added random letters throughout the article. This corrupted many links and messed up one of the tables. It has mostly been fixed now. George888 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Grade a

as I live here I know how to improve it ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylish friends (talk • contribs) 10:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

not a conurbation?

In the demography section of this article it states that "Sheffield is the largest city in the U.K. that does not form the basis of a conurbation." A map and the Sheffield Urban Area article state that Sheffield forms a conurbation with Rotherham so this appears to be simply untrue. But it is sourced so I hestitate to remove the sentence. Eopsid (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment: The oldest pub in the city.

I am not too sure about the claim that 'The oldest pub in the city is the Old Queen's Head'. The Sheffield Council's https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/parks/a-z-city-district--local--parks/cholera-monument-grounds--clay-wood/norfolk-heritage-trail/history-of-the-old-queens-head webpage has the building as a Public House in 1851. I have also read (on an unreliable blog) that Martin Olive, author of 'Central Sheffield' claims that in about 1840 James Pilley a rivet maker, opened a beer house 'The Old Queens Head'. This date is not the same as the date on the Sheffield Council's webpage. From memory - The first Sheffield Trade directory which I think dates from 1775 mentions a Mr Bower, a victualar of an address on Silver Street Head, possibly the Three Tuns. I have also read that the Fox House Inn was a coaching inn in 1690s, but don't know if it has been in Sheffield since then, if this is important. I do remember seeing a mention of a 'definitive list' of Sheffield pubs, created by Michael Liversage in his book, Sheffield Public Houses. I don't have a copy. Another blog site claims that records held by the reference library show that the Dog & Partridge on Trippet Lane opened in 1797. The general view though, is that the Nailmakers Arms has been a pub since around 1627, and now that it is in Sheffield as the result of boundary changes is the oldest pub in the city. Does anyone have access to a reliable reference source on this subject?

Waugh Bacon (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not the building which has been a pub the longest. If the sentence means that it is the oldest building to house a pub, it should say that, but it would probably be wrong anyway, as the Cross Keys in Handsworth is supposedly an older building. Warofdreams talk 08:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Most proletarian" data

"Sidney Pollard's analysis of the 1851 Census data caused him to describe Sheffield as "the most proletarian city in England" at the time, it having more people per 100,000 employed in manufacturing occupations (187.6 for Sheffield, as compared to 146.1 for Leeds) and fewer people per 100,000 employed in professional occupations (41 for Sheffield, as compared to 65.8 for Birmingham, and 43.1 for Leeds)."

This sounds way off. 188 people per hundred thousand working in manufacturing? 41 per hundred thousand in the professions? What were the other 99.8% of the population doing? Per thousand would make a lot more sense.FrFintonStack (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is a mistake it is in the cited source (Taylor et al.) as the article text quotes it accurately. Taylor et al. cite Sidney Pollard's chapter in Binfield et al.'s The History of the City of Sheffield, 1843-1993, if someone has that book, or can go look it up in a library, we should be able to check the original analysis.—Jeremy (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. However, I think it's clear that it's either a misprint, or that something has gone fundamentally wrong with the calculations. Even on the miniscule chance that the figures are correct (i.e. that there really were only 332 people employed in manufacturing in Sheffield in 1851) the sample size would be far too small to support the conclusions drawn. And yes, tracking down the original source should be a priority.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
We really need to do something about this. I know it's a sourced claim, but it's obviously incorrect, and it's embarrassing. I'm calling WP:Complete bollocks. FrFintonStack (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@FrFintonStack: I've commented it out of the article until someone can consult the original source. Binfield et al. is about $80 (I'm in the US) on Amazon so I won't be buying it any time soon, but there is a copy in a library not too distant from me. I'll try to remember to check it out next time I'm up there.—Jeremy (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Greenspace

Sheffield Council issues a pdf https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/documents/leisure-culture/parks-gardens/parks/maps/Parks-and-Green-Spaces-map--PDF-129KB-.pdf which shows 96 locations on the Parks and Green Spaces map. It omits Bellhouse Road Recreation Ground and Lynwood gardens so it ought to show at least 98 locations, if not more. The Council also group parks by type giving a total of only 83 facilities, as is mentioned in the Wiki article. See the https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/parks/city-district-local-parks.html web page. No mention is made of Meersbrook walled garden, in Meersbrook Park, or of Beauchief Gardens. The page https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/green-and-open-space-strategy/resources/site-categorisation-strategy.html says "Sheffield's Site Categorisation Strategy evaluates the leisure and recreational significance of each of the 730 plus green space sites held and managed by our Parks and Countryside Service for leisure and recreational purposes". So now we have 730 locations. Does anyone know of an accurate list of Parks and greenspaces in Sheffield? I suspect the Council does not have the resources to keep online information up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.196.115 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The list will depend on the definition you use: how big does a bit of grass have to be before it is a "green space"? Should you count Meersbrook Walled Garden separately from Meersbrook Park, or is it just part of the park? Ecclesall Woods are in three parts, split up by roads, but should they count as one green space? Do you count privately-owned green spaces, like the Botanical Gardens? The list from the council is probably the most comprehensive you will get without deciding on your own definition and looking over a map. Warofdreams talk 23:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dee-Dars

I have removed the following text:

They are also colloquially known as "Dee-dars" (which derives from their pronunciation of the "th" in the dialectal words "thee" and "thou") although the term is in decline and is not nearly as prevalent as "Scouse" is for "Liverpudlian" or "Geordie" is for "Novocastrian".
Many Yorkshire dialect words and aspects of pronunciation derive from old Norse due to the Viking influence in this region.

Maybe people only ever call Sheffielders Dee-dars behind their back, but to my knowledge I have never been called it. In fact, I have never heard or seen this expression anywhere but wikipedia. JeremyA (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Try googling for some instances of it being used. It seem in particular to be a colloquial Barnsley term. It's not an invention. However, it would be better to properly source this before restoring it. I shall try and find a dialect dictionary and provide a citation. --Dannyno 10:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Right I've found a reference: Don Alexander: Orreight mi ol': observations on dialect, humour and local lore of Sheffield and District (2001) ISBN 1901587185. He says (p8):

The 'dee-dahs' are unique to Sheffield - so much so that people in Barnsley, Rotherham, Dronfield and Chesterfield call Sheffielders 'dee-dahs'. (Our Rachel, on a nursing course in Wath-on-Dearne, gets called a 'dee-dah'.)

So there you go.--Dannyno 13:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The term dee-dars seems to be no longer in use in Sheffield. Originally it referred to the bottom third of society, which used the terms thee and thou, pronouncing them dee and dar. The middle third would use thee and thou (tha), and the top third would use you. Probably because dee-dar was a mildly offensive term in sheffield - to most sheffielders, it was used by nearby outsiders to refer to all sheffielders.--ExtraBold 11:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep, it probably isn't still in use in Sheffield, but it is still in use in the surrounding areas (like you say, as a mildly derogatory term). I agree it's worth keeping in. I used to work in Barnsley when I lived in Sheffield, and I've certainly heard "dee-dahs" used in Barnsley to refer to Sheffielders. (Also, I've got a copy of the Henderson's cookbook and I'm sure it's mentioned in there as well!) And it's definitely still used by football fans from local teams outside Sheff (Barnsley, Chesterfield, Rotherham etc). If you try googling for "dee dahs" as well as "dee dars" there are not only definitions but people using it in context. People from Barnsley, mainly. Tobelia 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping in! But as an archaic term- usually used by the older generation (my grandad for example), I have been called a 'Dee Dar' by people from Wakefield! ;) Hepburn26 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I have noted that the pronunciation of thee and tha as dee and da died out a long time ago. David Battye mentioned this in his recent book "Sheffield Dialect". Also, if you look at the material from the Survey of English Dialects, Sheffield was using the normal Yorkshire thee and tha by the 1950s [or at least the majority of Sheffield people were]. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/activities/lavc/PDFs/SED6Y.pdf http://www.collectbritain.com/personalisation/object.cfm?uid=021SED00C908S48U00002C01 Epa101 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If published research says it died out in the 50s then I guess that's what we have to say here. However, I question whether the researchers actually visited Sheffield as I have heard plenty of people in Sheffield using dee" and "da" and I wasn't born until the 70s. I haven't spent much time in Sheffield since 2001, but it was definitely still in use then. —Jeremy (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An example of usage later than the 50s is Derek Whomersley's 1981 book Sheffieldish (ISBN 0 900660 627) which states 'Words sometimes appear in a variety of forms. For example, there is the word "you". This can take the form of "thee" or "tha" or "thi" or "da" or "de"'. Later he writes '"dar"; "dee"; "thee"; "tha". All of these meaning "you"' —Jeremy (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording at the moment seems to be a compromise on it. I think that everyone's subjective experience on this would vary. I worked in Sheffield in two Summer stints when I was at [or on holiday from] university. Never heard it. I asked a Sheffield-born-and-bred colleague once, and he said that he thought it was an urban myth. It must have started somewhere, but you can listen to that Collect Britain recording from the 1950s and you'll notice that tha/thee is used. Also, the S.E.D. is generally the most respected English dialects survey to date, and I think that the researchers would have definitely visited Sheffield. The Survey was based in Leeds, so it was not far to go.

One bit of speculation that I would offer is that it might be a bit like the relationship between Cockney and turning an /r/ into a /w/. People argue whether that is "proper Cockney" or not. I read that it was never universal amongst Cockneys, but that it was a trend that seemed largely confined to London, so got associated with them. Perhaps, de-dahing has not been universal in Sheffield for a long time, but, because you never get it anywhere else, it gets associated with Sheffield. I just thought of this possibility just now though, so take no heed! Epa101 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2005/01/21/voices_expert_interview.shtml if you listen to this, he says at about 14 minutes in that "nah den dee" was the greeting in his youth. I think that he was going to go on to say that it was replaced by "nah then thee", but he gets sidetracked onto talking about Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Epa101 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a dee dar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mh8xts7WJA though "Dee Dar" is now more commonly used within Sheffield for the residents of certain estates who still persist in the use of "dee" and "dar". "'av' y'erd 'im, 'e's a reyt dee dar!". I haven't been to Sheffield for some time but certainly heard it in the 90s. It's also at football matches, used as a chant to Sheffield fans, as you can see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3SXQDr9HTY JRH2000 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.195.63 (talk)

Sheffield City Centre's quarters

I've read the article concerning Sheffield City Centre, SCC, and read that it is apparently divided in quarters. If I'm not mistaken a quarter is dividing something in four, yet the list of quarters in SCC comprises of five quarters; I'm finding that a tad confusing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymologically true, but the word 'quarter' when used geographically has a much looser definition than the mathematical one. It's pretty much equivalent to 'district' or 'area', with no real requirement that there be exactly four quarters in any given town, nor that they be of equal areas. For example in New Orleans there is a French Quarter which occupies much much less than 25% of the city area, and no other areas known as 'quarters'. --VinceBowdren 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I knew the answer would be that ;) I spose quarter is just the name for aan area nothing happens in and will be bulldozed in six months before a new scheme is thought off. I'm not bitter Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK Scarlet, try this, the elevenths of Sheffield City Centre. And that doesn't include the proposed NRQ! L.J.SkinnerWOT?|CONTRIBS 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact the clever chaps at the council have come up with an impressive total of 12 quarters. That must mean Sheffield has 3 city centres (I have difficulty finding one). josh (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The term 'quarter' is from the French word 'quartier', meaning a district or an area. Paris has 80 quarters. Andyh2o2 (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


Orwell and the seven hills

I've seen George Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier quoted as saying about Sheffield "The town is very hilly (said to be built on seven hills, like Rome) and everywhere streets of mean little houses blackened by smoke run up at sharp angles ..."

If this reference can be confirmed Orwell is probably important enough for this quote to be included. Carandol (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

North?

The north and south in this context are defined by the former boundaries of the kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria. Hence parts of Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire (further north than Sheffield) are part of the Midlands and Sheffield therefore part of the north.


The opening of the article says Sheffield is a town in the north of England-huh? It is in the midlands, not the north. The north of the midlands yes though the actual north? No way. --Josquius 20:16, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

  • By the definition at: Midlands Sheffield is not in the midlands. Officially Sheffield is in the region known as Yorkshire and the Humber, which is one of the three northern regions. So I would differ with you slightly—Sheffield is not in the north of the midlands, it is in the south of northern England. JeremyA 20:46, 8 April 2005 (UTC)
I am from and live in Sheffield - it's definitely in the north! Marky1981 22:46, 8 April 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is in the North. It is in Yorkshire. Gillian Tipson 15:27, 12 April 2005 (UTC)
I also live in Sheffield. It is in the north. I have heard the area described the region being described as the North Midlands, but very rarely and not by people from Sheffield. Warofdreams 17:08, 12 April 2005 (UTC)
Where "the north" and "the south" start is one of those things which seems to change depending on who you talk to. There are people who consider anything north of Watford Gap to be "the north", and others who think anything south of the Tyne to be "the south". It probabally depends alot on where you live/were born. People in sheffield generally seem to consdier themselves to be in "the north" though, so we should probabally go with that... Iain 09:28, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

The Census has definitions for "North", "Midlands", "South-West", "South-East". Sheffield is just in the North. Cambridge is in the Midlands, which pisses off some of the residents. Epa101 (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm from Sheffield originally and would consider it north & myself a northerner (despite growing up in North Staffordshire), I can understand why some people would consider it to be in the Midlands because the city itself is almost halfway between Berwick-upon-Tweed and Southampton if you view it in a map, some of the southern parts of the city were originally part of Derbyshire (not to mention it is surrounded by Derbyshire to the west & south while Nottinghamshire lies to the east, both of which are in the East Midlands), and the area where the city lies historically in Anglo-Saxon times formed the border between Mercia (the kingdom most associated with the Midlands) and Northumbria. And I might also mention that while most in England do consider it north, some people living in the far north of England (e.g. Cumbria, Tyneside or Northumberland) may not consider it north.
However, that being said, Sheffield being in South Yorkshire is still very much part of Northern England officially, culturally and politically, most Sheffielders do consider it north as already pointed out above so it may be offending to them if they were called Midlanders, and so it would be very misleading to say it is in the Midlands in this article (that is probably better off covered in articles like the Midlands or North Midlands) while the bits of Derbyshire & Nottinghamshire near the urban area would probably more likely be considered north as well due to their geographic proximity & close ties to Sheffield, despite officially being in the East Midlands. I think to avoid issues on this matter though, it is best not to mention it is in Northern England (even though it is true) and just keep the mentions of South Yorkshire & Yorkshire and the Humber because they are officially defined regions while Northern England, despite official county definitions, is still very much a debatable area. Broman178 (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sheffield tree reputation and felling

Hi everyone, just thought I'd leave a message here about this matter. I have noticed some editors seem to be putting information on the tree fellings which have been taking place since 2012 in one of the introductory paragraphs, however, this makes the introductory paragraph in which it has been added seem overloaded with detail (articles like Leeds, Manchester and Bradford are not described to that level in their introductory paragraphs) and it does not suit an introduction anyway because the introduction should just describe Sheffield more simply and generally while other things like tree fellings should be covered in the other sections of the article such as the history. So I really do suggest that it should not be added into any of the introductory paragraphs and instead be mentioned in a place like history. I have actually added it onto history with simpler wording which I moved from geography earlier because it seemed somewhat unsuitable to be mentioned in the geography, and I have also changed the description in the introductory paragraph to just mention the two million tree estimate rather than mention Sheffield's claim of having the largest tree to people ratio in Europe, because if the tree fellings have affected this, it may not be true anymore (its a bit like saying the Peak District National Park is the second most popular/busiest National park even though this actually isn't true and is misleading). Also, if the tree fellings do indeed mean that Sheffield no longer holds the title of having the largest tree to people ratio in Europe (unless a reference confirms it, the fellings don't seem to have affected it) and if planting saplings in the felled tree places mean that it isn't affected, it has to be verified properly in the article by a reference, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue of the tree felling is now so high profile that it surely demands its own article - unless there already is one, but I couldn't find it. 86.156.221.26 (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I do agree the tree felling would definitely be high profile enough to deserve its own article but at the same time I don't think its notable enough to be given mention in the lead of this article (its important we follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) because the felling is mostly being carried out across street trees and not parks/other green spaces, it hasn't had a major impact on Sheffield's history or infrastructure compared to events like the decline in steel, iron and coal mining industries along with the regeneration in recent years, nor does it seem to have affected Sheffield's claims to being England's greenest city and having the largest tree to people ratio (unless there's a source which confirms it). Its fine in the other sections of this article though, as for a separate article for the felling, it would be good to see what other editors think about it for consensus and if they also agree it deserves a separate article, it could be created. I personally don't have much knowledge on this area outside the news reports as its been many years since I last lived in Sheffield so I'm not sure if I can create an article for the tree felling myself. Broman178 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the felling should not be mentioned in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the Sheffield article primarily to find out more about the tree felling, it is very high profile and has come to define the city in the minds of many people in the last 18 months, therefore, I think mention should be made of it in the intro, and it seems to warrant a section or an entire article devoted to it. Paulitzer (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably a separate article on the subject would be more appropriate than putting a lot of information in this top level article on the city. Keith D (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Keith D because I think the amount of info on this article's history section for the tree felling is fine as it is, don't think it needs any more info, a separate section or any addition to the lead within this article, especially when Sheffield has already been given "good article" status and the tree felling as I've noted above while important, is not as notable compared to more noteworthy events such as Sheffield's decline in steel industry or recent regeneration because the felling still hasn't had a major impact on Sheffield's history. So a separate article on the tree felling is definitely the best option but it'll depend on who can create one because I don't have much knowledge on this area and I also don't have enough time at the moment to create an article. Broman178 (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Just though I'd mention that I'm now drafting a separate article on this subject in my sandbox and I plan to release it as its own article on a later date when I feel it is ready. Although I did claim that I may not do it due to not having enough knowledge, I changed my mind when I saw a section on this in the Julie Dore article which in my opinion is a useful section to base a separate article on this matter, as given the controversy the tree felling has caused since 2012, it would be absurd not to have a separate article for this. However, once I do create the article (will post an update in this talk page when it is done), it would be helpful if people who are experts on the matter add on to the article as since I haven't lived in Sheffield for years, I still don't have enough knowledge for it and am basing my information for it from online sources as well as the section in the Julie Dore article. Broman178 (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New article for Sheffield tree felling protests

Hi everyone, I have just created a separate new article for the tree felling controversy which has taken place in Sheffield, titled Sheffield tree felling protests after drafting it in my sandbox. I created it as, considering it was one of the most notable and controversial set of events which has taken place in Sheffield in recent years, I believed a separate article for it would be useful after the discussion on this topic above. However, while I chose to create the article in the end, I would request anyone who has enough knowledge on this topic (whether you live in Sheffield or not) to please improve and expand on what I have added as I personally don't have enough knowledge on the tree felling events to improve it further myself as I haven't lived in Sheffield for years and I haven't lived there while the protests have taken place so what I have done is just a starting point. I can see if I can add more to that new article if I am free but it would be useful if editors who have more knowledge on this matter than me can improve it. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheffield/Archive_1&oldid=1184314928"