Talk:Altrincham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Altrincham was never a textile town as the word is normally understood, ie applying to somewhere such as Bolton. I can't actually recall anything there to justify the word. What it had, however, in its suburb of Broadheath was a number of medium-engineering machine build works, eg Linotype (hot-metal composition), Richards, Kearns (machine tools), Budenberg Gauge (pressure gauges and the like for steam boilers) - alas, all gone.
Contents |
[edit] Millionaires
- The town is home to more millionaires than any other area outside of London.
Really? I know Altrincham is well-known for its large number of well-off residents, could someone verify this claim? I'll have to remove it otherwise. --RFBailey 14:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so somebody else has removed it. Fair enough. --RFBailey 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cheshire?
Describing Altrincham as a "Cheshire town ... that is part of Greater Manchester" is potentially confusing to someone who doesn't know what you mean. It is important to mention Cheshire, but I think (IMHO) that I've clarified it a bit. --RFBailey 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's difficult to clarify "Cheshire town"; most towns now have no legal admin status, they're old parishes and boroughs that exist completely separately from the newer administrative areas (although the areas covered are sometimes the same) - borough councils are divided into wards not towns. Altrincham is a postal town in the postal county of Cheshire and a Parish in the diocese of Chester. (A fraction of it is also part of the ward of the same name but that's not what the article refers to). Given that it's not an administrative area it seems reasonable not to refer to it in these terms. But you're right it is confusing. However there's nothing actually inaccurate about "Cheshire town in Trafford" - and much of the postal town isn't in Trafford at all. Referring to administrative areas isn't usually a problem, Greater Manchester is a useful shorthand for saying that something's near Manchester, in fact it's better because it doesn't require a subjective judgement to be made. But usage of the older counties isn't wrong; If someone lives in the administrative authority of Bath and North East Somerset and says he lives in Somerset (which is also a neighbouring county council) he's saying something perfectly sensible - the name itself is a recognition that an administrative area or county council isn't the same as a county.
- Basically what I'm saying is that although it's important to say that it's in Trafford and Greater Manchester, Cheshire shouldn't only be mentioned as if it's a former county or an old-fashioned preference on the part of a few of the residents - it's still in Cheshire.
(above comment left by 131.111.8.100)
-
- The (approximate) standard on Wikipedia is to use current administrative areas first. Given that Cheshire is a current administrative area and that Altrincham isn't in it, describing Altrincham as a "Cheshire town" is confusing, as you've agreed. Dioceses are even more complicated: in many cases they don't correspond to counties anyway (e.g. Shropshire is split between Lichfield and Hereford), and there are various different sorts of Parish: Parish Councils are a low tier of local government, and don't necessarily correspond to those used by the Church of England (or other churches), even though they share common ancestry.
-
- The fact that people such as yourself prefer to keep regarding Altrincham as part of Cheshire (or West Kirby as part of Cheshire, Southport in Lancashire, Stourbridge in Worcestershire, Bath in Somerset, etc., is just indicative of the unpopularity of the New Counties created by the Local Government Act 1972.
-
- BTW, don't forget to sign comments on talk pages (using ~~~~), so people can keep track of discussions. Why not register as a user if you're often going to make contributions, so people know who it is, especially since lots of people use the same IP address as you. --RFBailey 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explosion of opera singers
I couldn't find any reference (in Google) to the people named either as opera singers or to do with Altrincham, so I've taken them out. I'm not sure what the "head of beef" business was about either, so that had to go as well. --RFBailey 08:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Status
Am I right in thinking Altrincham has never been a city? This may sound a silly question, but I just want to be sure. --62.255.236.179 10:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are certainly correct in thinking that. Chris From Sale 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photographs
If anyone is interested, I have several photos of Altrincham town centre and the Dunham Massey area I could put up here. Chris From Sale 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris from Sale - I think it would be great if you could put up some pics of the town centre.RRJ 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs work
This article (as of October 24, 2006) needs alot of work. I'd be inclined to look at a leading article about a simillar sized town from the Greater Manchester area, at Shaw and Crompton. This is the standard to which we should be looking for at the moment. Jhamez84 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Jhamez84 - you seem to have some sort of obscession with deleting the fact that most residents still include Cheshire in the address of the town. Nobody is arguing that Altrincham is not in Gtr. Manchester or that it is officially part of Cheshire. But what people are saying is that most people consider the town to be part of Cheshire (even though this is technically wrong). It is important to mention this at the start of the article, as it gives part of the impression of Altrincham (that it is similar to other Cheshire towns, even though officially it is not in Cheshire.) Please stop trying to delete this in the name of 'vandalism' as you know perfectly well that it is not. You're simply deleting this because you disagree with others opinions. And given that you don't live in Altrincham where as we do, then we are the best people to comment in articles about Altrincham. Stop abusing Wikipedia for your own little gains. Bob74 15:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied.... What I would add, is:
- a) I delete the comment on the grounds that it is not a fact- it is an unsourced opinion.
- b) I further deleted not for "own little gains" (whatever they may be), I delete it because I have the article's best interests at heart.
- c) Comments like the above are agressive, misguided and unhelpful, and not within the spirit of Wikipedia's aims.
- Again for my motivation (which is merely backed up by policy), please read my reply. My earlier comment is above improving the article's content. Jhamez84 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Having watched this escapade for a couple of days, may I say that you are being completely unfair with regards to this issue. If the policy stands that editors get to dictate what goes into every article then what is the point of Wikipedia?? I agree with Bob74 above that every person in Altrincham uses Cheshire in their address (whether right or wrong) and it is ridiculous that you are demanding that it should be removed. I noticed on Bob's Talk page, you spelt Altrincham as 'Altringham' which shows your lack of knowledge of the town. No source is required at all for this - the vast majority of info in the article (and most other articles) is sourceless (eg. Altrincham being wealthy). Everybody in Altrincham uses Cheshire in the address (not the just the majority). It is a fact and I will also continue to write it in. I recommend that you change this absurd policy. Thanks. Chiving 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- You would be advised that multiple accounts on Wikipedia are a) expressly forbidden, and b) tracable upon request. The policy stands. Jhamez84 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the new compromise regarding the counties is acceptable. RRJ 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sometimes it is important for us to remember that some things are granted. For instance, everyone takes it for granted that the City of London is the Capital of England. It is unsourced however on the article. In the same way, local knowledge doesn't always have to be sourced if it is so commonly known. That's the benefit of local knowledge and contributers.
- This doesn't mean that discussion shouldn't be used to question and consider the ammendment and deletion of material. It does, however, mean that the Wiki "rules" have to be applied in moderation. If I were to apply these consistently and thoroughly I suspect I could legitimately remove over 50% of all articles. This wouldn't further Wikipedia but would mean it ran a tight ship! Candy 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My goodness - what a fuss.
Can I just remind people that the use of a county name long after it ceased to be the correct administrative unit is a long established tradition in English local history and I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been raised before this. A lot of the residents of London Boroughs (ie part of Greater London in adminsitrative terms) continue to use the names of the counties which they used to be part of in their addresses - including ones like Middlesex that ceased to exist very many years ago! If you've not lived in an area where there has been change or don't have relatives or friends who live in such an area you may not be aware of this phenomena.
People continue to use a historical name because it is an important part of retaining the identity of a place and consequently the identify of self. Local government reorganisations come and go. I can quote you chapter and verse in relation to the Redcliffe-Maud Report and its aftermath the subsequent reorganisation of local government (why do you think SELNEC failed to get off the ground?), academic texts on geographical perception and the importance of geographical boundaries which never ever change (eg the River Mersey) if you like. The 'fact' that it is important for some people to continue to use a name in their address is just as important as the 'fact' that changes boundaries of administrative units. If it weren't then the use of the name 'Middlesex' would have been discontinued a long time ago - but it hasn't been. It could be argued that the 'fact' of where people think they live is actually more important that the administrative unit where they currently live technically as history tends to suggest that it is more enduring.
And I come from an area adjacent to Altrincham, live in London, am amused by people I know who still think they live in Middlesex and and continue to address my Christmas cards home with 'Altrincham, Cheshire' in the address - because that's where I come from. I don't think I've ever come across anybody who used Trafford in their address. It's important to record facts about local culture as well as facts about local government units. Please respect the knowledge of 'local people' - wherever they may live.
For the record, (and I have academic status in this matter) in my expert opinion, this article should clearly record that:
- Altrincham is town which is located in the southern part of the metropolitan borough of Trafford and that this arrangement dates back to 1 April 1974.
- Altrincham was part of the county of Cheshire for many hundreds of years and, as a result, many of its inhabitants still consider Altrincham to have a very strong relationship with Cheshire and use Cheshire in their postal address.
I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a town in Cheshire as that is technically incorrect - but I would recognise the need to recognise local heritage and what that means to this day at a local level. I trust this statement provides evidence of sufficient expertise for the necessary amendments to be made.
(For the record, the area north of the Mersey - which forms the northern part of Trafford - was split from Cheshire in 1182 - hence the long established and documented tradition that the people in the north of the borough associate with Manchester and Lancashire and that the people south of the Mersey flood plain associate mainly with areas south of the river.) Cosmopolitancats 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also add that I wouldn't look to the Wikipedia article on local government in the UK as any sort of reference in this matter - I've just taken a look at it and it's not very good. Cosmopolitancats 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Cosmo has spoken and it makes perfect sense to me. Candy 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)