Talk:Rochdale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] External links edit war

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

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

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

[edit] "External links edit war"

[edit] The other user...

The other user is keen on spamming his website several times. My link led to a community website for Rochdale, whereas the other user his spamming his own link. Notice that it appears 2 times [Rochdale Online]

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

[edit] External links

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

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

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

[edit] Apologies for messing up the links.

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


72.50.23.21 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I havent..

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

72.50.23.21 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Well the long info for RO was added

The other user just re-added all of the advertising info for RO again. Like i have said, i've not made any other changes to anything.

72.50.23.21 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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


[edit] Etymology

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

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

[edit] Pronunciation

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

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