Talk:Nottingham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.


This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Nottingham is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

I patterned my rewrite after Bristol, getting rid of the various stubby lists at the end by folding the people and places mentioned in them into the main text. Hope this doesnt' upset any apple-carts.

The website www.nottshistory.org.uk is rather splendid, and I could have added a lot more material from there given time (and may well do, at some point in the future). It's particularly notable in the Wikipedia context because the idea behind it is to make out-of-copyright works on the history of Nottingham available online -- kind of a local Project Gutenberg. --Bth 14:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removal of Crime Survey post

I removed the following post today: "Additionally, and despite Nottingham's recent bad publicity for crime, a recent survery in The Independent Newspaper (dated October 27th 2006) ranked Nottingham as only the 17th most violent place to live in the country

The report features the following quote:

"Despite all the publicity Nottingham has received for fatal shootings in recent years the city comes 17th on the list, with one firearms incident for every 1,141 residents"."

The reasons for removal are many. Firstly, the report by the Independent clearly stated that the figures related to guncrime offences committed from April 2004 up to April 2005. The figures are therefore well out of date. Secondly, the "firearms league tables" rate the 43 Police forces in England and Wales in terms of the number of firearms offences committed in each of the 230 police command units' areas. By taking the number of offences committed and dividing it by the population of each zone (from 2001 census data), a ratio is produced, by which each 'zone' is rated. A police command unit does not cover an entire city, the data has not been matched to produce figures for all Nottingham command units, and the boundaries drawn by the survey are somewhat arbitrary, with for example Derbyshire Police controlling parts of what we would call Nottingham. Thirdly, the journalist writing the article himself admits the survey is "...heavily slanted in favour of quiet, rural areas" and extrapolated, as I have shown, from confusing and misleading data produced by selective and arbitrary criteria. Fourthly, I really don't think that being 'only' the 17th most violent place to live out of 43 (50 in terms of this survey!) is really anything to crow about! Any opinions greatly appreciated. Codeye 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GREATER NOTTINGHAM

They should incorporate all the suburbs around Nottingham into something like greater Nottingham. Then the population would be 750.000 and be one hell of a big city.


This article is about Nottingham rather 'Greater Nottingham' which a seperate article, but in a few places seems to go outside of the city boundaries. I have removed a few places from the areas of Nottingham as technically they are not such as Beeston and West Bridgford. I also intend to reword a few bits such as the introduction to reflect this. Please let me know if I am going the wrong way Bevo74 13:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused about the population figure - as it stands, this article makes it sound as though Greater Nottingham has a population of ~1m ('estimated city population of 275,100 with more than 700,000 in the surrounding conurbation' - so a total of 975,100?), but the Greater Nottingham article makes it sound as though the population of the Nottingham conurbation is 666,358. (I think all these figures are stated as being from the 2001 census.)
I'll leave it to someone with more local knowledge than I to make the appropriate edit(s) to clarify this. :-) Matthew 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in some parts of greater nottingham. Many people do not realise that it is not technically part of the city.--B3ntleg 19:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but when it has been suggested that these places actually go into the city there is an uproar. The local government commission suggested this in the early '90s and it wasx not met with favourably.


[edit] "one of England's 8 core citys" [sic]

Suomi-morner added the following text on 2005 Jan 30:

Nottingham is one of England's 8 core citys.

Does this have a precise meaning? Does the term "core city" in relation to Britain/England have/deserve a topic defining it? (The existing core city topic refers only to Japan.) -- JTN 11:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard it used myself, so I suspected it was just one of these phrases that politicians come out with. A quick search and, well, what do you know, it is. [1]. John Prescott, I could have guessed. Average Earthman 14:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Would be better to say "is classed as one of England's core cities"

It is pretty much part of the lexicon when talking about the bid cities in England now - but only in Government / NGO circles really

[edit] "rated as the Nth best place to shop in the UK"

I've removed this statement entirely, since it's inherently POV and prone to flap around unless someone's willing to state who rated it thus. (In this article, it's been at various times "best", "fifth best", and "fourth best", never backed by a citation.) -- JTN 22:18, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

It was Experian who did the survey thing, So you can put it back :-).

indeed it was an Experian survey - you can see the Guardian article stating that it was 4th in 2003 and 5th as of 2004. [2]

OK, thanks. Was the recent edit (yours?) that rated it as "best after London" based on something similar? -- JTN 16:30, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
not mine.

[edit] CLIFTON

I thought that Clifton (estate at least) , was within in the city boundary despite being south of the Trent. Friends who live there have City bins.

According to City of Nottingham Council website Clifton is within the City boundaries.

Reply = It is within the City of Nottingham. The boundary extension of 1951 brought in Clifton Village, Clifton estate and Wilford village. It also set the boundary between Nottingham and West Bridgeford as the River Trent. It used to be the case that there were detached parts of Nottingham on the south side of the Trent in West Bridgeford and detached parts of West Bridgeford on the north side. (Peter Martin1891 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Taxis

I was thinking of deleting the taxi advertisement, as it can be considered POV. I thought again, if subsidised monopolies, eg the Trams and buses can have advertising, why not an independent firm.

While I can see something generic about the level of taxi service or something as possible material here, what was added certainly wasnt. As you mention it might be a good idea to change the stuff about the Trams/buses as well (maybe mention the extents and service level available, but less about how they are some award winning service, as that seems fairly POV). Consider this, Sfnhltb 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Areas

Regarding repeated additions of suburbs outside the city, would it help to list areas outside the city boundary, but mark them as such, as is done with Bristol#Areas and towns? Joe D (t) 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nottingham is a difficult city due to the amount of conurbanation outside of the city proper. I take this page to refer to the city itself, but appreciate that most people from outside such as students, at some of the campuses or away fans at the City Ground, would fail to realise they were not truly in Nottingham. Some rearranging needs to be done. At the top of the page the 'city' and 'suburbs' are seperated out maybe this is how the list at the bottom should be done. Bevo74 08:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


To add to the list of towns, I was wondering how far out of the city 'Nottingham' would sensibly be listed. I have listed the towns and suburbs listed under Greater Nottingham and a couple more by Dialing Code, Post Code,County and post town.

  • Arnold 0115 NG Notts Nottingham
  • Beeston 0115 NG Notts Nottingham

*Breaston 01332 DE Derbys Derby

*Heanor 01332 DE Derbys Heanor

*Ripley, 01332 DE Derbys

From what I know the inhabitants of the towns in bold (and Ilkeston?) do not usually see themselves as being in Nottingham, especially when you consider that Kirkby in Ashfield has Nottingham as part of it's postal adress and Mansfield and even Grantham have NG post codes. Conversely, I know people from Loughborough and Melton Mowbray who see Nottingham as their city. Just a thought! any more on this? Bevo74 00:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should be about the City of Nottingham proper. If an area is not covered by the City Council, then it should not be treated as being in Nottingham. Nottingham has a Royal Charter to be a city (from 1897) and also since 1449 has had the right to be treated as being a distinct County. It enjoyed its own Coroner and separate Sheriff from the Shire County. I will admit I used to be a council tax payer to the City of Nottingham and feel that places like West Bridgeford (which don't pay Council Tax to the City coffers) should not be included until they formally become part of the city. At every proposed boundary extension - 1919, 1933 & 1951 the inhabitants of places like West Bridgeford and Beeston etc actively campaigned to stay out of the city. In the early 1990's there was the possibility of redrawing the city's boundaries so that all areas north of the Trent went into the City of Nottingham and that Wilford and Clifton went back to the County. This was opposed by residents in places like Arnold, Carlton, Beeston etc as they felt they would lose their identity! (Peter Martin1891 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Skyscrapers in Nottingham

With regard to the required skyscraper citation, I think this link may show that Nottingham is low-rise but not as to why,http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=102753 Bevo74 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, while citations for all the facts in the articles would be good, what we specifically need is a reference for the "some people" - who say that? Wikipedia isn't a soapbox so editors can't go around saying "Nottingham council have a phobia of tall buildings", and using weasel words like "some people claim" amounts to the same thing. We can say "Nottingham has few tall buildings compared to other British cities of a similar size" and we can say "In 2005, Mr Example of ExampleOrganisation/Nottingham based ExampleCompany accused the council of having a 'phobia' of tall buildings." Joe D (t) 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Hood

why is robin hood not mentioned much at all in this article? he has earned nottingham worldwide fame, and yet he only seems to merit a brief mention! he should have his own section, possibly even a point in the opening sentence! if the caves are worthy, robin hood most certainly is. thoughts? - Jack (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The caves exist. That's easily proved. Robin Hood on the other hand... Average Earthman 12:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
How about a discussion of the myth of Robin Hood? Whether he exsists or not, it is a fact that he generates a fair percentage of the income from the tourism sector. Stressing the point of WORLDWIDE fame! 82.18.40.55 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I realise I'm a bit behind the times on this discussion, but think it holds a point that is still valid. The world outside of England has certainly heard of Robin Hood, even if it's not sure it's heard of Nottingham! I have travelled to remote communities in Indonesia, spent time with a nomadic Bedoin tribe in the Sahara desert, worked in a small farming community in Thailand and have friends from almost every continent - They all know about Robin Hood!

An Egyptian friend and colleague, who has never travelled outside the Arab world, thought it strange when I assumed his ignorance of Robin Hood, when in Egypt recently. He brought in some non-English speakers from outside, and every single one of them could relate Robin's tales with more clarity than I could, and I'm from Nottingham! (My friend did think that Robin hailed from "Tottenham", however; I think this illustrates the point beautifully.) Robin Hood is this city's greatest export, so I do think we ought to make a bit more of him on these pages. Thoughts? Comments? Ta. Codeye 04:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we do? I must say I don't know a great deal either, perhaps you should get your Egyptian friend to help? Lol. Or suggest a collaboration? - Jack (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination city

This article cannot ignore the murderous image put on the city recently. It is what Uk readers expect to see addressed in this article. Of course, proud / indignant Nottinghamers will excise these facts simply because they are personally objectionable.

This paragraph has now been deleted twice from the article, without explanation. The opinion of other editors on whether it should be reinserted for a third time is requested:
In 2004 Nottingham came under national scrutiny after a series of gun-crime related murders [3], earning it nicknames such as 'Assassination City' and 'Shottingham' [4]. The city and local police force have denied that this reputation is fair, pointing out that a number of other cities have higher crime rates [5], and have sought to rebuild the city's reputation [6]. Recent statistics have suggested that the number of offences involving weapons declined by nearly 50 per cent between 2003 and 2005 [7]. According to research by Endsleigh Insurance, Nottingham has the worst burglary rates in the UK, though this is disputed by Nottinghamshire police due to queries over whether their figures are up to date and compare like-for-like [8].DWaterson 09:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody would deny that parts of Nottingham have had a crime problem in recent years. but to use the references to 'Assassination City' and 'Shottingham' are weasel words. They just re-enforce a sterotype. Cities such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle and Manchester have reputations for certain things, but they aren't included in factual articles. Bevo74 11:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with you. They aren't weasel words as they are a quotation from a referenced source. Remember that WP is not concerned with truth, but with verifiability. Those phrases have been verifiably used in a national newspaper. That articles on other cities don't refer to their crime statistics might just be because no one has written the section yet. DWaterson 11:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The words are carried in the Daily Telegraph, but did they just use them as quotes to add to the their article, if the Daily Telegraph carries opinion does that make it verifiable?. What I meant about the other cities was that, I don't think it should be implied that Nottingham is crime ridden, the other cities I refered to have reputations for other things such as, 'binge-drinking' and 'shell suits' things that would not appear in Wikipedia. I have no problem with showing crime figures, but sensationlism doesn't make for a good research tool.Bevo74 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, I have noticed several times that anything "negative" about Nottingham seems to get removed very quickly indeed. The quotes above are indeed sensationalist but this Orwellian censorship of anything that mentions the very real, much reported crime problems that are affecting Nottingham, must stop. Can't help sensing the hand of self interested parties here...

Saintjohnny 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I have also noticed this 'negative' information diappearing overnight too. It is fact (can't be bothered to search for the reference at the mo, but will when I get time; check the Nottm Evening Post newspaper if anyone gets round to it first) that in late 2004/sometime in 2005, Nottingham city council started employing 3 PR guys to oppose negative reports (even those based on stats like national crime survey) and generally negate or remove any unsavoury truths or opinions in the media. Obviously they are earning the £300,000 p.a. they were being paid at the start of their employ, which I would be willing to bet (and this IS conjecture as yet until I get time to research the point) that their wagebill has not reduced in any significant manner in the meantime. Can't wait to add that little nugget to the main site, appropriately referenced and sourced, of course. Then we'll have action to recourse when the council "Crime wot crime?" squad (or, of course, whomever else it may have been) obliterates the uncomfortable text!

I have also removed the mention of public order problems at Goose Fair as it is just not true. However the Fair has been marred because of the murder of a young lady (can't remember her name, sorry) who had been to the Fair but at the time of the incident, was nowhere near it. References such as this give Goose Fair an unjustified bad reprutation. --Pica pica 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bevo74 - maybe there is a place for such information but certainly not presented in the manner it has been so far. The article on Manchester doesn't seem to have large amounts about gun crime and Moss Side in it? Robertsteadman 06:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but Moss Side does... DWaterson 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the heavy emphasis on crime should be moved into the articles on the relevent parts of the city then Bevo74 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Ps I don't live with in the City of Nottingham so I don't have a vested interest.

Nottingham has recently topped the crime survey overall. and it was top for murder but not gun crime.--B3ntleg 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I used to live within the city proper. Unfortunately I have met several people who claim to have been assaulted or threatend in the city centre during daytime visits. This has happend to me on several occasions recently when I have showing people I know around the place on a Saturday afternoon. The perception of the city is bad in the rest of the UK. To remove all reference to the problem is not going to help matters. (Peter Martin1891 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Merge with Greater Nottingham??

The Bristol guys will probably merge Bristol and Greater Bristol. Suggest that Nottinham and Bristol should both do the same thing with their 'big bits' since they're both broadly simlar cores and hinterlands. Bob aka Linuxlad 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

agree - it does seem odd having a separate article (or at least merge most and have a separate Greater Nottm article if there really is anything too long to include in main article. I can't imagine anyone searching for "Greater Nottingham".Robertsteadman 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
oppose - They are not the same thing, and the nottingham article is already too complicated. Just a link to greater notts should be enough - Jak (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose. The City of London and Greater London are distinct areas. There should be a separation between the two. Wikipedia should serve to inform and merging the two together is not informing is it? (Peter Martin1891 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Stella Rimington

She is listed as having been born in or near Nottingham but she wasn't - although she was educated in Nottingham. Should she be on that list? Or should the list be relabelled?Robertsteadman 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest pub/building

There is conflicting information about which pub is the oldest and which one has the oldest building. I moved some information from the paragraph about the caves to the first bit in History about the other pubs, but now the text appears to conflict.

"The Trip, while the oldest building and oldest location, was for most of its early life a brewery and not a public house. The Salutation sits on the oldest recognised public house site, but the current building is comparatively recent. The Bell, although not in such an antiquated location, does boast the oldest public house building. There is also conflicting information available: dendrochronology dating evidence from roof timbers in the Salutation give a date for the building of c.1420 with similar dates for the Bell."

So is the Bell older? Oldest? Lower down, it says, about the Trip, "Although the pub's building only dates from the 16th or 17th century...".

The Trip can't be the oldest building if it really only dates from the 16th or 17th century unless the "building" in the first instance is talking about the caves.

--Lukeandrews 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

In attempt to stop this section from being repeatedly altered, here are the facts:

  • (1) The original Reform crime survey reported Nottingham as having the highest rates for certain crimes.
  • (2) Nottingham City Council and the Police force criticised the report for using 2001 population figures and for not taking into account the population of Greater Nottingham (even though the crime figures didn't relate to Greater Nottongham)
  • (3) Reform published a revised version of the survey in July 2006 based on 2004 population estimates.

If the City Council have criticised this version of the survey, please include a reference. The revised survey was published and backed up the original figures. The revised survey replaced the original version on the Reform website. Thanks. --Michig 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also added info. re. the downward trend in crime according to the Nottm City Council website/Home Office survey.--Michig 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female to Male Ratio???

I have heard that to every male living in nottingham there are 3 females? Is this true? Im not thinking of moving there if it is true! Honest! lol

Answer: Its not true, I have been in nottingham for years. Its roughtly equal

[edit] Games Workshop

I wonder if we can add a bit more about the Games Workshop headquarters, more than the fact it is an employer. GW have their world headquarters in Nottingham, and the site includes a huge gaming hall, museum, and dwarven pub. It's a leisure facility as well as a business and attracts people from all over the world. Obviously it doesn't want to sound like an ad - but it's quite a big facility and deserves a bit more description - if there is a separate link - (it's called Warhammer World) I will link to it within Wikipedia. Magic Pickle 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is malmö twined with Nottingham?

On Malmö's wikipedia entry the only British twin city is Newcastle, NOT Nottingham; on that page Malmö's there is a citation to a website of Malmös city council, which has a list of twin cities (the same ones as on wikipedia) that does not include Nottingham. There is no citation for Nottingham's twined cities. Is malmö twined with Nottingham?

[edit] Waste Management

Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] info box should be converted to template:Infobox UK place

Nottingham
Shown within England
Population 278,700 (2005 est.)
 - Density 3,735 km²
OS grid reference 52.955,-1.149444
Region East Midlands
Constituent country England
Sovereign state United Kingdom
Dial code 0115
Ambulance East Midlands
European Parliament East Midlands

So far, all I can manage is on the right. If anyone can add to it, or even complete it, it can be added to the article, bringing it up to speed. — Jack · talk · 11:44, Monday, 26 March 2007

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/t/Talk%7ENottingham_2e45.html"