Talk:Sheffield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sheffield is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 20, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a WikiProject which aims to improve Sheffield related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Sheffield 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.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.	United Kingdom Portal
This article has not been rated on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs: Does demographics really belong under geography? There is nothing about geology (which can be integrated with the short bit about landscape & rivers) or climate in the geography section Town hall picture needs rotating ~1-2 degrees clockwise, and several of the other pictures would benefit from slightly increased contrast, colour correction, sharpening, etc Government and politics -- the expenditure list could be put into context by comparing with national averages, other cities and nearby rural areas, as well as historical context: wasn't Sheffield & South Yorks councils famously left-wing big-spenders in the 1980s? The list could also be turned into prose. International links could be turned into prose with the addition of info like how long the relationship has existed, what the relationship involves (exchanges, economic & cultural cooperation?) Culture: consider whether reorganisation might be appropriate. "Music" gets its own section, yet the other arts are lumped together under "attractions", along with parks and gardens. Education is considered "culture and attractions", yet sport isn't, when far more articles deal with these topics the other way around. Transport was divided into sub-sections after it became a featured article. In the FAC discussion the article was criticised for excessive sub-division and single paragraph sections. Consider whether it's really neccesary to divide it beyond the "national" and "local" sections. (Please remove or strikethrough tasks which have been completed.)

Contents 1 Population 2 Unlink from Chapeltown in Leeds 3 Change to second sentence 4 Sheffield Template 5 North? 6 4th. largest city debate 7 Fact Check. 8 Sheffield region? 9 e-Voting 10 Dee-Dars 11 Population 12 Elevation 13 Seven hills? 14 Image:Sheffieldarms.PNG 15 Travel Expense 16 Quinary group 17 Separation of city and district 18 Vandalism? 19 Query "north" 20 Sheffield,England 21 Education section 22 Population estimates 23 Sheffield City Centre's quarters 24 Sheffield WWII - Bombers 25 Greater Sheffield!??? 26 Please leave WP:CITIES banner 27 Spoken version added 28 Article update

[edit] 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

---

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 [1]. 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)

[edit] Unlink from Chapeltown in Leeds

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Apr 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am from and live in Sheffield - it's definitely in the north! Marky1981 22:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is in the North. It is in Yorkshire. Gillian Tipson 15:27, 12 Apr 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 Apr 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Apr 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

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

[edit] 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. 212.26.72.13

[edit] 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 [2] consider the Sheffield urban area to be Sheffield, Aughton, Beighton, Chapeltown, Mosborough, Highlane, Rawmarsh, Rotherham.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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 [3] --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)

[edit] Image:Sheffieldarms.PNG

This image, which is used only in this article, appears to be a copyright violation. The website of Sheffield City Council [4] 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)

• See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Coats of arms and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Copyright in coats of arms, flags, military insignia etc.

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)

[edit] 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 [5]. The WWOBB campaign is the main group campaigning on public transport in Sheffield (e.g. [6]); 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.Skinner_WOT?|^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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

• Labour Profile: Our source (http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/tml/rep.aspx?template=labour_market_profile.htm&pt=486&st=-1&aKv=2038432027&aNm=Sheffield&printable=yes) has data for 2005. I think our data is for 2004. I'll update this today and make sure the footnote includes the year the data applies to.
• Government and politics: Are 2005/6 (rather then 04/5) accounts available?
• Music: I'm no expert, but this looks like it has had lots of missing bands added. I think this needs some purging; moving less important things to Culture of Sheffield. Views?
• Local roads: We say an "... inner ring road, mostly constructed in the 1970s and currently (2006) being extended to form a complete ring...". Am I correct in thinking that this has been completed?

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)