Talk:Chester

Archives

1: from creation up to February 16, 2008

2:

3:

Discussion about addition of Welsh names to articles about English settlements

Editors sometimes add the Welsh name for Chester to this article, usually in the lead. Since this matter has been raised on a number of different pages now, and is ongoing, I think it best to refer people to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles (2) where the matter is being discussed for a number of articles (at least 4) about English settlements in which Welsh names have recently been added. Please go there and join in if you would like to contribute to the discussion and try to reach some kind of consensus about it.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the walls of Derry/Londonderry. They are complete too, although of more recent origin than Cheater's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasnor15 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Lots of terrible images in this article at the moment. As an alternative, we can use the following free-to-use images from Flickr (they just need uploading to WikiCommons:

• Eastgate Clock (My favourite)
• Town Hall Spire
• Chester Main Street
• Chester Landmarks

Hope these help, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I did attempt to contact the most prolific adder of the current images when they were added (User:Chestertouristcom) about them and the amount of unreferenced material that the person was adding to this and to other articles. I got no reply, either from a message on the articles' talk pages, the user's talk page, or even by email or the website that the user seemed to own (here).  DDStretch  (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also Geograph.co.uk for "free" images (see here, for example). - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed some images with this edit. I didn't feel they were of a befitting quality. They can always be reintroduced should the text pad out. I'm hoping to remove the gallery asap. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the removal of unsuitable images; there are still too many. Should we scrap the lot and begin again? (I've just added a new section on Landmarks and tourist attractions.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The image that's used under Governance showing Cheshire - this has the new proposed boundaries, rather than the current ones. Replace? Salinae (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

POV: Relationships with Wales - Request for deletion

I think this section should be deleted for several reasons, firstly

Associated with its proximity to Wales, Chester (Welsh: Caer) has a history of anti-Welsh sentiment (at least in repute), as discussed in this recent exchange in parliament between the local MP Christine Russell and Welsh MP David Jones:[23]

1. It's a fallacy - a Bare assertion fallacy. Just because someone says so, doesn't mean it is so. And neither does one exchange in Parliament make a hard case for hating the welsh.

2. David Jones MP became the conservative member of parliament for Clywd West in 2005. But he finished second to Chester's current MP, Christine Russell in the 2001 General Election. So if the assumption, that there is anti-welsh feeling in Chester, is to believed then Mr Jones appears to be a hypocrite and sore loser as a former prospective MP for the City of Chester.

3. Chester newspapers carry no suggestion of any anti-welsh sentiments. In fact the Evening Leader, based in Wrexham, has a Chester edition and the Chester Chronicle has Flintshire and Deeside versions. None of them have editorials suggesting any cross-border animosity.

4. Where is the the repute? Chester is not a racist city especially for welsh people. M&S used to have designated welsh speakers. What kind of anti-welsh sentiment is there?

At best this section should note the anachronistic nature of any anti-welsh feelings, this is now after all the 21st century. I don't think anyone still keeps a bow handy to kill welshmen after dark inside the city walls. Which itself is anachronistic because even at the time of the active Law in the Middle Ages, it appears that there were many Chester people who liked the Welsh so much, they put up their own money as a surety for their friend's good behaviour. See Chester Council's website.

5. This article is purporting that anti-welsh sentiments are still reputedly still in the city. For balance and NPOV this section says Chester is racist but there are no reciprocating references about the simmering anti-english/Chester feelings that manifest themselves just across the border.

Remember Saltney railway bridge English Out or the popular roadside message Welsh homes for welsh people that adorned walls along the A55. And lest we forget the firebombings in the early 1990s by Meibion Glyndŵr on estate agents in Chester.

So in all honesty DELETE! It should not be in an article about Chester. Probably the work of a Troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.196 (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be given far too much space, to be honest. If it were worthy of inclusion at all, a single line somewhere might be in order, but I see little of note in the references that are currently supposed to be verifying the material. Incidentally, your comment about people saying that something is the case doesn't make it the case is quite correct, but we should not fail to realise that wikipedia could report what those people think is the case as fact. In this instance, however, I tend to agree that the section is not particularly worty of being retained. We need a few other views first, probably.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I support deleting the section - one anecdote (no doubt largely in jest after a hard day's work at Westminster) does not make it encylopaedia-worthy, and the true history of the Welsh Marches and the County Palatine is (or rather should be) better explained elsewhere Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a deletion. Looks like a case of WP:UNDUE. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yey, fourthed or is that fifthed. Get rid of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done!  DDStretch  (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I object, Chester has a HISTORY of anti-settlement with the welsh which is definatly relevant. The village of Handbridge for one was once uninhabited with the welsh attacking over the old dee bridge, the welsh have also repeatedly in the past burnt down the old wooden bridge across the river dee where the Old Dee Bridge is now in place. This is part of Chester's history and just because it may not be relevant to modern day it certainly deserves it's place on the page. I would ask that the removal edit is undone. Aaron Allen (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Chester part of Wales at one point? Now that would deserve a mention. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See this and this, I think. Essentially, Chester was "Welsh" up to 616AD or so. There could also be more reference made in, for example, this article and this one (both of which need some work}, so long as comments are properly referenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was unacceptable as it stood. So, I think the deletion can stand. Now, if Azallen (Aaron Allen) thinks some section should be placed in the article, then how about this as a solution: He can create a special section here in this talk page, and then write what he thinks should be included, complete with references. I am sure that none of us would object to any relevant, verified piece of prose about it, and, it may be that, once we all see it, it can be placed in a better article. If there really is "a HISTORY of anti-settlement with the welsh which is definatly relevant", then it should be much better verified than the meagre text that was removed. So, how about it?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind this, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. We may be able to jointly get a version of expanded text that could be included in one article, with summaries in other relevant ones, such as the ones you provided. In that way, more than one article wins.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to create a new section as you said which this time hopefully will be more relevant! Aaron Allen (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done, and good luck. Remember, we can always help you get it into shape so long as you give us the references, and they are good ones (we can suggest how you can improve them as well) So don't spend an enormous amount of time trying to get it too perfect at first go.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Serious Potential Confusion between Boughton and Great Boughton

There seems to be some confusion between two separate, yet adjacent places in or near Chester at the moment: Great Boughton is the name of a civil parish in Chester District, and yet some or even most of its information is about Boughton. Boughton, Cheshire is now an unparished area that is esssentially a suburb of Chester, though it may have been a separate village at some point. (This can be confirmed by looking at the various 1:25000 OS Survey maps.) It is adjacent to the civil parish of Great Boughton also shown on the 1:25000 OS Survey map. The content of both articles needs some serious attention as both contain a mixture of information that would be better placed in the other, and a cursory glance shows that if the names of the articles were swapped round, they may be more accurate. Finally, once that has been done, if the entry for Boughton, Cheshire is still as stub-like as it is now, I recommend that it is merged into the general Chester article. Can anyone who knows more about this specific area of Cheshire take a look at this, please? Its a similar problem that cropped up with Hoole and Hoole Village, in which the first is a suburb of Chester and unparished, and the second is a civil parish adjacent to the Hoole part of Chester.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

Is it W'pedia style that this should be rhotic?