Jump to content

Talk:Didsbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDidsbury has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Images

[edit]

Just a note that there appears to be a wider selection of photographs at Geograph than there was at the time of its GAC, including some historical images. I'd still like to see a static image for Didsbury in the infobox, akin to Hulme or Gorton etc. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've added a picture of The Towers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with the Towers being added, but as the main picture? What was wrong with the Didsbury clock tower? It's a far better reflection of Didsbury village. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I am proposing the merger of East Didsbury and West Didsbury into this article. Neither seems to contain sufficient information to warrant three separate articles on what is after all rather a small area. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree that the articles are unloved and contain material about each other, but they need developing not merging. Why. Different histories, different characters, different local government ward/constituencies, when the governance transport demography have been written for each it would distort and damage the Didsbury article. That said, there is little I can do to help having migrated south from West Didsbury 25 years ago. ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Just parts of Didsbury and East Didsbury sounds too much like an advert for the area bragging of housing stock quality and prices. It's not as if Didsbury (inc. West and East) is a huge place either. Didsbury is really a component of the City of Manchester so therefore East and West Didsbury are non-notable components of components. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are a little more than wards, and are (in my opinion) two distinct areas from Didsbury. They have different cultures etc. and are notable enough to have their own pages. I can help develop them, if that is necessary. Rudget 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I might be inclined to change my mind on this East/West Didsbury merger proposal if there was any evidence that these articles were ever going to be anything more than two undeveloped stubs on local government wards. When will the development work commence? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agree and disagree! Both east & west didsbury are very different in lots of ways they have their own culture, atmosphere and do need to be distinguished - the means by which this is achieved is lagrely irrelevant. I have to disagree with'joshi' (18th April) - if that argument holdstrue why dont we just have one huge 'city of manachester' article including every area? I dont believe wikipedia should be confined to articles based on whether something is a seperate ward etc- if there is enough interst to develop and expand information on a place irrespective of size- this is something that should be encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.204.112 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there isn't just one huge City of Manchester article is precisely that; it would be huge. I am finding it difficult to believe that including whatever distinguishes East and West Didsbury into the Didsbury artricle would result in a similar problem. I may of course be quite wrong, and the two areas are so diverse and different from from each other and from Didsbury that three separate article can be justified. So I would invite anyone who holds that view to prove me wrong by developing either East or West Didsbury to the point where it is clear that there is sufficient material to justify having three articles on a rather small part of Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal on the grounds that users who neeed information on East Didsbury or West Didsbury are likely to find most or all of it under Didsbury. Also propose merger of Parrs Wood Brownturkey (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we upto with this? The merge tags are a waste if we're not to come to a conclusion. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've come to a conclusion; unless there's clear evidence that the East and West articles can be expanded then they should be merged. In the unlikely event that the amount of material on either overwhelms the Didsbury article then they can be split. Right now these are just articles on local government wards so far as I'm concerned. Why can't everyone see things as clearly as I can? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just cannot think of anything to say about East Didsbury- having lived in West Didsbury, and known Didsbury village since childhood- the only fact I know about East Didsbury was that it wasn't Didsbury or West Didsbury, or like Didsbury or West Didsbury. I looked at East Didsbury Ward Plan for inspiration- and hit a further problem East Didsbury Ward seems to occupy areas I know as Burnage, and vice versa. Perhaps, merge East Didsbury with Burnage. I can't see a solution that is better than the status quo. ClemRutter (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it seems to be 3 in favour of a merger, 2 against, and 1 who would agree with a merger so long as the separate characters of East and West Didsbury weren't lost in the process. I've posted a message on the Greater Manchester Project talk page to hopefully get a few more views before we have to close this one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of merging them, I can't see anything in the articles or that would be used to expand them that wouldn't also be put under the main Didsbury article. If, as Rudget says, they are more than wards and have separate identities (although based on what I'm not sure) I think this could be woven into the Didsbury article (although getting verification might be troublesome). Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favour of a merge. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know a lot about the area, and that's the problem. I can't materialise my thoughts into reliable sourcing, so merge may as well go ahead. Rudget (logs) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I would happily be proved wrong- so a way forward. Could one of the enthusiastic Promergist use a sandbox to put together a model of the new article- so we can see what they mean, and in doing so they can see the difficulties we are predicting.ClemRutter (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that there is a clear consensus for a merge, which I intend to do asap, if nobody beats me to it first (please, feel free). "East Didsbury railway station opened in 1909. The central shopping area, along Wilmslow Road - more properly referred to as Didsbury Village ...". So East Didsbury's shopping area is in Didsbury Village? Should Didsbury Village have its own article as well? No sandbox, just let's get on with the merge. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was unsure about the merger at first, but given that Broughton, Greater Manchester manages to encompass Higher and Lower Broughton, I think this article could easily take onboard any additional material here. Infact, I think it will make for a better article. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

You may notice that the second stanza in the lead is particularly similar to that of the one found in the Withington one. You'd be right; both the villages developed at the same time so it could be said that both share the same recent history from the aspect. Rudget (logs) 18:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Didsbury was incorporated into the city 45 years after it gained city status." When did Didsbury become a city? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rudget (logs) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. :-) BTW, as one of the major contributors to this article, do you have any objection to the date autoformatting being removed, as is being done to many of the current FAs?
Also, I recently discovered the real story behind "The Gates of Hell", which I've been meaning to add to the article. Much more intersting than what's there now—if you believe in ghosts and haunted houses anyway. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) You can add away! With regards to the de-linking of dates, I too have the option to do that. Although considering you have vastly more experience with MOS, MOSNUM and the like, it's probably best to leave to you. Hope you don't mind. Rudget (logs) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll do it now. I've been dying to try out my new tool! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village or a town?

[edit]

This article variously describes Didsbury as a town and a village, even in consecutive sentences in the lead: "Didsbury is a town within the city distict of Manchester ...", "It is a dormitory village comprising a resident population ...". Which is it to be? A town or a village?--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world it's a suburb, a district, of Manchester. It has none of the towniness associated with (say) Altrincham, Hyde, Ashton, even Staleybridge, and ceased to be a village a long time ago, even though the area around the shops is still called Didsbury Village. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suburb sounds good to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do need diverse description. If we are talking about now, suburbs (plural) may work. Now the article includes parts of Burnage and Withington I don't see you can use the singular. Historically it was a town- but noway is it now. Parts of it are urban villages- I include West Didsbury Village but parts were never more than suburbs. Perhaps you should be consistently tolerant rather than being tolerably consistent. ClemRutter (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the lead, the example I gave above. Do you think that level of inconsistency is tolerable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you totally there. I am just too far area from the area to help with the editing. I have no access to the reference books I need. But I can point out some of the pitfalls that will make it easier for you all to make a stronger article. If you have a look at the Glossop article, (there I do have the necessary printed references) you will see a similar 'area' problem, and this was discussed in the A.H.Birch book in 1959. I had to make many drafts before I could reduce the information down to the current version. The descriptions on the Heaton Chapel/Moor/Mersey/Norris needs attention too, I would like to say that it is a common problem with all the Manchester articles but I haven't done the research necessary to back up such a proposition. So the problem in hand- I would suggest, from Glossop experience, sort out the Governance section, including previous governance WP:UKTOWNS#Governance second and third bullet point. Here you can discuss the town village hamlet problems, this being done, the lead will have written itself.
Failing that, this may help:
Didsbury (IPA: /ˈdɪdzbəri/) is a town within the city distictarea of South of Manchester, in Greater Manchester, England.[1] It is 4.5 miles (7.2 km) south of Manchester City Centre, and located near the southern edges of the Greater Manchester Urban Area. Though originally a township in its own right, then name has become extended to refer to Didsbury village, West Didsbury village and parts of Withington and Burnage. These centres of population became merged though housing infill in the 19th and twentieth century. is a dormitory village comprising a resident population of just over 14,000 people. It has good transport links with Manchester city centre, and a As a result of location on Wilmslow Road, its commutership and relatively large student population. The Wilmslow Road is said to be the 'the busiest bus corridor in Europe'.
If you do hava a few moments spare, could you pass a critical eye over the Glossop article- and make a few comments- I would appreciate some critical feedback.

ClemRutter (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being brutally pedantic - do we actually have a source for "village"? A "village" to me is a standalone settlement - Didsbury was incoporated into a heavily urbanised city. I'd personally call Didsbury a "suburban area"; it's not technically a district (as it's not used as a unit for governance), but may be an urban village (but we need citation). I'm not comfortable, labelling the area as something that is purely speculative. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a suburb technically, but the name of the main stretch (down Wilmslow Road) is Didsbury Village. It's an unofficial name, but it has always been referred to that way. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Didsbury village" is widely used both verbally and in print. For example if you search www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk for "Didsbury village" you get loads of perfectly good hits Brownturkey (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me Shirley

[edit]

I'm happy to be corrected, but didn't the Shirley Institute close twenty years ago? The building is still there, part of The Towers Business Park, but I think the research institute is long gone. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

There's plenty to choose from on Flickr here, which are all readily available for Wikipedia since they are licensed under the Creative Commons for commercial work. Rudget 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The external link used in reference 22 is dead. I think this webpage would probably suffice as a source, but I think someone edits this article regularly should decide. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same page. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me, I've updated the link. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The external link used in reference 63 is dead. The site has been redeveloped and the page removed. --Harrybailey (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link works for me, perhaps you need to clear your cache? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link still works for me too. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Link was updated recently. Resolved. --Harrybailey (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Just thought it worth a mention that there's a freely avaliable book that covers Didsbury here, at Google Books. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East and West Didsbury

[edit]

Perhaps the geography section could explain more exactly how much of Didsbury belongs in these sections. Withington Hospital being in West Didsbury is enough to confuse some readers.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive?

[edit]

"Yidsbury" sounds like a racial slur... what do others think? Brownturkey (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you find history offensive then you ought not to read it, and certainly not try to erase it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find history offensive, and I certainly wouldn't suggest erasing it. However I might suggest adding something along the lines of "...called, in a dated, antisemitic terms..." I think Yidsbury would be offesnsive if it were thought to be current Brownturkey (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's antisemitic about Yidsbury? Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yid puts it well Brownturkey (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of my Jewish friends refer to this area as "Yidsbury", I think we can all calm down and accept that actual Jews aren't offended; quite the opposite. Mongoletsi (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a myth- made up very recently- by an outsider, with no Manchester Connection trying to stir it. Unless we have real evidence of contemporary usage- the whole lot should go. I would suggest it has as much validity as a claim in a Theresa May Cat Flap speech. My grandparents generation worked in jewellery in the City (1920-1960)- I worked in Crumpsall and Cheetham Hill I had a house in Withington, in what was called West Didsbury village.(1975-1985) - and never heard the taunt Yid. It was the sort of language they used down London- the sort of language the Zionists in other countries- introduced to exaggerate their plight. We also come up against the problem of area- in the times we are talking about Palatine road was seen as being in Withington not Didsbury and led to Gatley. Justify or Erase. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a complete myth. It does have a valid citation on page 72 of Zenner's book, and, for what it's worth, my spouse who grew up in Manchester in the 1960's knows the term. But it is offensive. Brownturkey (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zenner- is he reliable? We are not talking about the 60s, and it is the existence of the taunt that matters- not our ability to understand English from south of Knutsford. Wracking the brain- it sounds like a quip from the generious comedian Bernard Manning- who spouted such foul stuff on stage. But common in Manchester - no. We do need something else before it is kept. But it is offensive- on several grounds. And geographically inaccurate. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked an ex-resident of Didsbury if they had ever heard the phrase 'Yidsbury', to which they replied 'many times'. And without prompting told me that Palatine Road was called Palestine Road. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah false memory syndrome! I was pretty focused in the late 70s on race relations issues in Manchester-- working with potential young bigots and a resident of the West Didsbury area of Withington and this wasn't one of our issues. We in the antiracism left obviously drank in the wrong pubs. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you get older you tend to lose three things: your hair, your teeth ... and I've forgotten what the third thing is. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It´s something to look forward to- the Complan kid. I've even forgotten why I am bothered.This supplied by Google seems to date the term to 1996 in a comic novel, but it was then widely accepted as it was quoted in this superb thesis which gives us all the facts and maps too. I have glanced at Zenner (2000) on Google Books]- he as been misquoted 'West Didsbury village was called Yidsbury' but it is not clear whether this was general or just within the Askanasi Jewish community of Crumpsall. That makes far more sense- the quote you need a passport to go there does fit in with the prejudice that my clients expressed about Didsbury-- there all fucking posh gits. Now, I've forgotten what the third thing is- but I have just bought the making of Manchester Jewry book of Amazon.. Rambling again- better go and look for my teeth. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good point (about Zenner), and one easily fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zenner is reliable. And we are talking about the 1960s and '70s if you read his book. If he considered it significant enough to mention in his chapter on "Syrian Sephardim in Manchester" why should we not also include it? Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuorum - I note that you reverted my edit - you may not agree with it, but it was made in good faith, and was not vandalism Brownturkey (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I clicked the wrong button by mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

[edit]

A lot of this article sounds like it's been written by estate agents. Just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estate agents are people too Probably... Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A feudal estate?

[edit]

Any chance of giving details of which feudal estate - this is the sort of thing which hyperlinks make easy to do if there is already a discussion of the estate elsewhere. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Manor of Withington, as I've added to the lead, but we have no article on that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Didsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Didsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Didsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Didsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Didsbury&oldid=1206966991"