Talk:Frodsham

Cheshire C‑class Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Assessment Report

Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
More photos need to be added.
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

DDStretch (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of deletions by 88.106.165.31

On 28 December, 88.106.165.31 deleted two complete sections from this article without any justification. I have reinstated the Famous people from Frodsham section. If anyone wants to put back the External links section you can find it on the old version of the page at[1].

Hebrides 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible uses of "Frodsham"

Does not Newton-by-Frodsham in the neighbouring parish of Kingsley, also qualify with Frodsham in the Parish of Frodsham for this most sought after title. Sorry to be pedantic but my edit to the Bodleian library seems to have been caught up in this fracas. Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. DD? --Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Lucian Sunday and Bardcom) It may appear to be so (Newton by Frodsham being another example) at first glance, but a more detailed investigation yields the following: The uses of "X by Y" type names can be kinds of disambiguators when there are many settlements within Cheshire with the same name: thus "Crewe by Farndon" distinguishes it from Crewe, similarly "Churton by Farndon" distinguishes it from "Churton by Aldford" by using, as in the case of "Newton by Frodsham", the Ancient parish name as the disambiguator.

In the case of "Newton by Frodsham", it disambiguates this name from "Newton by Chester", "Newton by Malpas", "Newton" (which was in Middlewich ancient parish), "Newton by Daresbury", and "Newton by Tattenhall", and possibly a few others (including a Newton now in Wirral which used to be in Cheshire up to 1974.) In some cases, the "by Y" component may have been absorbed to become part of the actual name, but this does not always happen. In the case of "Newton by Frodsham", the relevant OS 1:25000 Map (Sheet267, Northwich and Delamere) gives the name of the settlement and hall as simply "Newton". I think we can accept the OS 1:25000 Maps as being a reliable source.

As a selection of information about the other Cheshire Newton's: for "Newton by Daresbury", OS 1:25000 maps 267 and 275 (Liverpool, St. Helens, Widnes and Runcorn) don't show Newton by Daresbury as anything other than a scattered group of features, either called Newton, Newtonbank or Newton Cross; "Newton by Tattenhall" is also shown on the relevant OS 1:25000 map (Sheet 257, Crewe and Nantwich) sheet as "Newton", though the civil parish it is in is named "Newton by Tattenhall". "Newton by Malpas" is the name of the civil parish near to Malpas, whereas there appears no settlement called Newton, apart from Newton Hall and scattered farms in this civil parish (also Sheet 257 of the 1:25000 OS map.) So, the situation is not clear, though there may be a trend to name any civil parish "Newton by Y" to distinguish it from other civil parishes, whilst keeping the name of any contained settlements "Newton". So it needs to be carefully considered.

In the case of "Newton by Frodsham", I believe the evidence shows that the "by Frodsham" component is a disambiguator that has not been absorbed into the name. I hope that clarifies matters a little. DDStretch (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would Frodsham Lordship be a disambiguator...because there is another place called Frodsham? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frodsham Lordship was an area of land that was connected to the manor of Frodsham and contained wholly within Frodsham Township (these are historical issues that are no longer in operation.) These two sub-divisions of Frodsham were so intertwined with in places that they can only be disentangled by looking at the tithe maps for the area. You can discover this in, amongst other places, the map insert given in Phillips, A. D. M. (2002). A new historical atlas of Cheshire. Chester, UK: Cheshire County Council and Cheshire Community Council Publications Trust. ISBN 0904532461. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Similarly, we have the Rudheath Lordship (which was originally an extra-parochial area, and was made up of portions of land of a similar status connected with Rudheath, though distributed over a larger area in different ancient parishes to the case of the Frodsham Lordship.) Frodsham is the name of the Lordship, and Rudheath is the name of a different Lordship. If one wishes to pursue the disambiguator interpretation (which I think it a bit much, since I was only writing about apparent names of the "X by Y" form) then it is "Frodsham" and "Rudheath" which would be assigned to the role of disambiguator in these cases, not "Lordship". If one is concerned with all things Frodsham, then the use of "Lordship" distinguishes it from Frodsham Township, where the two were intimately intertwined areas of land still within the general boundaries of Frodsham, and so "Lordship" and "Township" would be the disambiguators. Note that in the source you gave, this is almost implicit, and only not totally clear because the name "Frodsham Township" is simplified to just "Frodsham" because the column is labelled "Township", and by that time, "Frodsham Lordship" was actually classified as a township as well within the same ancient parish of Frodsham (the second column. See page 19 of this source for verification of this: Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.) However, this is all of historical information, and does not detract from the disputed statement about Frodsham as it applies today and as it is written in the article. I can supply relevant reliable sources about this if so desired as well. Does that answer the question? DDStretch (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton by Frodsham; Frodsham Township (which If I am correct is what this article refers to); Frodsham Parish and Frodsham Lordship. It is hardly unique. I would suggest the opening pargraph is changed along the lines of Frodsham is a market town , Parish of Cheshire and, before the reorganisation of the Ancient parishes of Cheshire, referred also to Frodsham Lordship, an area of land that was connected to the manor of Frodsham and contained wholly within Frodsham Township. The name is also used to disambiguate the nearby settlement of Newton. This would allow the claim to uniqueness to stand as it is, within the context you have provided. It would also give the inhabitants of Newton-by-Frodsham the opportunity to query your interpretation - people can be quite snobby about these sort of things.Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here from a note at WT:UKGEO, my take on this is that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Of course a healthy discussion can lead to a commonsense outcome that is otherwise, but I'd be inclined to keep the claim, as it seems to appear in a reliable source. --Jza84 | Talk 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Also, a quick search on the Ordnance Survey website supports that the claim is at least as verifiable as the United Kingdom. As the toponymy is derived from Old English as opposed to Old Norse or Proto-Celtic, I would doubt the name appears in the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Mann or any other islands in the locale. --Jza84 | Talk 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the problem is the supposed non-unique nature of the name "Frodsham", I've added a new footnote, fuilly verified, to the Etymology subsection (the names need updating to reflect WP:UKCITIES guidelines), that deals with the Newton by Frodsham case. I think it is a better solution. A less disputed source for the toponymy might be pages 221 to 222 of Dodgson, J. McN. (1971). The place-names of Cheshire. Part three: The place-names of Nantwich Hundred and Eddisbury Hundred. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521080495., which I'll use when I get the time to rewrite this bit (assuming a better solution has not already been edited in.) The Dodgson book also quotes Ormerod (1882), Volume 2 page 46, (Ormerod, G. (1882). History of the county palatine of Chester. (3 Volumes) (Edition edited by Helsby, T ed.).) as saying that the Frodsham Lordship was that part of Frodsham that was retained by the Ranulph II (de Blunderville), Earl of Chester 1181–1232, when he granted borough status to Frodsham: The Victoria History of the county of Cheshire also verifies this. (Dodgson writes about the name Frodsham: "That part of the original manor, which the earl retained out of the borough, continued to be called the Lordship of Frodsham, but in the earliest references that designation applied to the whole of the two townships and they continued always as part of one manor." (Dodgson, J. McN. (1971). page 222.).) I hope that helps. DDStretch (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that "Lordship" as a division of land purely referred to the type of tenure of the territory, i.e. Frodsham Lordship would've been held under the Lord of the Manor (as opposed to freehold), historically or otherwise. It wouldn't be a settlement in its own right, merely a division. That is, unless it developed into a settlement, which I don't think is the case here. --Jza84 | Talk 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes., your interpretation coincides with mine. As for it possibly developing into a settlement, page 19 of Youngs' book (Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.) has two entries: one for Frodsham., and one for Frodsham Lordship. Both are said to be townships, and both were said to have been converted into civil parishes in 1866. It could have been that the two were simply made into the same civil parish, but it appears this was not the case, for in the entry for Frodsham, and in an identical format to the creation of Kingsley civil parish and the others from Frodsham ancient parish, we have the text: "tp Frodsham Lordship (sep CP 1866[4]), tp Helsby (sep CP 1866[4])..." where the list of abbreviations used in the book tells us that "tp" means "transferred part to". "sep" means "separate", and "CP" means "civil parish". The [4] sends us to a reference to the legislation that ordered these changes. So, for a period of time after 1866, there were apparently two civil parishes: Frodsham and Frodsham Lordship. They were created as a by-product from the legislation that tended to make all preexisting townships with the ancient parishes civil parishes when these were first set up. This strengthens the idea that Frodsham Lordship developed into a township in its own right, even though its land and the land of Frodsham were mixed up together. Strange. DDStretch (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this discussion has now ended. The quote is in the present tense; yes there was a Frodsham Lordship, which was a division as Jza84 says (indeed it was divisions, as shown in the map enclosed with Phillips and Phillips). There no longer is (and never was) a settlement called Frodsham Lordship. And Newton BY Frodsham means what it says; the settlement of Newton is by (adjacent, nearby, close to) the settlement called Frodsham. Phew. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope it is settled. The whole fracas was begun by an editor who in good faith removed "Britidsh Isles" from the sentence and thereby introduced an inaccuracy. Having this pointed out, the discussion then moved onto trying to dispute the status of Latham's book as a reliable source, and when that was dealt with, whether names such as "Newton by Frodsham" meant the claim was not true. Hence the lengthy explanations because every small issue which could be was challenged at every stage. I also didn't realise just how abhorent some people view the term "British Isles"! DDStretch (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like "Anglo-Celtic Isles", though as an Anglo-Celt myself, I'm biased! Glad this issue seems to have been resolved. --Jza84 | Talk 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take That

Is, Frodsham Townhall, were the original Take That auditions were held by Gary Barlow and Nigel Martin-Smith, as portrayed in Series two, Star Stories, the actual townhall or a fictional Frosham Townhall in the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and Frodsham cake shop? Was the episode filmed in Frodsham? Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

A lot of the names in here are unreferenced and their notability may be questioned. They fall into two groups from the point of view of Wikipedia: people who are not still alive, and people still alive. The first group can simply have the facts tagged, which I have done; however in the case of the second group, WP:BLP comes into play, and unreferenced claims need to be handled differently. What I have done is move those names here (below). This is to avoid deleting them. Once verification of the facts can be completed by citing a reliable source for the facts, they can be transferred back into the article. The citations should follow the style used in the article, and unsuitable references should be avoided (the names will just get transferred back here again.) Note that wikipedia cannot be used to verify itself, so if verification for the facts can be found in another wikipedia article, the reference(s) that verify the fact should be duplicated in this article, rather than relying on people following a link to another article which may change in the future. Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names to be verified

~~Bob Carolgees (1948– ), 1980s TV entertainer, owns a candle shop at the Lady Hayes Craft Centre, near Frodsham.~~ Updated and referenced. Larkim (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Caradog Jones (1962– ), the first Welshman to reach the summit of Mount Everest, lives in Frodsham.~~ Updated and referenced.Larkim (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Gary Barlow (1971– ), singer, pianist, songwriter, and producer was born in Frodsham.~~ Updated on main page ref to official website. Larkim (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Djibril Cissé (1981– ), Liverpool and France footballer, in 2008 joined Sunderland A.F.C. and lives in the town as Lord of the Manor of Frodsham.~~ Updated article with reference to external verification.Larkim (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Craig who is the current James Bond grew up in Frodsham and went to Overton primary school. His parents also owned one of the local pubs.^{[citation needed]}

Article structure

This needs attention with material seemingly under the wrong headings eg certain history and geology items. And can someone fill in the middle bit of the town's history between 'early' and 'recent'? I'll get around to moving things around a little unless someone beats me to it.Geopersona (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now overhauled the geography and geology sections to better distinguish between physical and human geography and to order the geological material chronologically. I've used the existing material as a template but re-written around it - hope that's okay! Geopersona (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Frodsham. 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) 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frodsham. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 08:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frodsham. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local government wards

The town's four wards are named but then mention is made of other 'compass point' wards - cam someone address the confusion? thanks Geopersona (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive reversions by user 10mmsocket

The user constantly reverts my edits. Every reversion they come up with a new guideline i have (according to them) breached. I have checked each and every guideline and am not in breach of any of them. So they come up with a new one. I have contacted them by talk to try and resolve the issue but they do not engage and just revert again. My edit (about Labour MP punching someone in Frodsham) is not newspaper tittle tattle, it is a notable story that relates to Frodsham (a story about a hoax in Frodsham remains on wikipedia, if anything this is more newspaper tittle tattle, so why does this remain and mine gets removed?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:9B57:7B00:2466:5AD6:564C:E033 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is not disruptive. WP:NOTNEWS is a really important guide that stops Wikipedia filling up with trivial content. At the moment, this assault happened and the person in question has been charged, but he has not been convicted. So what's the significance of the story? If he gets found guilty then the balance might swing in favour of the subject being reported - but even then it's mostly likely only of significance in his article, not in the town where the incident ttalkook place. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 10mmsocket. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]