Talk:Tameside

Tameside was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 23, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
December 26, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

UK geography Mid‑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
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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Top‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester
Top	This article has been rated as Top-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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Education in England#Specialist qualifications|academic qualifications]] The anchor (#Specialist qualifications) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

October 2006

Personally, I agree that Tameside Council is a bad one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.73.121 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 October 2006.

Politics

The Leader of the Council is Councillor Roy Oldham CBE, who is currently the longest serving council leader in the United Kingdom. He first took up the post in 1980, a year after the Labour Party re-gained control of the council from the Conservatives. He has held the post ever since. He represents the Longdendale Ward for the Labour Party. " This section is not relevent to this page. It seems to glorify Cllr Oldham, and his CBE. I shall remove it within the next two days unless an objection is made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.69.131 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 March 2007.

Disagree. He's the longest serving council leader (ever) in the UK, which is noteworthy. The politics section should be expanded though, so its not all about him, or else merged with another section. --82.69.133.226 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a separate Tameside Council page which goes into the details of the local politics within Tameside, perhaps an article should be started? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gayboy-ds (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 June 2007.

I agree with the above comment, 'glorify Cllr Oldham'. People in Tameside certainly get that impression! Every newspaper in Tameside seems to have a picture of Cllr Oldham on the front cover, and of course slyly mentioning his CBE in the articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.69.131 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 June 2007.

Your opinion might have held more weight if you hadn't tried to switch the councilor's title from CBE to MBE. You may benefit from reading Wikipedia's policy on the Neutral Point of View and the section on dealing with bias in particular. Road Wizard 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEL

Can someone please start an article for Tameside Enterprises Limited / Tameside Care Trust —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.200.218 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I found an interesting source (www.tamesidem60invest.com) which might have some useful information for the article. --Jza84 | Talk 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a great historical resource here. --Jza84 | Talk 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comes straight from page 54 of A guide to the industrial archaeology of Greater Manchester. Certainly useful though. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tameside Civic Centre

... is what I believe it is called - should appear in the infobox really, rather than Ashton Town Hall. There's a free, but not perfect image of it here. --Jza84 | Talk 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, I don't suppose we could convince the council to move to Ashton Town Hall? It looks much nicer. Looks like the infobox will have to be changed. Nev1 (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know - same applies to Oldham MBC and paricularly Rochdale MBC. I have seen more appealing photographs of this building somwhere. Probably Flickr. --Jza84 | Talk 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cracking shot over the Tameside council building (and Ashton-under-Lyne infact) from the third floor carpark of IKEA too!.... erm.... not that I'm into that sort of thing... :-) --Jza84 | Talk 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curfew

I've looked online for any reference to a curfew in parts of Tameside in 2006, but have been unable to find anything in the Manchester Evening News, the Tameside Advertiser, or the Tameside Council website. So I've removed the information on the curfew, but I'm leaving it here so that if anyone can find sources it can go straight should certainly back into the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to lower the violence, crime and gang culture in parts of Tameside, the council put a short-term 21:00 (9 PM) curfew into power in the year 2006. This curfew was in force within the towns of Dukinfield and Hyde-Newton. The idea of this curfew was to disperse any group of youths/young adults who were seen walking around the designated area after 9 pm. The groups were told they must go straight home with one fellow member maximum. The idea was thought up due to the constant escalation of gang related violence, and various other offences mainly caused by the youth's of Newton and Dukinfield estates. However, the curfew only lasted for a few months before being abandoned.

Good call. The section was introduced by anon editor 172.200.105.32 (talk · contribs) on 11 October 2007. Given the other edits by the same user on that day, the authenticity of that claim is highly doubtful. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been there a long time, and as you said from the user's contributions it looks like this is probably rubbish anyway It's been in the article for a long time but better to get rid of it late than never. Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details, but the correct term for it is dispersal order, and it probably existed, see this page for example. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that Mr Stephen, I've added something to the article mentioning the dispersal order. Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinning

I've started a sandbox page to try to enhance the Twinning section. It's found at User:Jza84/Sandbox2, and is open for editting by others. This is based on how other featured and good articles tackle the issue. --Jza84 | Talk 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Archived review can be found here: Talk:Tameside/GA1 Best, epicAdam^(talk) 02:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population change

In section 4.1 (Population change) is a table which shows the change in population over two centuries, "using figures from the towns, villages, and civil parishes that would later become constituent parts of Tameside". It may have been done with the best of intentions but that sentence makes the table look like original research. The part that really bothers me is the "% change" in the bottom row of the table because clicking on the single source (visionofbritain.org) reveals an outdated webpage that is only visible on the internet archive. The current webpage does not appear to have any percent change figures so unless there is a source that shows the percent change, we need to delete the bottom row to be. Green Giant (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure where you're coming from on the original research tag. The figures are from the page originally hosted by Vision of Britain, archived here. That VoB doesn't host it any more doesn't make it unreliable. Trivial calculations like percentages are acceptable. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC) PostScript: correct me if I'm wrong, but the current page your link uses the same data, but with a graph added.[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the source has a chart or not, it doesn't have calculated percentages and thus neither should Wikipedia. We are not in the business of making calculations, because it can lead to further analysis which goes against OR guidelines. In fact large parts of section 4 (Demographics) appears to have percentages that have been calculated from ONS statistics. If there is no evidence for the use of percentages then the data needs to be changed to just numbers. As an example it is not clear where the ethnic groups percentages came from. The ONS data shows numbers for several ethnic classifications including "Asian or Asian British" and "Black or Black British" but to simplify it to just "Asian" or "Black" is misrepresenting the information. Another example is the paragraph that says:

In 1841, 8.5% of Tameside's population was middle class compared to 14% in England and Wales; this increased to 13.1% in 1931 (15% nationally) and 37.0% in 2001 (48% nationally). From 1841 to 1991, the working class population of Tameside and across the country was in decline, falling steadily from 58.0% (36% nationally) to 22.8% in 1991 (21% nationally). It has since increased slightly, up to 32.9% (26% nation-wide). The rest of the population was made up of clerical workers and skilled manual workers.

The source for that is visionbritain but the page does not exist and the internet archive has no copy. The current webpage shows only charts but no numbers. It does not go into the detailed analysis that the WP paragraph does. So it does appear to be OR but we cannot say for sure what the original webpage said. Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have removed the OR tag saying it was link rot, you have not addressed the issue. The problem is the displaying of data which has been effectively analysed instead of just being displayed the way the source has it. I agree that trivial calculations are acceptable but the whole section contains literally dozens of calculated percentages instead of just the figures the sources give, so this is not just a trivial matter. Let me give you a much simpler example - the second sentence in the section ends in "following a similar trend to the rest of England". The source does not have such a statement so where did it come from? Obviously without any corroborating evidence it has to be assumed that a WP editor has analysed the two sets of numbers (Tameside vs England) and come to the conclusion that there is a similar trend. That is original research, even if it was well-intended, because the editor has made an assertion. Green Giant (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't OR and Mr Stephen is correct, the "table view" tab above the graph displays numbers. [1] if you look properly. J3Mrs (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Trend" may be a bad choice of words, but I think everyone would agree that the percentages are easy to calculate and that the figures for Tameside are similar to those for England as a whole. This is not original research. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tameside. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tameside. 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) 12:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education

This has no sources and reads like an advert. Any sources or updated information that could be added? Gwud (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]