Talk:Rotherham

message: Re Justin Wilson - Although most of the sources state that he was born in Sheffield, which may well be correct, his home village, Woodall, is actually in the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham. (see Harthill, South Yorkshire)Jud 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The centre has some high street names, and a large BBC Screen
What's a BBC Screen? Flapdragon 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Screen 

message: In this text "as well as a power station serving the city of Sheffield" are you referring to Brinsworth Switching Station? If so, it is not a power station, but (as the name suggests) a switching station for routing power.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.116.47 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed this media created error of calling it a power station. Article also omits the fact that the pumps were brought in from all over the country by other fire brigades. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 Floods

message: As this is not a travel or tourist guide and it is an article on Rotherham is there any reason why most of the culture section is about venues in Sheffield. And has the town not had any culture of its own in the past! MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture

message: This section reads like a developers brochure and constantly repeats itself. The encyclopedic content is contained in one paragraph.--86.156.76.50 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotherham Renaissance 

message: "Poor eating is common in Rotherham with Jamie Oliver attempting to save the town from an obesity epidemic largely associated with the town's love of fast food, fuelled by fast food brands like McDonalds and KFC."
The above statement is unjustified and offensive and should be removed. The Jamie Oliver program is mentioned further down under Popular Culture so doesn't need keeping and altering. Oatzy (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamie Oliver 

message: I don't think this article needs a whole paragraph about Meadowhall and all its (allegedly) wonderful facilities because a) like it or not, Meadowhall is in Sheffield not Rotherham, and b) anyone wanting to know more about all its fabulous shopping opportunities etc. can click on the link to the Meadowhall article.  Draggleduck (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes should be removed, the only mention of Meadowhall should be related to the shift in shopping patterns away from the town centre to out-of-town stores. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the whole Economy section needs drastic revision. Typos, irrelevancies, lack of sources.Asnac (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Meadowhall

message: What are 'two Guards of soldiers' mentioned in the 'Freedom of the borough' paragraph? Does it refer to units such as a company or platoon?
--Waugh Bacon (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The info was added by an IP in this edit. The best person to help would be Richard Harvey who is knowledgeable on the Yorkshire Regiment, he appears to be back editing yesterday after a break. Keith D (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this respect' two Guards of soldiers' is correct. Where a military unit, in this case the 3rd battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment, parades their Regimental Colours they will be escorted / protected by a small 'Guard' of soldiers. The Yorkshire Regiment is unique, being the only unit in the British army to also have a set of 'Honorary Colours'. These are only paraded by the 3rd battalion of the regiment, formerly the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, whose 2nd battalion (76th Regiment of Foot) were awarded them, in 1808,  for their actions during the Battle of Ally Ghur and Delhi in 1803. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. Is there any suitable wikilink that would help clarify this? I was also thinking the Freedon of the Borough needed some explanation, for those not familiar with it, possibly a link to Freedom of the City may help. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That Freedom of the City link would be perfect Keith. However there I am unaware of any specific article relating to Guards for Regimental Colours.  Richard Harvey (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of the borough - two Guards of soldiers 

message: Centenary Washlands
I want to edit the sense of  a reference to Centenary Washlands. The only other web content mentioning Centenary Washlands looks like it is sourced from Wikipedia. Does anyone know if this is meant to be a reference to Centenary Riverside, managed by the Wildlife Trust for Sheffield and Rotherham, confusingly also called Sheffield Wildlife Trust? Both these names appear at http://www.wildsheffield.com/Sheffield/home.aspx and 
http://www.wildsheffield.com/Sheffield/FolderMenu/content22.aspx?id=304 respectively. In the absence of any clarification I intend to delete parts of this paragraph in a week or so.
--Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern History - Floods of 2007 

message: I did a bit of copyediting and removed loads of stuff about Meadowhall and Sheffield. The Economy and Regeneration section is unwieldy and unreferenced. I think it needs someone who knows what they are talking about, not me, to rewrite it.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedting 

message: The following paragraph was deleted by an anonymous user:
:: As of August 2014, Rotherham is the centre of a major ongoing scandal concerning mass child molestation of "at least" 1,400 children  Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 children – GuardianRotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds – BBC. The associated inquiry states that the known perpetrators are British men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage, and some also of Afghan and Roma Slovak origin Para.11.2 of the the inquiry report: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community"..
The anonymous user's rationale was «not really necessary to have its own section in the history of the town.» 
I'm undoing the removal as I assume the molestation of "at least" 1,400 children has encyclopedic value. Bjornte (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Similar cases such as Derby sex gang, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Telford sex gang, Oxford sex gang are not mentioned in the respective articles for those towns. Obviously the scale is different here as the abuse occurred over a longer timeline and appears to concern more than one gang, but I still don't think it's a major part of the history of a relatively large town of over 250,000 people. There is undoubtedly encyclopedic value in the abuse, inquiry and cover-up allegations but I don't think it's particularly relevant to include in the history of the town. 82.47.206.191 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Already the local Rotherham political fallout seem to justify inclusion in this article. I'm not sure if WP:RECENT applies too much, as this is already a historical issue - we're not close in time to the crimes. Also, the current view count of over 12K per day (compared to 2 days ago of 200) indicates readers looking for this content. . Widefox; talk 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

text: As long as it doesn`t seem possible to include scandals like this in the article, Rotherham will remain a place that keeps their skeleton in the closet - which is the best way to cover up things and let them go on unhindered. It is a shame for wikipedea to have such hypocritical whitewashed cant in its articles. Gabel1960 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

text: According to this (https://www.city-journal.org/html/crudeness-and-truth-15668.html) partisan source, 'at least 1,400 non-Muslim girls, some as young as 11, were brutally raped by Muslim immigrants over a period of years in the 2000s."   If this is correct, then the religious aspect should be mentioned. Kdammers (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That article would be incorrect then, as not only were they British born, but also "british asian girls suffered abuse that mirrored those of others" which is explained in the Jay report. Therefore no, it should not be added. Americatcp (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing wrong with the previous statement in the text that most were white girls.  Some were not, but most were.  The source suggested by  is a wildly inappropriate, unreliable and non-neutral blog, which should certainly not be used as a reference.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotherham sex grooming case 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rotherham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070819062305/http://www.rotherhamunofficial.co.uk:80/history/middleages.htm to http://www.rotherhamunofficial.co.uk/history/middleages.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108064240/http://cip.cornell.edu:80/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate/psu.ph/1130875884/body/pdf to http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate/psu.ph/1130875884/body/pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822113719/http://www.rankhovis.co.uk:80/location-map.html to http://www.rankhovis.co.uk/location-map.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello everyone, does anyone know what the population of Rotherham is. This article has never had a very good demography section, and only includes statistics for the surrounding borough, so the info from the section is effectively useless. Should the population of Rotherham be a combination of electoral wards (parliamentary constituency) or an urban subdivision. Roscomoner (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Substituted at 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rotherham. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321022843/http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/662/town_twinning/226/international_work_and_strategy/2 to http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/662/town_twinning/226/international_work_and_strategy/2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321022851/http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/662/town_twinning/226/international_work_and_strategy/4 to http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/662/town_twinning/226/international_work_and_strategy/4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per WP:Subjective, large is not really recommended to add to lead summaries of towns or villages because it is not an established term other then to describe an area size or maybe a population but no council or government adopts the term "large" in their towns or districts. ,  and . Any thoughts on using this term as I believe it is under subjective and an anon keeps making an issue of it being removed despite me explaining in detail why? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'd agree Rotherham is a large town indeed its subjective so probably not appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Better without. Subjective and unclear whether large refers to population, area or anything else, so could be marked with one of several tags such as "Compared to?" or "clarify". Also it is possible to misread it as referring to the minster, rather than the town, as being large. EdwardUK (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

text: It's interesting to note that the first example in the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead begins with "Chew Stoke is a small village and civil parish ...". PamD 18:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's an example given but might it be worth questioning the example? Is Chew Stoke widely regarded as being small? The village has a population of 830 while the parish has 1039. Do sources largely consider it small? On Google if I search for "Chew Stoke" "small village" a few sources say this but most results are Wikipedia and mirrors though nothing appears to come up if I try "large village". Crouch, Swale (talk)  20:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that Chew Stoke got through an FA review and was promoted with small present. Personally I think that we can do without it, as said above we do not know what we are referring to, area, population etc., and it is subjective as at what point does it become large? Need to modify the guidance and come up with an example the does not include it. (As an aside, the ping did not work as there is a space missing.) Keith D (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Not that my opinion matters that much, just stumbled into the Rotherham article from going through Randoms, but I'm in agreement -- using large to describe the city in the lead is too subjective by its lonesome. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large in lead