Talk:Cannock
 | Cannock Built-up Area was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 1 June 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Cannock. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black country dialect - not relevant to Cannock page?
editI've lived in Cannock more than twenty years - I've never heard anyone say 'do your rip'. Hedgehog 09:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I made a diallect guide, as I'm from cheslyn hay, I am of pure black country descent, my grandad was from hendsford my nan from bloxwich, my other grandad was from walsall, and my other nan was from walsall too but she was half scottish. This is how I talk.
yode(you would)
yole(you will) dayna(daint want to)
downa(don't want to)
dow(don't) daye(did not) wow(won't) arr(yes) tha(that) thas(thats) aye(aint) gonna(going to) doowih(do it)
arl(i will)
awow(I won't) iuye (I) tharaye(that aint) tharis(that is) dayah(d'aint you)
dowya(don't you) isi(is it)
whera(where are) whoa(who are) yoe(you) wheramya(where are you)
warro aer kid,
owsi gooin me ole shoe, yo aurite
arr spayke a local diallect we call
"black country" or just a "cannock dialect" people like me who talk like thisr'called yam yams, block countraye folk, yammies warrever
I dunno if you've ever heard of it, but its one of the only remaining natural old style diallects in the country,still standing and frozen in time.
its a diallect that we've preserved for hundreds of years, its nothing to do with blacks it refers o the miners and the hard times living in total blackness from the smoke of the factory. some say it came about as a result of trying to talk under sound of the ommer(hammer) some say its a throw back to old english,
the basic idea behind is, we have our own words like dayna-did'nt want to downa= don't want to day=did'nt dow=don't aye=ain't taye=it aint
alot of the words get changed ie Jesus becomes
Jaysus
the words change example say while becomes wyule
toy tiye
bird berde
mate mert
crocodile crocoduiyle
baby babbie
kid nipper
woman wench
man bloawke
yes arrr
I is also arrr
you can say "arrr do arrr" for " I do yes"
arrr willarrrr "I will yes"
"dow ya wanna cum" "don't you want to come"
what are you going on about
warrayogooenonabou
what are you
warrayow
you arnt are you
yowayeamya
where are you going
wearayogooin
bostin=great
grearte=great
yam yampy yow am
your stupid you are
dyowannacupataye
do you want a cup of tea.
t'aye tay tiume
it isnt teatime
yove= you have
yoveshititayeya
you've shit it havent you, ie you've messed up
I will= arl
I will do it yes
arl do it arr
horse=oss
ossncart
horse and cart
n=and
won't=wow
won't you do it
wowyadoowi'
it= i' pronounced ih
black country alphabet
a aaye
b boye
c seuy
d deuy
e aye
f eff
g jaye
h ayche
i uiye
j jaye
k kaye
l elle
m em
n en
o owe
p paye
q quewe
r ah
s ehss
t taye
u yowe
v veye
w dubehyu
x eks
y wui
z zad
ey in words is nearly always ay, donkey becomes donkaye
some times only the last letter of a word is needed,
s'it = thats it
t'aye= it isnt
I've = ov'
the words joined so for
I've finished havent I
o'v finishedayei'
you have havent you
y'wav aye ya
aye can mean ain't haven't "have not" "am not"
am can mean am have
y'am can mean I am
some local sayings
ard=I would
a blind mon on a gallepin oss ard be glad t'see it a blind man on a galloping horse I would be glad to see it
which is like sayin I see a flying pig over there, a way of saying ya dow beleive a werd in edgeways.
you don't beleive a word in hedgeways
warra=what are
warrayowonabou=what are you on about
a to o
bank bonk
hammer ommer
chissel chizulle
trowel treuwle
man mon
black block
mi me or my
as rare as rockinoss shit
as rare as rocking horse shit
movie,picture show= pictures or flicks
mind your language
mindyalangwige
where are= werra
werrayougooin where are you going
flouwe, what the black country man calls his sweet heart, his flower, is lover, comes from flower
donkeys years donkizyeyas
what are =warra
okay there ya go, took me ages to do that
paul
The Cannock page makes reference to the population of the district but declares that it includes Rawnsley yet not Norton Canes. I am fairly sure that is not correct: Norton Canes is not excluded. Incidentally, I heartily endorse Paul's long discusion on the local accent but if I recall correctly there is a Wiki page based on the Black Country accent (or there ought to be) and that discussion would be better there. Mr Margarine Sep 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Margarine (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Im also pretty sure that Cannock is not part of of the Black Country, Walsall (assume this also includes Brownhills) is part but that is where it ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Have reworked the geography section. Cannock as a town does not include places such as Heath Hayes and Rawnsley and as such have recalculated the population count. I have given the figures for both Cannock town (based on the Cannock South, Town, North and East wards) and Cannock Chase district. Have removed the reference to Cannock being the fifth largest settlement in Staffordshire as it does not seem to be verifiable nor relevant.
Cannock Urban Area
editCannock Urban Area is a demographic and statistical entity used for housing, services and other planning issues. It does not define borders between vilages, town and cities within that urban area. For example the West Midland Urban Area does not distinguish between Walsall, Wolverhmpaton, Brownhills etc and neither does Cannock Urban Area distinguish between Cannock Town and the towns and villages surrounding it. In fact the Cannock Urban Area includes villages that are not even in the district that Cannock itself is part of such as Great Wryley and Cheslyn Hay. This article, I believe, should be about Cannock the town which has a clearly definied political border (seperate from the town of hednesford, and the villages of heath hayes, norton canes et al) and with this in mind I have reverted to the population count of the total of the four defined wards of Cannock. If we can include a section that seperatly identifies the surrounding towns and villages of Cannock, then surely it would be appropriate to exlude these settlements from the population count, anything else would be inconsistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Urban Area / Large Town
editTo Kinewma, you seem to have a keen interest in statistics, particularly the population figures given for Cannock. I have removed the ludicrous statement that Cannock and Hednesford are part of a larger mythical town. This assumption is based upon a misunderstanding of the figures given for "Cannock" from the Staffordshire County Council. One can assume one of two things from this document, either,
Staffs County Council have arbitarily decided that Cannock and Hednesford are now to be considered one single "New Town". This would be news to the people of the area and a shock to the councillors of Hednesford Town Council and the parishes.
or,
As the document states itself it is a statistical measure of wards and OUTPUT AREAS (surrounding areas considered to be linked economically and socially to the principle town) and should be used with caution when talking about areas that have CLEARLY DEFINED POLITICAL AND CIVIC BORDERS).
Yet again it should be stressed that Cannock is a town in its own right. Each of those villages and towns quoted as being part of this non-existant larger town have their own pages on wikipedia and each gives individual figures for their populations. The only exception to this is Cannock. Why can we state for example that Heath Hayes has x population and Hednesford has y population but must assume that Cannock's population is x + y + (whoever is left living in the Cannock wards) this is clearly absurd. These surrounding towns and villages are NOT suburbs, Cannock even has a right to a town council but they gave up this right several decades ago - must this need to start up again before we can give Cannock its own identity?
It is absolutely true that there is a mass of buildings stretching from Pye Green down to Cheslyn Hay and from Huntington through to Five Ways island but this is recognised as the Cannock / Great Wyrley Urban Area. Urban areas, however, do not decide what is a town. Maybe in the future this will provide the basis for Cannock becoming a Unitary Authority or something akin to what happened with Stoke when it becames a city but until then please keep the details and the figures in the Urban Area wiki page that has been created for them.Aprhys (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not the case that a town cannot be part of another town. For example, Frinton and Walton is a civil parish and town in Essex that consists of the towns Frinton-on-Sea and Walton-on-the-Naze. And the civil parish and town of Mablethorpe and Sutton in Lincolnshire consists of the towns Mablethorpe and Sutton-on-Sea.
Superimposing the inclusive town does not change the constituent towns into something else. The inclusive town need not have its own administrative council or affect electoral wards. It may have little purpose other than to monitor population changes and provide information for an inclusive entry in works of reference.
The larger Cannock Town is not mythical and is no less valid than the other principal Staffordshire towns described on the county council's website. But it's more of a problem than the examples I've given because we can't have two articles both called 'Cannock'! Kinewma (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The town of Cannock that you are talking about is mythical. Becoming a town is not like becoming a city in the UK. Pre 1974 any settlement wishing to become one had to recieve a town charter, post 1974 any parish that wants to become a town may simply call itself a town, for example Norton Canes parish council may simply declare that it is now a town council. The point of this being that it is only the will of the people of that area that can decide whether they are a town or not - as someone who lives in the area and who knows far too many people from Hednesford I know this is not the case.
You say that there cant possibly be two pages called Cannock and I agree - my point though is that there are articles for most of the villages in this district and none of them make the point that they are a part of this larger town that we disagree on. That towns are created in the minds of statiticians for monitoring population changes is not true - as I stated previously thats what Urban Areas are there for and there already is a seperate Wiki page for this. That the Urban Area is often named after the principle town should not be an assumption that is used to create something thats not there. There are 28,000 people who dont live in Hednesford, or Heath Hayes or Rawnsley etc etc and the Town that they belong to is indeed Cannock which has a charter, which is what I beleive this article should be aboutAprhys (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at the the examples you have given and Frinton existed as a town pre-1974 and Mablethorpe and Sutton came into existance as a result of a local government reorganisation in 1974 when the parish opted to be called a town. They also both have a local government capacity eg town council. I think this argument boils down to how far we consolidate or break down statistical figures. Would it be fair for example to call the metropolitan West Midlands a city just because there are government statistics out there that quote its population as one single urban area? I think the present article on Cannock balances the fact that it is a town in its own right, that it forms a large part of the urban mass that is the Cannock / Great Wyrley Urban Area and is also the seat of government for the district too. Anything else only confuses and complicates and is in there for its own sake and doesnt add anything to the quality of the article which should be about the town and the people who live there. Shall we compromise on the article as it is with the links to the urban area?Aprhys (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know when the larger Cannock was first called a town by the county council. Maybe it was when Cannock Urban District was abolished in 1974. 'Frinton and Walton, urb. dist., Essex, Eng.' - Pears Cyclopaedia 1966-67. Mablethorpe and Sutton did not come into existence in 1974 because it's in Pears Cyclopaedia 1966-67 as a town as well as an urban district. I saw comments somewhere a little while ago on the pros and cons of a Greater Birmingham - I think it said there isn't really any support for it. I believe Staffordshire County Council when they call Cannock (population 60841 in 2001) a town, like all the other places they call towns, because I don't know why they would call it a town if it isn't. What does the area on their map represent if not a town? I don't believe you when you say it isn't a town. Get the county council to change their website and I might believe you. (Separate issue: They call Cheslyn Hay & Great Wyrley a town - are they right or wrong about that?) Kinewma (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Well there you go then that answers our problems if they call Great Wryley / Cheslyn Hay a town then obviously they dont mean it the way you think it does. Cheslyn Hay and Great Wryley are two seperate villages check here for confirmation http://www.sstaffs.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=13854, http://www.great-wyrley.net/, and http://www.sstaffs.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=13756 like I said it does state on that Staffs CC document that it is the wards and the output areas (surrounding areas of the principle town). Furthermore the green areas ln the map correlate to Urban Areas. Quickly going through the document it states that Codsall, Perton and Wombourne are all towns too - do you know the area of South Staffs? If you do then surely you know none of these are nor call themselves towns, in fact other than Penkridge South Staffs Disctrict has no towns at all. To complicate matters Perton is a village in South Staffs that is actually classed as being part of the Wolverhampton Urban Area - now using this the same logic you are using with Cannock is it not right that Perton should be referred to as being part of Wolverhampton? Don't you think the area they are refering to is what others calls the Urban Area - it has to be named after something after all so why not the principle town or where there is no town the principle village? Aprhys (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Some green areas called towns do indeed correlate to Urban Areas. We do agree on something! But apart from the places you've mentioned, plus Stone and Uttoxeter, this is not the case for Biddulph, Burntwood, Burton-upon-Trent, Cannock, Cheadle, Kidsgrove, Leek, Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Penkridge, Rugeley, Stafford or Tamworth because the 2001 town population and Urban Area population are different.
The built-up area (more so now than then in some places, eg Heath Hayes) of Cannock/Hednesford/Heath Hayes/Rawnsley was part of an area called Cannock until 1974, when Cannock Urban District was abolished. It's not really surprising that the county council still call the built-up area, or thereabouts, Cannock - and, as it cannot be called an urban district any more, call it a town. If it's legitimate for a local authority to call other built-up areas which include more than one parish a town, then it's legitimate to do so for Cannock/Hednesford/Heath Hayes/Rawnsley or thereabouts. An area doesn't have to be a single parish before it can be declared a town. Kinewma (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
My point is that a county council authority cannot declare anything to be a town - even with the urban district there was no such thing as a Cannock town that incorporated both Hednesford and Cannock - can you not understand that this article is about that entity that has a town charter that is called CANNOCK - the people of this area do not recognise Cannock and Hednesford as being one town neither do the County Council - they call Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay a town when it is not recognised by any power that can decide they are a town this is for statstical purpoes only! I see you have not answered my points about both Cheslyn Hay and Great Wyrley nor Perton. I do believe you are being stubborn on this point and I dont even think you live in this area to understand the points I am making. It is true that two or more parishes can become town but this can only occur with the agreement of the parishes involved. The larger Cannock DOES NOT EXIST in either the politcal will of the area nor by the spirit of what Staffs County Council's figures suggest. Aprhys (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"neither do the County Council" - then why does their map show C&H part of Cannock Town(pop. 60,814)? I have no more facts about Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley/Perton. I have never suggested that the Cannock article should be about any other area. What I do object to is excluding the fact that Cannock is part of the two (overlapping) built-up areas whose populations are given by the ONS and county council. This can be done without stating that Cannock Town is (or is not) a town. Should the fact that Cannock is part of Cannock Chase District also be deleted on the grounds that the article is not about CCD? Kinewma (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok I feel we're getting somewhere here and I think the article is already where you said it should be. The first main point is that this aticle does indeed state that it is part of something bigger and gives the 60,000 figure so no need to delete the CCDC reference. You said yourself that the figures given by SCC do correlate to the urban area let's leave it at that, that it doesn't for other areas is neither here nor there for this article. Secondly my point about the SSC document is that it states clearly with every district that the principle towns figures are given using whole wards and output areas. Im not going to say for the third time what output areas are but that because they are there would suggest that SCC is not making any particular judgement about whether that particular area is one town or not, which brings me to my final point. That because this document is the only source to state that known villages in South Staffs are "towns" would also suggest that they are not making any particular judgements about that dreaded word "town" - which is why Ive been arguiing all along that Cannock and Hednesford should not be lumped into one. Aprhys (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Cannock is part of the largest built-up area in Cannock Chase District. Within its boundaries specified by the county council, the built-up area had an estimated population in 2001 of 60,814.[2] Cannock is also part of the Cannock urban subdivision (population 65,022 in the 2001 census) of the Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area.[3] The area specified by the county council comprises Cannock, Hednesford, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Rawnsley, and Hazelslade. The urban subdivision covers a similar area plus the urban part of Huntington in the adjoining district of South Staffordshire.
Isnt this describing exactly what the Urban Area? I think any intelligent person can determine that an Urban Area is a built up area. FYI I have spoken with SCC and they confirm that they figures are from the ONS and define this as the Urban Area (they dont creat an urban area only for the SCC to invent another one). Do not put this information in again as it repetition and making what was a simple statement convoluted. Do not repeat information that is more appropriate in the Cannock/Great Wyrley article you have created. Neither Heath Hayes nor Hednesford wiki pages state they are part of this so why should Cannock. Urban subdivisions are irrelevant to an article about what is an ancient town with defined borders. This article should state a) it is a town b) it is part of an Urban Area as defined by the ONS (as stated by SCC). The previous entry already stated it forms a large part of the Urban Area why do you need to repeat this and then include unnecessary information about what other places are in the urban area when this article isnt about them? If you think it is relevant put it in the Cannock / Great Wyrley Urban Area page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't use the term 'urban area' when I mean a built-up area that might not be an ONS-defined Urban Area. Was your question to the SCC specifically about what they call Cannock Town? I think you are assuming that the part of the 65,022 that is within Cannock Chase District is PRECISELY 60,814? I would not rely on an answer from SCC unless this was the precise question asked AND they explained why the boundaries (within CCD) on the two maps are NOT exactly identical. The maps are in these pdfs: Cannock Town and Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area . You said "they don't create an urban area only for the SCC to invent another one". SCC specify towns (e.g. Biddulph pop. 18307) which are usually NOT the same as the ONS-defined urban area (Biddulph pop. 17241). Other examples (town/urban area): Burntwood(27361/29205), Burton-upon-Trent(64449/43784), Cheadle(11460/10797), Kidsgrove(22145/28724), Leek(17745/18768), Lichfield(27900/28435), Newcastle-under-Lyme(73944/74427), Penkridge(7836/7181), Rugeley(22989/22724), Stafford(60493/63681), Tamworth(74531/71650). Maybe Cannock is an exception (like Wombourne) and at least one of the maps is inaccurate and the boundaries (within Cannock Chase District) should be identical, but unless we are absolutely sure this is the case any statement that assumes this is so should be avoided - which is what I tried to do with my words 'covers a similar area' (but maybe there's a better wording). Hednesford and Heath Hayes articles should state what they are part of. Is Cannock an ancient town with defined borders? Do they include Chadsmoor? Cannock's population (28,435) does NOT contribute approximately one third towards the 65,022... (28435/65022 = 43.73...% which is closer to one half than one third). (Your sentence also needs other rewording or splitting into two.) Kinewma (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The 60,814 is the population given for the Urban Area minus Huntington (dont forget Hatherton is not in the ONS stats as being part of the Cannock Urba Area) and is actually quoted in the SSC document. Have you checked whether all the other areas you quote by SCC are missing section of what is the Urban Area defined by ONS that are part of other districts or even other counties? The information is split by districts have you considered that some parts may be overlapping? I did ask whether they were saying Cannock was a town they pointed out that their definition is subjective and they were defining built up areas as defined by the ONS. Also this article is not callled Cannock (and surrounding areas) nor about the towns and villages surrounding Cannock. Does the page for Wolverhampton which says it is part of the West Midlands metropolitan area of England then proceed to list all the other places that is part of the West Midlands Urban Area? High Wycombe, Watford and Staines are all in the Greater London Urban area their pages do not proceed to list all the other places within that Urban Area. There is no precedent. In fact as in the Greater London Area I am more than happy for you to put all this information in the Cannock Urban Area pages - just not in this article that is about Cannock. Chadsmoor is within the Cannock North and the Cannock East wards. Your percentages duly noted have changed.Aprhys (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) Huntington's population in the 2001 census was 3,940 [1], which is less than 65,022-60,814. (The addition of Hatherton parish (532) gives 4,472, which is the population of the Hatherton and Huntington ward.)
(2) A town's population may be smaller (eg Leek, Lichfield) or larger (eg Cheadle, Penkridge) than an urban area/urban subdivision (UA/US) wholly within the same district. I see no reason why either cannot be the case (in relation to the part of the UA/US within the same district as the town) when part of the UA/US is in another district. Population counts do not identify the cases because no SCC/ONS document gives a population breakdown by district of a multi-district UA/US. In the case of Cannock, the ONS map [2] of the Cannock urban subdivision has a populated area (Mendip Road etc) outside it which is inside the larger Cannock town (in Hednesford North ward). There are other differences. But the maps are not large scale and may not be accurate enough to draw a definite conclusion. I haven't studied maps of other urban areas.
(3) The Chasetown page says Chasetown is part of a town. Likewise, the Cannock page should say Cannock is part of a larger town (whether or not there is an ONS-defined Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area or a page for it). A settlement does not require a town council (Cannock doesn't) nor an ancient Royal Charter granting it the right to hold a market or fair (Burntwood doesn't) to be called a town. Kinewma (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Chasetown is part of a town - called Burntwood which has a town council and which Chasetown has representative on it! Yeah a settlement is a settlement is a settlement but doesn't make it a town! The document you are using is an unreliable source for the purposes of deciding what is a town. 1) It names KNOWN and VERIFIABLE villages like Codsall, Wombourne and Great Wyrley as towns. 2) It omits KNOWN and VERIFIABLE towns like Hednesford. I dont think some demographer sitting in a council office 5 miles away seriously had the purpose of deciding what is a town or not (not that it even is in their power as to call oneself a town a settlement needs to declare itself one), but from the email I recieved they admitted the word town was an unfortunate one to use and next census (If they can even remember) they may plump for the word settlement. Cannock HAS A RIGHT to a town council which was self-disbanded but can be reconvened any time anyone decides they want to.Aprhys (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Is cnocc Old English?
editThe cnocc etymology is the one given in the Oxford Dictionary of English Placenames and, though my Old English is less than perfect, I don't think there was such a word as cann meaning "powerful" (and "oak" was ac anyway). I've taken Jakki Degg off the list because I'm pretty sure she's from Hednesford, and if I know anything about people from Hednesford she might be none too pleased! Hedgehog 12:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Cnocc" is not an old English word. It is Gaelic. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cnocc The town's name probably has another origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.151.97 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The book The names of towns and cities in Britain by Nicolaisen, Gelling and Richards refers to the Old English "cnocc". Also, http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Knocker says: This surname [Knocker], of Scottish, Irish or English origin, is either a topographical name for someone, who lived on a hilltop, derived from the Old English "cnocc" (Gaelic "cnoc") meaning "round-topped hill", or, a locational name from one of the places called Knock in Scotland and Northern England. Kinewma (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Cannock Built-up area merger
editIt seems my merger with the Cannock built-up area article and this one has been reverted even though there was no opposition to the merger proposal that appeared on the top of both pages for the best part of a fortnight.
The reasons for my merger proposal was because I planned to merge all articles on small urban areas (with a population less than 100,000) unless there was a good case against which was made for Deeside and Levenmouth because they hade names which didn't refer to the main settlement and for Norton Radstock because it used to be a parish.
The Cannock Built-up area article itself is pretty small and most of it consists of discussing what each subdivision contains and part of it goes off-topic into how the county council and the local government commission define the town which has nothing to do with the article's main topic. So the Cannock Built-up area article could do with having a lot of stuff removed from it turning it into a stub without much potential for ever being more than that further building the case for a merger.
If a merger was to go ahead this wouldn't have to mean an urban area section on this Cannock article which I put here to replace an earlier urban subdivision section which just left me confused. It could probably just be written about in the opening paragraph what the Cannock built-up area's population is and what it contains many other articles on towns do this Eopsid (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cannock is a separate and distinct town to Hednesford both of which contribute towards the urban area, I agree the urban area inclusion is confusing but if you'd have bothered to read the previous entries in the talk page you would have seen this as a compromise. Cannock is a to in its own right and this article should reflect that in its own article. I have been away for a while but you can certainly count me in as opposing any merger. Aprhys (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)#
- I am not arguing that Hednesford isn't a distinct town. I am arguing that we don't need an article on the Cannock built-up area (all it does is state what is in it and it's population) and hence redirecting it to this article and that this article could do with stating that Cannock is the largest part of a built-up area which includes Hednesford and Great Wyrley as well as some smaller settlements. You probably shouldn't have removed the merger notices because they are up to try and attempt to get more people discuss this which is the point of them.
- We only really need one line in this article to summarise the Cannock built-up area and what it contains. This is what I wrote previously
- "Cannock forms the largest part of the Cannock Built-up Area which had a population of 86,121 according to the 2011 census and also includes Hednesford, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Huntington, Great Wyrley and Wedges Mills.[1]"
- Your new thing you wrote is pretty confusing, so lets come to a compromise which doesn't imply that Hednesford isn't a distinct town which seems to be your main fear. You've also written Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban area instead of what the 2011 census calls it which is the Cannock Built-up area. Is the following a suitable compromise?
- "Cannock along with the neighbouring towns and villages of Hednesford, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Huntington, Great Wyrley and Wedges Mills form the second largest built-up area in Staffordshire with a population of 86,121 according to the 2011 census.[1]" Eopsid (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
(1) Some article should give at least the name, population, area and map link of each of the two subdivisions of the Cannock Built-up Area. Which article should this be? (2) Towns and villages do not form the Cannock Built-up Area. The built-up areas of towns and villages are not defined by administrative/electoral boundaries but by the ONS's rules for built-up areas. Kinewma (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I can put a map link (such as this [3]) as part of the citation. The subdivisions are arbitrary and confusing I don't think they need any mention. A good example of how rubbish these subdivisions area is that for London the Bexley subdivision includes the large Kentish town of Dartford. I disagree with your second point the towns and villages do not form the Cannock BUA, the towns and villages are defined by councils and the majority of the population of these towns fall into the Cannock BUA hence they form part of it. I could also argue that the OS maps which show the Built-up areas even label which areas and hence which towns and villages form part of the Cannock BUA. Eopsid (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- actually I beg to differ towns are defined by the people who live in them, any village through its parish council can decide whether or not it wants to be called a town - it is not imposed on them by a higher authority especially those that collect statistics or those working in Borough, County or District councils. This is the point of contention that had arisen a few years back on this page. I apologies for removing the merger heading I was trying to go back to the original point but obviously cocked it up. As far as I'm concerned I have no problem saying that Cannock is a part of a statistical construct called a built up area but that is all it is - but we have to be careful in ensuring that those who live in the town of Cannock are the only ones included in its headline population -not of those who live in Hednesford, Heath Hayes, or the South Staffs villages. Aprhys (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you happy for what I wrote to replace above to replace "Cannock contribute the larger part of the Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area." which you wrote as the third paragraph of this article. Also most articles on towns give a variety of different figures for populations for example the Birmingham article gives three different population figures in it's opening paragraph one for the district, the urban area and the metropolitan area. Cannock doesn't need as many because the town is distinct from the district unlike Birmingham and adding the metropolitan area's population is just not needed because Cannock isn't the centre or a major part of it. Eopsid (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's fine by me Aprhys (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK I've gone ahead and put that into the article. Now what do you think on whether the Cannock Built-up area should remain or be changed into a redirect to Cannock. A redirect might be pointless as I doubt many articles link to Cannock Built-up Area and that no-one is going to search for it so a deletion might be better although a redirect is just quicker than going through the deletion process but does the same thing really. My reasons for redirecting is that no other English urban areas that are that small have their own article except Norton Radstock but that is a special case because it used to be it's own civil parish and the article is mainly about the former parish. The Scottish and Welsh urban areas of similar size which have their own articles do so because they have their own names and aren't named after their largest parts. My other reason for deletion was that most of the article consists of discussing the subdivisions and these subdivisions don't have a solid definition and appear to be arbitrarily assigned in many cases so I don't think discussing them is necessary. Eopsid (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- actually I beg to differ towns are defined by the people who live in them, any village through its parish council can decide whether or not it wants to be called a town - it is not imposed on them by a higher authority especially those that collect statistics or those working in Borough, County or District councils. This is the point of contention that had arisen a few years back on this page. I apologies for removing the merger heading I was trying to go back to the original point but obviously cocked it up. As far as I'm concerned I have no problem saying that Cannock is a part of a statistical construct called a built up area but that is all it is - but we have to be careful in ensuring that those who live in the town of Cannock are the only ones included in its headline population -not of those who live in Hednesford, Heath Hayes, or the South Staffs villages. Aprhys (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Just as Cannock comprises 4 electoral wards, Hednesford comprises 3. Only part of Hednesford is part of the Cannock BUA, because one of its 3 wards (Hednesford North) is mostly not built-up. Kinewma (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The part of Hednesford North that isn't built-up is unpopulated and mostly consists of forest that is part of the Cannock Chase AONB. In common usage of the word town such an area would not be considered part of the town of Hednesford. Also your changes to the Cannock article in my opinion just add more confusion you mentioned numerous places which don't have articles and you refer to towns and villages as built-up areas when you could have just said towns and villages which is the common usage and less confusing to users who aren't familiar with the term built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have a real problem with all this because an urban area is just a statical entity, I do find it strange that these these urban areas have a Wikipedia page as they are very technical constructs. My other problem with the redirect is that the name Cannock Urban Area is just a title and implies that Cannock encompasses all of these individual towns and villages, which is just not the case. For example most of the towns and villages have their own wiki page yet none have the wording about being part of this urban area, why should Cannock - that they both share the word Cannock is irrelevant it's just that is the biggest
of the settlements. Aprhys (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- When settlements form part of a larger urban area in many cases it is talked about in the article for example Rotherham, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Wolverhampton and Higham Ferrers. Many other similar technical constructs have articles notably all large metropolitan areas and in the British case most large urban areas have articles. In this Cannock BUA case an article is probably not needed because it is so small. Also are you implying you support a deletion but not a redirect? Also it's not a very technical construct looking at satellite pictures and many maps will show you that Cannock, Hednesford and Great Wyrley form an urban area the Office of National Statistics just give a formal definition of it with their urban areas/built-up areas. Eopsid (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- it may look like a big mass but they have defined borders, towns and parishes, the technical construct is the collation of population statistics from those individual towns and villages. Cannock Town council disbanded itself a few decades ago but there is talk about bringing it back and I've always maintained this article should be about that town and nothing else. I would support a deletion of the Cannock urban area. Aprhys (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that's true but the fact that it is a big mass is notable enough to appear albeit briefly on this article. If we both support deletion of the Cannock urban area article. I will go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Eopsid (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area it would be useful if you wrote on it your support or disapproval of the potential deletion. Eopsid (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
BUAs include built-up areas of towns and villages, not towns and villages in their entirety: the boundaries of towns and villages do not lie on a 50m grid, unlike BUAs. To see this level of detail for BUAs, on the nomis website use Wizard Query, at step 4 of 5 select the map format, then on the map tick 'Show background map (roads etc)'. Hazelslade, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills are small. They don't have wiki pages but parts of them do belong to the Cannock BUA as a detailed map shows. There's no need to have all the details of the BUA (such as other places, ONS role, area, population, map link) in all six wiki pages for the other places if we keep the Cannock BUA wiki page for them to link to. My order of preference is (i) Keep page (but maybe simplify content), (ii) delete with no redirects, (iii) redirect. Kinewma (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- BUAs may include just the built-up areas of towns and villages not the whole of them but the built-up areas of towns and villages are the towns and villages in common usage of the term. There is no need for all six wiki pages to contain a lot of information about the Cannock BUA. It might be useful for the larger ones but the smaller ones could have a less detailed sentence or no mention whatsoever. Eopsid (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The ONS does NOT define built-up areas according to common usage. Nor could it, because 'common usage' is far too imprecise. It defines them according to its fairly strict rules (which most people are unfamiliar with) about the built environment (and not according to administrative boundaries). Do 'common usage' boundaries lie on a 50m grid? I think not. Kinewma (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's true but it is simpler and makes more sense to the average reader if instead of writing "Cannock is largely a built-up area that is part of the Cannock Built-up Area (population 86,121 in the 2011 census) which also includes the built-up areas of Cheslyn Hay, Great Wyrley, Hazelslade, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Hednesford, Huntington, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills." we write "Cannock forms the largest part of the Cannock Built-up Area (population 86,121 in the 2011 census) which also includes the towns and villages of Cheslyn Hay, Great Wyrley, Hazelslade, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Hednesford, Huntington, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills." My previous comment that this is the second largest urban area in Staffordshire appears to be incorrect because of Burton however the Burton BUA does include Swadlincote in Derbs so the second largest urban area entirely in Staffordshire could be right but is too much a mouthful to warrant a mention. Eopsid (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hazelslade, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills should not be excluded just because they don't have articles. I've also revised the Cannock Built-up Area article. Kinewma (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the previous wording of this and have reverted, I think it flows easier on the tongue and avoids repeating the word area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 06:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cannock. 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/20101216013927/http://www.connectcannock.co.uk/ to http://www.connectcannock.co.uk/
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) 07:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cannock. 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/20071121091314/http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/newspaperdetail.cfm?paperid=389 to http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/newspaperdetail.cfm?paperid=389
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906020213/http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/people/robinson.htm to http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/people/robinson.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114140835/http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/wakefiel.htm to http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/wakefiel.htm
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) 08:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)