Talk:Mansfield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Population

Population counts seem off. Can someone research/revise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.102.210 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC) This has been corrected for ages, but some ' keeps deliberately, subtly vandalising it to add 100,000 to the population. The correct one is between 60 and 70,000, as quoted (and referenced). 144.32.57.20 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section below where the figure of <109,000 is quoted for December 2021 in a Council source (link shown is viable as of February 2022).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Railways

Can somone check which station is which, also, surely the railways should be LNER and LMS, not LNR Chevin 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It looked as though several paragraphs had been deleted as there was no mention of Midland Railway lines opened after 1849 nor was there anything about the locally promoted Mansfield Railway. Two different railway companies hence two separate stations. Removed references to the LMS and LNE Railways which made no contribution to Mansfield other than working railways inherited from pre-grouping companies. Pmbarnes (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

neutrailty issue?

someone clearly has a problem with mansfield bus station...

Yes - almost everyone who lives in the town! And the local Council seems to agree since it's due to be "redeveloped" ... something it has needed (in the opinion of many in the town) since about 1979 (about two years after it opened). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.38.219 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

type error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

Mansfield is not a city as it doesn't have a cathederal. It is a large town. 95.149.168.14 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

cleared. Article doesn't say Mansfield is a city. And careful of your definitions - consider Guildford against Cambridge. Grblundell (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

empty shop rates

Nearby Chesterfield suffered worse than Mansfield (for a similar sized town). The vacant properties are less than 11% compared to some places which are as high as 25%?

With less boarded up shops than affluent Windsor, Chesterfield is one of the UK’s best-performing high streets, a new report claims.

The town’s vacancy rate – which fell from 8.7 per cent last year to 7.7 per cent in 2013 – puts it in the top ten large centres in the country, way below the 13.5 per cent average.

The shop vacancy rates report, published by The Local Data Company, names Chesterfield as one of only three towns north of the Watford Gap listed in the top 25

Mansfield 11% Chesterfield 7.7% Id say Chesterfield is doing better, would you?At the very least check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.151.182 (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of politics section

The politics section seems to have a roundly negative and quite personality-based opinion of the town's mayor without citing many sources. I am not familiar with the town's politics, just 'passing through' the article so to speak, but phrases such as 'Most local residents see the Mayor as someone who is very keen on self publicity', and 'an undeniable fact is that during his time in office, Mansfield has struggled with local land development and many of the projects across the region have faltered' not followed by citations seem to breach NPOV. Any fact which is 'undeniable' should be fairly easy to substantiate with a clear and reliable media source. Also 'most residents feel that...' comes across as opinion rather than reported fact. Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines outline an unbiased contribution as 'presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public)'. So basically even if the town's entire general public quietly feel that way it's not Wikipedia-worthy unless that's reported by a reliable source. Essentially those sections either need to be pulled out altogether or someone familiar with the town's politics needs to substantiate them with some kind of evidence. BroSwerve (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ThanQ for your eloquent and correct statement of Wikipedia policy, for the time given for any 'editors' to add sources and for your sensible changes. Whereas this is [[WP:NOTFORUM}} you may find the following instructional - after reading, the "roundly negative and quite personality-based opinion of the town's mayor" may not seem quite as bad as originally thought

The disputed sections appeared in October here and were copy-pasted into the lede of the Mayor's BLP here which was unacceptable and dealt with by admin.

I left the disputed sections for the following reasons:
1. To see how long they would endure
2. Because I knew (or suspected) that an editor may provide sources
3. Although the prose was not verified I considered it to be largely verifiable.
4. As there has been a number of IP address interference, and as they are without Watchlist, I did not want to antagonise the 'authors' whilst it was fresh in their minds, lest there should be more as retaliation
5. Whereas as a Wikipedian I have to observe [[WP:NPOV}}, as a somewhat-informed individual I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed, but it's not incumbent on me to be a moral arbiter as I'm too close for objectivity
6. The Politics section is obscure being 'buried' way down in a lengthy article

A different outburst was dealt with here "Removed emotional content"

To understand the strength of feeling, you may find it helpful to read these two sections carefully starting here to learn how it all started. The Mayor's mentor is highly politically-motivated and has recently taken to the local paper readers' column (yet again, after a break) plus another disgruntled ex-councillor, purporting to be concerned citizens. I emailed the reporter a few months back (no response) as many readers will not know the situation and now, again, the sniping has recurred (I will forward the email to the new editor). This motivated gentleman with a POV was also the MD of the local paper before it was swallowed by a giant having a complete monopoly - his demise was not reported, neither were (I suspect) his more-recent business failings. Often it's difficult, near impossible to obtain "reliable sources" - news organisations don't report on each other, sole local 'papers are usually 'friend to the establishment', and the Mayor + mentor are accomplished Spinmeisters.

Whereas I've devoted not-inconsiderable time to this article - particularly in providing multiple sources (and I knew where and what to look for) it's often the Law of Diminishing Returns - I've still got one more important source to find, probably I need to go hard copy. This is [[WP:NOTOWN}}, it's a wiki and inevitably will be a mess so I've concentrated on what I feel to be the most important, most prominent sections, unlike the Politics section located quite-obscurely some 20 page-downs. I am not connected so there is no COI.

Hope that adequately summarises it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Economy, Town Centre sub section - concerning POV, COI and Promotion

In February 2014, I tagged this (sub)section as WP:advert due to the large amount of material added (overwritten, without completion of edit summary, showing as only -42) relating to Mansfield BID (Business Improvement District), an organisation operating in Mansfield town centre area. The references provided were primary-sourced, i.e., BID's own website. Additionally, when this was added, correctly-sourced (from local news media) material was deleted, affecting the neutral-balance which is fundamental to Wikipedia. The deleted material was subsequently re-added by an admin and myself.

IMO, this added material failed conflict of interest, promotional content and neutral point of view aspects.

The IP address responsible has no other Wikipedia contributions; considering the simultaneous deleted material, there is a strong suspicion that these edits were from BID's own staff, which is "strongly discouraged" by Wikipedia policy.

No improvements to the content have been forthcoming since February 2014, so - in preparation for deletion of the promotional material (including un-encyclopaedic and badly-formatted trivia) - I have now additionally tagged this subsection as WP:Conflict of Interest. I had initially hoped not to have to swamp the section with banner templates.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No response from IP address concerned. I now propose to delete the BID over-the-top promotional material. This is not an article about Mansfield BID, it is not even a section about BID, it's a small part of a Town Centre section.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

BID Promotional and COI material has been removed.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Economy section is what the town used to be

I've just read the Economy section of the article. Every paragraph relates to businesses or industry that used to exist in the town. Can't any information be found on the present day economy?

Personally, I think that the whole section on coal mining should be moved to history, and should be expanded to cover the earlier 20th century (which I can help with). Mining is what caused the town to grow, but it is no longer part of its economy. Epa101 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mansfield. 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/20130502002340/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/about/news/title%2C217819%2Cen.php to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/about/news/title%2C217819%2Cen.php

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) 04:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mansfield. 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/20110405093528/http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=906 to http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=906

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) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Current Rail and bus provision.

Removed uncited sections. No sources cited for current timetables or station facilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter121 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

History

This article reads a bit too much like an advert.. Is anyone proficient enough in local history to put a section about that in? Even the two notable Mansfields in the USA have history sections.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.10.251 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Re-written for more neutral tone. Quite a bit of "promotional" language removed to give a more neutral tone --Helicopter121 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree I'm not from Mansfield but there is no mention of the churches, its prominence in its name, links with Hardwick, and the Duke of Portland. And needless to say Sherwood Forest. I am sure their are many historians in Mansfield many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAshfield1 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead summary

Please go to this link to discuss the lead [[1]] before changing the lead again. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Twin towns

An editor has been deleting existing sources and adding content without sources, implying to readers that European and Russian towns are formally aligned with Mansfield. An additional heading has been created, generating some of the same entries twice.

I have reverted the content per WP:BRD, pending discussion, and any sources which will be needed before re-adding, per WP:BURDEN. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: "...deleting existing sources..." – the existing source was not working, was very outdated, and was replaced by an another one. No need to complain.

"...implying to readers that European and Russian towns are formally aligned with Mansfield..." – That strongly sounds as a personal aversion. Btw Russian Reutov is also an European town.

"...adding content without sources..." – Not true. A source was added. I don't understand why the official website of The Sister Cities Association of Mansfield in England is not considered reliable and marked as self-published when it is a page of the organization which is top-level expert on Mansfield's international relations. Imho it is reliable and claim are easily verifiable:

• Heiligenhaus, Germany
• Mansfield, Massachusetts, United States
• Mansfield, Ohio, United States
• Reutov, Russia
• Stryi, Ukraine

You could've added the references, instead of relying upon the WP:SPS Sister Cities. It is owned by one man (I am acquainted with him - he has other websites). The Sister Cities website is made by dijitul, a small Mansfield business. The name-shares were arranged separately to account for this.

Just because a weblink is dead, that does not mean you should delete it - you should have added {{deadlink}}.

You could've made a Talk page heading to comment on the changes.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but if he (his mini-company) made a website for that association, why is not the association a reliable source?

A stationary source saying that something was true in 2004 does have no value in 2021, twinning relationships is something that change over time. Therefore it was deleted. FromCzech (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see you are not highly experienced, and you feel that the source should be deleted based on your opinion. WRONG. Wikipedia is an enduring encyclopedia; the content from various individuals must be kept, in the history. You do not take the decision alone to delete the source, which mentions 1974. This was official twinning, NOT just similar names.

I am trying to help, as I was when I arranged the content separately - it was to physically distance the content created from the social networking organisation (WP:PRIMARY), which is not WP:SECONDARY as Wikipedia needs. It is informal, not official, therefore the two sections were separate. You have changed the content to allow the PRIMARY reference, a type of networking media, to give the wrong impression.

Why do you think you know better? Why do you want to go against me, to WP:WAR?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I hoped it was more than obvious that I had acted in good faith. As I mentioned here in the discussion, I did not just delete the source, but I did replace the old non-functioning with a functioning and up-to-date. Sorry that I didn't emphasize it in edit summary. If you need to keep that year, feel free to replace it.

"This was official twinning, NOT just similar names." I don't understand what you meant with this. All the five towns are twin towns. Twinning has nothing to do with similar names of towns. If you come across the fact that I deleted a section where five places with similar name were randomly selected from that association website, I already mentioned in edit summary that this is the subject of Mansfield (disambiguation) and there's no need to have them there. FromCzech (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have emailed the council regarding Reutov and Styri. The council website does not contain those names. I will decline to comment further until I receive confirmation.

Also I have to inform you that "...implying to readers that European and Russian towns are formally aligned with Mansfield..." – That strongly sounds as a personal aversion. Btw Russian Reutov is also an European town.. That strongly sounds as a personal aversion is not polite. Please comment on the edit(s)-only, not what you think is the psychology behind it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't the sources I mentioned like BBC convince you that you are investing so much effort to try to find the opposite? The council website does contain none of those twin towns, why just ask about these two? I'm guessing they'll write something in the sense that "there is formal twinning, but the relationship is inactive".

Your phrasing was not polite either, you could write it unbiased. A dozen other English cities have a Russian twin town, it's nothing special. FromCzech (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Tagging as Disputed section at Mansfield#Twin towns – sister cities

Editor FromCzech has changed the content, conflating two separate Headed sections and content, introducing and giving priority to a social-networking website as a reference, asserting it is official. The content of this website appears to be based on Wikipedia content.

Per the section above, this editor is argumentative, twice deleting the same press-reference 1. and 2.. The original content prior to change can be seen distinguishing the two sections (headed as Twin towns and Name shares) with (now-deleted) content alluding to the private website, which FromCzech has referred to as a 'hat', in this permalink revision.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Population at 2021/22

Anyone with an interest in population may be interested to learn that, in the CEO vacancy job description (closing date 5 December 2021), nearly 109,000 is being quoted (approx 36,000 homes of the top of me 'ead).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

IP editing and uploading of images continued

As is covered in the section above, an IP switcher has been uploading images with a recently-established login of Nottingham311. It is not possible to upload with IP addresses. Editor seems to be inexperienced in certain Wiki-aspects and very similar to a blocked sockpuppet from approx two years ago.

Using IP addresses to avoid a block is not allowed, see block evasion.

IP addresses have consistently been uploading and re-uploading the same images uploaded by Nottingham311 to the Mansfield article during 2023.

Would you like to comment, Nottingham311 and the most recent IP, 46.18.177.137?

Thank you. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Toponymy

This whole section is bad, "According to William Horner Dove, 1894" I believe the person that the contributor is referring to, is William Horner Groves, he wrote a history of Mansfield in 1894, but it should never be used a source, it is a book full of local tales and legends, the book seems to have been written to entertain, rather than inform the reader.

The claim that Mansfield takes it's name from a "noble family who came over with William the Conqueror" is typical of his work, this seems to relate to an earlier legend, and more far fetched, that the town is named after a German knight who was a member of King Arthurs Round Table. Even though no knight of this name, appears in any of the King Arthur legends. The source of this legend appears to be that there is a similar name town in Germany (Mansfeld) and people have been trying to create a link. Groves decides to link him to an actual historical figure, rather than a legend.

The second theory that "the name came from Manson, an Anglo Saxon word for traffic" Manson doesn't even look like an Anglo-Saxon word, and it presumes that Mansfield was the original spelling, rather than Mamesfelde. Also he translate "field" as a place of trade, whereas I think it is universally accepted meaning, is just a clearing.

These 2 theories seemed to have been made up by himself. The third is accepted as a common theory that the name means clearing where the River Maun runs through. Although there are 2 other theories, one from Oxford and the other Cambridge. The first by Eilert Ekwall in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, which maybe an extension of the above, which he claims that both the river and the first part of the town name, is named after a breast shaped hill as in Mam Tor. The second theory comes from Dr Heinrich Mutschmann, in The Place Names of Nottinghamshire, Cambridge University Press, which he states that the first part and the river's name are a personal name, therefore Mamman's clearing and Mamman's river. Mansfield Blade (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

IP editing in January 2023

I have noticed that a series of IP addresses have made changes to Mansfield and other surrounding articles in early 2023. I surmise that these changes have all been made by one individual:

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:7158:E147:F71C:F7F3

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:3CB2:9E80:3F42:F050

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:9962:E6C4:CF0B:9BBF

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:F9B5:C2B4:3A:9C2C

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:8CDD:C573:3CE8:D8D

The edit summaries of two consecutive changes assert that this IP editor moved content which they had originally written: "This was originally written by me but fits better into the town centre area rather than the Civic Centre bit." and "This fits in better into the town centre section. This was written by myself.".

This editor did not write this prose originally, it was Rocknrollmancer in this 14 January 2022 change.

I left a message at User talk:2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:8CDD:C573:3CE8:D8D, but now realise it's possible it will not be seen there due to the to the dynamic switching basis of the ISP, so I am repeating the request here:

Can you please explain what you meant by these two edit summary statements attributing the prose to yourself? Thank you. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)