Talk:Retford

Newcastle Arms Link

I removed the link on the page as I feel it could be seen as spam, and doesn't necessarily offer further information into the town of Retford. It would also be unfair to all the other public houses in Retford. Sonic 08:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Crimean War Cannon

I added a photo of the Cannon from one of mine taken while I was visiting my parents. It didn't look right when I added it on the paragraph about the cannon as the paragraph was too short so I put it on the one above. Bjddavies2006 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood Airport

The claim about Robin Hood Airport's runway is spurious, and has been duly edited. Doubletrigger (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DMOZ solution

Due to the excessive number of spammy links in the external links section, I implemented a DMOZ solution that has been used on a number of similar pages. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Retford. 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/20071130180322/http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/content/image_galleries/flooding_june_2007_gallery.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/content/image_galleries/flooding_june_2007_gallery.shtml

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) 09:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Economy

Most of the economy section is historic, which is interesting but it could do with a paragraph on the economy as it is today. I have updated the unemployment numbers etc which were very outdated. Should add major employers and a comment about the make-up of the local economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.75.9 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

verification status

I have removed the tag at the start of this article. There are over 100 citations on this article now. If anyone feels there are sections requiring additional citation please mark these up individually for action. It is silly that this well referenced article is tagged as needing verification when many others that have no citations are not (see Worksop, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandrinaHatman (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

women owned businesses

It is important to recognise the history of women on Wikipedia, which is generally lacking. Adding a section showing that women were economically active in Retford is an important part of that. It was removed by an editor despite being referenced to a historic (published) trade directory and the names of the women and their trades is directly taken from that. Removing this section because it does not fit with a male narrative of what is important is not just vandalism it's misogynistic and undermines attempts to make wikipedia less androcentric and acknowledge the historical role of women in British society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.17.196 (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot understand why these were removed because they were referenced. I agree it's important to recognise women's economic activity. I will add some more information about this eg Clarke's dye works was a major employer of women. SandrinaHatman (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Somebody keeps changing the way the name is pronounced to Ret-ferd. That is not how it is pronounced. People actually say Ret-fud with equal emphasis on both syllables and a short u (no r). English placenames are often not pronounced as they are spelt or as non-locals think they should be pronounced in an RP way. The short 'u' pronunciation for 'ford' is also common in other areas of the UK eg see this http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/pronunciation.htm Can we please stick to the local pronunciation, not some RP version that non-locals think it should be. Please refer also to the Yorkshire dialect page on Wiki (North Nottinghamshire accent is more similar to Yorkshire dialect in terms of vowels) which uses ʊ to represent the short northern u sound.

East Retford dubious wording

Main section ends “allowing for the free flow of clean and fresh ejaculates into the pipes of local women.” The reference is to a paper book, but I bet it does not say that… WhiteGoldWelder (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect vandalism - and even if the book did say that it's not really appropriate for the lead. Now removed. Stortford (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)