Jump to content

Talk:Stroud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drugs

[edit]

Obviously it's not a topic that Stroud would like to publicise, but being objective as wikipedia is the culture in Stroud is far too big and prominent, especially among the younger generation to not mention it. The Esso and Maccy D hating Green Party image is more of a fantasy of Celestianpower's than that of a popular stereotype. Sure that character exists, probably in Stroud more so than most other places, but it's not the leading characters in Stroud, anymore anyway.

But is it notable? Are there prosecution figures, drug related deaths, or numbers of people being treated for addiction, to show that it is any different to anywhere else? Lame Name (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable. I will find references to prove it. This article makes Stroud look like a very up-market, very clean and fancy place- from reading this, I'd get the impression that it's a sort of country version of somewhere like Chelsea or Mayfair. Fact is, it's pretty rough, the crime is high and there is a massive drug problem for a place of its size. 80.41.85.45 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing those figures. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a major drugs raid at the up town down town nightclub on the a46 (next to mcdonalds) a few years ago, that should have made the papers and there might be an online reference in the SNJ (although I doubt anything newsworthy has ever made it to print on that rag...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Places of interest

[edit]

Have left most of Celestianpower's reverts alone but thought it worth pointing out that it's always better to use fewer words to convey the same info. For example, what does "hamlets" really add? Why add the word "nearby" if it's "on the outskirts" of somewhere? How many towns don't have some shops and a bank? To be honest, doesn't "places of interest" followed immediately by "er, well there are quite a lot of shops" sound just a bit absurd? Do a leisure centre and a multi-storey car park really constitute "places of interest"? OK, Stroud may be a bit light on them but there are surely places more interesting than that!! By the way headings aren't supposed to have caps throughout, just at the start. Best wishes Flapdragon 13:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - Okay, I take you're comments on board. Do you come from in/around Stroud then? --Celestianpower talk 14:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Thrupp/Brimscombe really. Stroud has suffered a bit over the years and will never be as pretty as it no doubt was before the Industrial Revolution, but it's certainly in better shape than it was it the 70s and 80s when I was growing up. It will never be first on any tourist's itinerary, but it's not quite as boring as the text implies -- it's not a bad article but I feel there is a risk of implying that the place has been totally ruined and has nothing to offer the visitor (not even a bus station now). It would be good to have a quick mention of stuff like the Shambles, the Old Town Hall (16thC), the museum, Ebley Mill, Rodburgh Fort (just an irrelevant external link from the pic at the moment), as well as its pre-Industrial Revolution history ("Stroud 700"). Also a pic of, say, the Sub Rooms and the Clock would be more relevant than the Sapperton tunnel mouth (would have moved it but currently no entry for Sapperton!). The Hill Paul factory might be worth an entry of its own, certainly a pic, preferably "before and after". Also something about (conversely) Stroud being, or so it has been claimed, a textbook case of out-of-town "superstores" destroying a local shopping centre made up of independent specialist shops. Interesting comparisons with Nailsworth could be made. In fact I did wonder about the line that says that Nailsworth is one of those places within the commercial orbit of Stroud -- people there might claim it actually provides the things Stroud no longer has, like a butchers' shop! Just a matter of finding the time, as usual... Flapdragon 16:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cool!!!! I do too. I might know you... Add some more to the Thrupp & Brimscombe article when/if you get time then. It's just short and not all that good so far. I've been thinking about going out with the DigiCam for a while but haven't got round to it. --Celestianpower talk 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco

[edit]

Interesting nobody nowadays has thought to bring up the Great Tesco Trees controversy of circa 1990. Contrast Shepton Mallet where they've written reams on it... Linuxlad 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals

[edit]

Shouldn't there be something in here about the ongoing fights concerning Stroud's hospitals, Weavers Croft and Stroud Maternity? There have been several battles to keep the maternity unit open over the years. Gruffle Gaw 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Coffee

[edit]

Also, some information about the Costa Coffee saga should be in here, especially since it relates to the issue of the imbalance of retail/food outlets in the town centre, which is topical and central to the town's identity. Gruffle Gaw 12:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rising Loo!

[edit]

Information on the newly installed public urinals that rise from the ground should be included

Sport

[edit]

Anyone feel like compiling a Sports section? There's quite a lot of it available nearby ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reorganise

[edit]

I propose to move the entire 'Character and Amenities' section to follow 'History', as this seems to be the most logical place for it. Any objections? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 12:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the section is actually worth keeping will it be rewritten and referenced in line with WP:IINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE? Lame Name (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think it's not worth keeping? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask? It, in common with many small town articles, reads like a cross between a tourist information brochure and a local newspaper archive. Unreferenced snippets are added and the whole thing grows into a sprawling mess of non-notable tittle tattle. The whole article could be trimmed, and improved, by boldly deleting 50% - 70% of the content. Specifically...
"Visitors and locals say that there is a unique and 'laid back' air to the town" Really? Do they actually say that?
"which is home to a significant number of artists, authors and poets." Really? Significant compared to what?
"Stroud has a significant 'bohemian' community that dates back to the early part of the twentieth century, and today includes a number of people who pursue 'alternative' lifestyles." Really? Significant compared to where?
"Britain's first purpose-built cohousing community was built in the town." So?
"Stroudie" (sometimes spelt "Stroudy") is a locally used term for residents of Stroud." Really? Google provides zero content to support this claim.
"There is a stereotype of the Green Party-supporting Stroudie, generally opposed to genetically-modified produce, oil companies (Esso in particular) and McDonalds, though one has now opened, after much protest." Really? Etc. Etc.
"Stroud was one of the birthplaces of the Organic food movement and was home to Britain's first fully-organic café, Woodruffs." Dubious. Reference? Etc. Etc.
If there is/was a notable artistic community/organic movement/whatever in Stroud an nformative, encyclopedic and referenced section, or whole article, would be most welcome. Lame Name (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with any of what you say, although I don't particularly like the way you say it. When I first came across the article I was shocked to find it such a complete mess. I have spent the past few weeks re-organising and referencing, but there's still a lot to be done. I think the section is worth keeping as most of what it says is actually true. Stroud does have a significant artistic community, and has also been in the forefront of public protest against municipal vandalism. It's actually what makes Stroud the town it is. And if that sounds like POV I agree that it all needs referencing, but as I appear to be the only one that's doing any editing this may take some time. Are you volunteering? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comments sounded abrupt and harsh - I guess I find these articles so depressingly bad . I am aware of your edits improving the article (our Watchlists seem to cross at several points) and my initial comment was to broach the notion of a radical edit of the article rather than moving chunks around. I have started a simlar exercise for Stow-on-the-Wold and I will gladly contribute where I am able here although I do sometimes find the popular "arty/cafe culture" Stroud image and the reality at variance. Lame Name (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sounds as if we agree on the need if not on the process. It's inevitable that any page that has been edited by many people over a period of five years is going to contain material which is POV, be badly written, disjointed, plain wrong or any or all of the above. But the majority of the edits will have been made in good faith so I am very wary of treading on toes, and am trying to knock it into shape gradually, where you would obviously prefer the more radical approach. I am about to write a section on the arts in Stroud which may go some way to convince you of the 'arty' nature of the town. Watch this space. (Sorry, you already do!) ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 22:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes & Quality of references

[edit]

Some brief (non-confrontational :-) observations:

  • The article is about the town of Stroud but a lot of the listed artists etc. are living elsewhere in the Stroud District.
  • "Stroud citizens have a history of independent thought and action going back to the Wool Riots of 1825." Are we saying that there was no "independent thought" (as opposed to Collective thought ?) prior to 1825? The name "wool Riots" only seems to exist in this article and is usually referred to as the Stroudwater Riots (as indicated by the reference) - but it was mostly a strike about pay and as such does not support the claim of "independent thought and action".
  • A big claim like "Britain's first fully-organic café," needs a reliable reference rather than a mention on a promotional guide website. Something like Soil Association certification like this place.
  • The Digital Stroud website looks like an interesting project. They do include a bibliography but there is no link for the Hill Paul story - which does not get a mention here. Is this not more of a local paper story rather than an encyclopedic entry?

Lame Name (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. Work in progress. How's Stow-in-the Wold going? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 18:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as part of the protest section, it does give the impression at the moment that all protests are successful. Despite the demonstrations, tesco is here, mcdonalds is here, the bus station was torn down and replaced with a cinema and both the stroud and ebley bypasses were built. Also, the fact that the uplands post office was saved with local rates money and that it is used by only the residents of uplands, not all the residents of stroud deserves a mention.

Just to balance it out: not all the protests achieve their aims, and when they do, they are controversial. Just because people stand outside with a banner and get their picture in the local paper, it does not mean they are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

[edit]

removed the following text from the article:

and lays claim to being the arts and crafts capital of the Cotswolds.It has variously been described as 'the Covent Garden of the Cotswolds' (by Jasper Conran), 'Notting Hill with wellies' (London Evening Standard ) and 'the artistic equivalent of bookish Hay-on-Wye' by the Daily Telegraph.[1]


I assume it is a copyright violation from this BBC page. Am I wrong? Lame Name (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid you are. BBC lawyers would be highly amused at the suggestion that their copyright had somehow been breached by a single line of text. As someone who has had to deal with copyright issues over a period of thirty years I would be chuckling alongside them, otherwise I would not have provided a direct link to the article. I can do a slight re-wording if it bothers you that much, (it doesn't actually read the same as the original anyway) or you can simply reinstate the original as it was. I don't mind either way. . ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC says:
Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.
and Wikipedia says:
If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored.
A slight rewording may be the safer option Lame Name (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright notices like the one you quote are a legal nicety and are virtually meaningless. They are there to protect the unwary. (You've just copied a part of a BBC site and and pasted it here. A talk page is a public document which can be accessed by anyone. Are you now in breach of copyright? By your argument you are.) Copyright exists as soon as any piece of writing is created whether there is a copyright notice or not. All copyright disputes have to be tested in court, and there has to be substantial amount of copying before a breach can be proved. Quoting one line of an article, as I (nearly) did, is the equivalent of a composer using two bars of, say, 'Inca Roads' in his own composition. It would take someone very rich or very stupid, (or probably both) to sue in such a situation.
People get too hung-up or too scared of copyright issues simply because they don't know the law.
But I'll change it, when I get time, if it makes you happy. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]] BBC Gloucestershire

References & Fellows

[edit]

Even ignoring that some references are articles written by the subject of the reference I still doubt the notability of Ted Fellows. The ref added for him makes no mention of Stroud. Lame Name (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed Prof Tom Jefferson for non notability. If you want to do the same for Ted Fellows be my guest. As for articles written by the subject of the reference - why not, if they say they live in Stroud what further proof do you need? (The vast majority of references are from good, independent sources.)
With 46 references Stroud must already be the most heavily referenced of all small town articles on Wikipedia. I think I would be justified in asking you to remove the tag. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 13:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Population

[edit]

The population figure for Stroud in the infobox is 12,690, which is similar to that for Thornbury (12,342) and considerably less than that for Cirencester (19,000). This is an obvious nonsense (it's a parish figure). The ONS statistic for Stroud District is 107,898, but I can't find one for the actual town. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is well in excess of 20,00 but I can't find a source. Can anyone help? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old question, but I've just hit the same problem. I don't know Stroud well, so I need some guidance. The population figure does seem a bit low. In the lead, it says the parishes of Stroud (pop.12,690), Rodborough (pop. 5,115) and Cainscross (5,839) are often considered one conurbation, giving a combined population of 23,644 (all using 2001 ONS census data). Before I write a Demography section that that no Stroudian would recognise, does it make sense to combine the figures for these three parishes? GyroMagician (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted the above message the figure has been updated to 32,052 in the infobox, using the ONS 2001 census data, which is referenced. This would seem to be the correct figure for the town so it wouldn't make much sense to combine parish figures to arrive at a different one. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now how about that? I read the first line, which matched my figure, and didn't read any further - doh! Thanks for pointing out. GyroMagician (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, section added. Demography is a horrible section to write, I promise never to do one again. I took stats for the urban area, rather than the CP, as it seems to fit better. How did I do? GyroMagician (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Stroud, Gloucestershire → Stroud — Stroud has redirected here for the past two years and nobody has objected to that. Regarding primacy, the populations of the various settlements called Stroud are:

So, in conclusion, Stroud, Gloucestershire seems to be the primary topic for Stroud.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
I've redirected that discussion to this one. Clearly the two questions ought to be decided in a single discussion. (I also left notes at the disambiguation and UK geography project talk pages to try to break the deadlock.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the question being addressed is: Is Stroud, Gloucestershire the primary topic for "Stroud"? (Support presumably means yes, oppose means no.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mildly support. It seems that among the topics actually called just "Stroud", this one is dominant. I don't think any of the people called "Stroud" are that well known (like Abraham Lincoln, say) as to attract significant numbers of readers typing in just "Stroud" with the expectation of getting to those articles - if you want to go striaght to one of these people, you type in the first name as well.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for others, but I know that I often (probably more often than not) enter only the surname of the person I'm searching for when searching for a person in Wikipedia, much of the time because I don't remember the first name. For example, I did that with Stockman recently (looking for David Stockman). I much prefer landing on a dab page than on some completely unrelated article with a hatnote link to the dab page; a big point of primary topic is to minimize the latter from happening to users. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using an article where you have previously closed a move request incorrectly to support your point doesn't carry much weight with me I'm afraid. Quantpole (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In terms of the essence of your point, none of the people are known simply as "Stroud" so do not compete for the primary topic. If I was looking for a person and only knew the surname I would expect to have to go through a couple of pages to find it, or type in "Stroud (disambiguation)" which isn't that difficult really. If you take Washington as an example, that is at a dab page, but the only person listed there is the president (which makes sense as he is known by his surname only), for all other people with that surname you have to go from there to Washington (name). Quantpole (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please review what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states. It is clearly about "the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". Regardless of what people expect when they enter a surname in the Search box, the point is that that is often what people enter when looking for an article about someone with that surname. Therefore, articles about people whose surname matches the term in question need to be considered when determining whether that term has a primary topic. Unless we change how primary topic is determined, in this case that means we need to consider, not ignore, articles about people with surname Stroud when determining whether this topic is primary for Stroud. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support None of the other places comes close to the significance of this Stroud, or is likely to be referrred to as plain "Stroud" outside its immediate area. And none of the people is prominent enough to be often referred to as "Stroud" in a general context. The fact that you might search for such people through the Stroud (disambiguation) page does not mean that you should not expect another topic to be the primary topic - that might be an argument for having no primary topics ever, but that is a different discussion. Mhockey (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and oppose venue: It looks like there is no clear primary topic; there are many, many 'Stroud's and it's not clear that this one is even the plurality choice. But further, any straw poll placed on the Talk page for Stroud, Gloucestershire will clearly be biased toward that choice. The whole thing is flawed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which others do you think might be candidates for primary? Evidence so far seems pretty convincing that it's this one or nothing (and apparently this one - the fact that "there are many somethings" is not much of an argument against there being a primary topic), but feel free to leave notices on any other talk pages you consider relevant, to balance out the venue bias.--Kotniski (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing for the disambiguation page to be primary, not to make something else primary. I don't think notes will suffice to level the venue bias, even if they were left on all the pages linked to on the current DAB page (but that would contribute to the leveling). CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume by "disambiguation page to be primary" you mean "disambiguation page to be at the plain name". "Primary" has a very specific meaning, and only a topic (not a dab page) can be "primary". A dab page is not a topic and therefore cannot be primary. However, a dab page for a given term can be at the term if there is no primary topic; but that doesn't mean the dab page is primary. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first Google result for "Stroud" is for Stroud, Oklahoma. The second is for a software company; the third is for a restaurant, the fourth for an environmental research center in Pennsylvania. The Stroud in Gloucestershire is only the fifth result. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that enormously relevant (I think our own page view statistics, as given above, are more relevant to our primary topic decisions that whatever criteria or commercial arragements determine Google's rankings).--Kotniski (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that our stats are more relevant, I was just providing extra information. But in my reading, both support the disambiguation page as primary. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google tends to be location specific. If you use Google in England the entire first page pertains to the Stroud in Gloucestershire. To get 5th from a location in N. America speaks volumes.--Ykraps (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so it is. But I don't think that this is an argument in favor of making Stroud, Gloucestershire primary; far from it. It appears only once on the first page of google.com, ten times on the first page of google.co.uk, once on the first page of google.co.au, once on the first page of google.ca: that's a population-weighted average of 2 results. There are other 'Stroud's that get higher results than that! Now it's not even obvious that this Stroud would be the primary topic even if the disambiguation page wasn't. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Goggle results are something of a distraction in cases like this. Google modifies results depending on the location of the searcher, while Wikipedia doesn't, so Google doesn't really lend weight to either side of the argument GyroMagician (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part where I addressed that? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm disagreeing with your method. Here in Switzerland Stroud, Glos, gets 5 spots - what does that tell us? As I say, I don't think Google results offer much insight either way in this case. GyroMagician (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Appears to have primacy of page views, population etc. None of the people are well known enough simply to be known by 'Stroud'. No point in having the redirect from Stroud to Stroud, Gloucestershire as if it is the primary topic it should be at the non-disambiguated name. Quantpole (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument is based on a misreading and/or misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, apparently conflating "primary" with "best known" or "most important". That there are no other candidates for being the primary use of this name is not relevant. The only relevant issue here is whether this use is primary (not merely most important) per the criteria spelled out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The criteria that must be met is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". Nothing presented here indicates that this subject meets that hurdle. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a significant-ish town compared with a few other topics which no-one has shown to be of any kind of comparable importance at all. In the absence of any argument that any of the other Strouds are significant for anything , I'd be inclined to assume, by common sense, that the significant town is going to the one most readers are going after. (Sorry, I may have mixed up the population figures above with page-view counts - does anyone have the latter? They're probably the best objective guide.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has more page views than all the other places combined. The American one is only likely to be known as "Stroud" in its local area - anyone else would refer to it as "Stroud, Oklahoma". And the comment about importance is nonsensical - if something is far more important than something else it is much more likely to be the primary topic. Quantpole (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that "it has more page views than all the other places combined", but unless we change how primary topics are determined, we need to consider all uses for which readers are likely to enter "Stroud" in the Search box when looking for them, not just places. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Here's another set of potentially flawed numbers: whatlinkshere (limited to only show entries in article space):

---snip---Table cut, combined with people table below---snip---

The message seems clear. Even summing all entries except Stroud, Glos, (382 links) gives less links than to Stroud Glos. itself. I haven't included similar stats for people called Stroud - if someone is feeling keen, please add them. (All errors are my own, primarily attributable to problems with counting ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That simply shows that there is no primary topic for the subset you selected. Ignoring the people named Stroud simply supports the position that there is clearly no primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think this shows there is no primary topic for the place name Stroud? As for people called Stroud, think of it more as an invitation for anyone who thinks there are significantly well known people called Stroud to fill in the rest of the table ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling generous:

Place/Person No. Links
Stroud 147
Stroud, Gloucestershire 535
Stroud, New South Wales 48
Stroud, Ontario 8
Stroud (district) 150
Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) 205
Stroud, Hampshire 102
Stroud, Surrey 0
Stroud, Alabama 0
Stroud, Oklahoma 149
Stroud Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania 61
Stroud Green 14
Barry Stroud 52
David Stroud 3
Don Stroud 64
Donna Stroud 4
Irene Elizabeth Stroud 6
Jack Stroud 39
Jonathan Stroud 47
Ken Stroud 11
Kenny Stroud 6
Les Stroud 33
Marcus Stroud 198
Mike Stroud 4
Morris Stroud 56
Peter Stroud 9
Reuben W. Stroud 65
Robert Franklin Stroud 53

As usual, errors are my own and corrections are welcome. I have now listed everyone and everywhere on the Stroud disambiguation page except the 'See Also' section - I skipped these because they are not actually Stroud, simply related.

I've combined both tables, and added plain unspecified Stroud to the mix. As far as I can tell, all Stroud links are actually for Stroud, Gloucestershire (a few of these are included in references to Sutton Publishing, which is based in Stroud, Glos). I don't know the best way to deal with Stroud (district) and Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) here - they all refer to Stroud in Gloucestershire. Marcus Stroud figures may be slightly inflated because his name appears on several templates.

The top three positions are held by Stroud, Gloucestershire (535 147 = 682), Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) (205) and Marcus Stroud (198).

Thoughts? GyroMagician (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two criteria listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
  1. much more likely than any other, and
  2. more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box.
The link counts are a pretty good indication that this topic is "much more likely than any other" "to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term ["Stroud"] in the Search box". However, what's not clear at all is that this topic is "more likely than all the others combined" to be the subject being sought. To be the primary topic, both criteria have to be met. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also says "There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." I guess that's the discussion we're having here.
As I said before delivering the stats, the numbers are potentially flawed. In this case, the difference is whether a page is included in a template, which will significantly bump the links-here numbers. Two pages stand out in this respect: Stroud, Hampshire, which is barely a stub, and Marcus Stroud, who is included in several templates. Unfortunately I have no way to separate 'in-article' links from 'template transclusion' links. But this also applies to the other pages, to a greater or lesser degree, including Stroud, Gloucestershire.
I started this discussion as a weak support, basically because I didn't know of another significant Stroud. I've now looked in a bit more detail, and find that Stroud, Glos. is significantly more likely to be the desired page, both in terms of population (relative to other places called Stroud), and incoming links. WP:D is, I think, deliberately vague on exactly how to calculate these stats because it is extremely difficult to specify. The second criteria (more likely than all the others combined) is difficult to judge, without details about page hits that we don't have. If you add all the links-here numbers, the combined Stroud Stroud, Glos. Stroud (district) Stroud (UK Parliament constituency) = 1037, vs. all the others at 1032 (from memory). Very close. More relevant, I think, is that Stroud Stroud, Glos. has more than three times as many links-here hits as the next non-Glos. contender, whose numbers are likely inflated. I think this is the primary topic. GyroMagician (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

[edit]

Bit surprised to see Jasper Conran included under the heading of "Scientists" - and I can't find anything in his own Wikipedia article to suggest it's appropriate. Can anybody suggest a better heading? The best I can come up with at the moment is "Creative". I think "Fashion Designers" would probably be too specific. Zeusfaber (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns

[edit]

This section of the page reads very badly and is very biased in the way that it describes protests in Stroud. I propose that it is rewritten to give a more objective view of Stroud protests. e.g. "unwanted traffic plans", "the public won the day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.31.152 (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonably well written. Do you still have any concerns? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stroud. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Stroud. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stroud. 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) 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Stroud. 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) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stroud. 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) 23:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on history

[edit]

Recent edits to the history section by an unregistered editor who geolocates to Swindon - while well intentioned - are wholly unreferenced. References from reliable published sources should be added, or else all those edits may be reverted. Please read WP:RS and WP:REFB... etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Stroud

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stroud's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Guardian":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stroud&oldid=1210048964"