Talk:Worcestershire

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

Comment[edit]

Pronunciation[edit]

I have changed the phonetic pronunciation from 'wustashur' and 'wustasheer' to the examples shown, as I feel they are more clear.

Though "wusta" in the British English spoken in the county would surely rhyme with "[General] Custer" - and I've never heard that!
Changed the phonetic spelling again and added the OED format.--Shastrix 22:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After looking at the Worcester page, I have converted the pronunciation into IPA --Shastrix 6 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)
The IPA transcription features post-vocalic /r/, which is absent in British English. On that same note, the diphthongs are badly transcribed, too—it should read /iə/, not /iər/.
Cambridge & Oxford Dictionary of English omit the /r/——including non-rhotic RP /r/——in the second syllable, e.g. Cambridge "/ˈwʊs.tə.ʃər/". The OGG file is unclear as the syllable is unstressed, but I hear /ə/ not /ər/. American dictionaries omit the /r/ in the middle syllable in some cases or give /ˈwʊs.tə.ʃər/ as an alternative in others; but the word is after all British. I'm going to change the IPA to match the OGG file & British dictionaries. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Places[edit]

Not certain where to put this comment, but here seems reasonable as I'm primarily thinking of Worcestershire: there's an inconsistency with the "List of places in X" articles as to whether they refer to the ceremonial county or the modern administrative one. For example, Stourbridge is included in the list of places in Worcestershire, and Telford in the list of places in Shropshire - but Wolverhampton is not included in the list of places in Staffordshire, which historically it is part of. Which is right? Loganberry 00:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stourbridge shouldn't be on the list as it is now in the West Midlands (unless there is a 'places formerly within' section or something). However Telford is OK as it is still ceremonially part of Shropshire if not administratively. Wolverhampton is also part of the West Midlands. G-Man 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


wtf is going on with the malvern (home of the morgan sports car) thing. lets be honest morgan coming from worcestershire is not first paragraph stuff.seems like advertising to me. -jg.

Has been moved at some point from lead to body, subhead Industry and agriculture  Done

Userbox[edit]

This user lives in Worcestershire.

Just to let you know there's now the {{user Worcestershire}} userbox which you can add to your userpage and which will automatically add you to Category:Wikipedians in Worcestershire. --Daduzi talk 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Alternate Userbox[edit]

This user is from Worcestershire.

The userbox {{user from Worcestershire}} has been created for Wikipedians who were born in Worcestershire. Its related category is Category:Wikipedians from Worcestershire. Chaz6 (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brummie Twang?[edit]

"The north such as Kidderminster, Bromsgrove and Redditch consists of a Brummie twang"

As someone who has lived in Bromsgrove for most of his life this doesn't seem quite right, Redditch and Kidderminster it seems fairly accurate for but not Bromsgrove. I'm not sure how you'd describe the Bromsgrove accent, but I most certainly wouldn't describe as being like the Brummie accent.

The unsigned comment above draws attention to the problems of speech accents. I agree that the whole sentence is probably inaccurate. Kidderminster's accent has far more in common with the Black Country towns of Stourbridge, Dudley, Halesowen and the communities of Gornal, Lower Gornal, Blackheath and Cradley Heath with whom it had trading links for over two centuries. Redditch's accent may well have a similarity to that of Birmingham because it was a post-war "New Town" deliberatly rehousing the war damaged housing of its near neighbour Birmingham. However, I have not listened closely to the accents of those residents who were living there before the "New Town" was created.DonBarton 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that a very detailed description of the accents is not necessary within the scope of the entry for the county. Such detail would be probably more appropriate in an article on Accents of England. I have added the mention of The Archers, not only because of the accent used, but also for its notability as the world's oldest radio soap, and being set somewhere in or near the area of our county that has an accent closely resembling it. --Kudpung (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July, 2007 flooding incident[edit]

Where is it being detailed? [1] Anchoress 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png[edit]

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School performance[edit]

Is the school performance table appropriate here? It relates to a single year and no information is given about the current data. Chaz6 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation please?[edit]

The West Midlands County Council existed for only a short period before abolition in April 1986 by the Government, though legally the county still exists to this day.

The first part is unstartling, but the second is completely unmentioned in the West Midlands County Council article, so if it's to stay here it needs a solid reference. Loganberry (Talk) 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County History[edit]

I have split this into sections (according to Wiki recommendations) for easier reading and editing. However, although all the points are important and relevant, the article needs rewriting with all the historical sequence being put into as near chronological order as possible in their relative sections. At present, it darts back and forth and is not very easy to follow. --Kudpung (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio[edit]

The the mammoth article on radio completely dominates the Worcs article, is long without any subsections, contains far too much detail for a single subject for a county article, probably 99% of it belongs either in an article of its own or as a sub-page of radio in Britain or something similar.--Kudpung (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, and actually I'd say that wherever it ends up (perhaps Broadcasting in Worcestershire or something?) there's too much detail, full stop. Given that, for example, Wyvern FM already exists, the fine details about its ownership and history surely belong there, not in a general article at all. There's considerable overlink in the section as well. Radio is not my field, but I'd certainly be happy if someone who did know what they were talking about made the changes Kudpung suggests. Loganberry (Talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tried to cut it down. I've been pretty brutal, but the information is, of course, still available in the history. Would someone read over the sectiion and check it still makes sense? I can't see it any more. GyroMagician (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work Gyro :) - I've even hacked a bit more out and copyedited it. Loganberry, thanks for your support in motivating these actions. --Kudpung (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's nearly there. I think we should be able to reduce that last paragraph a bit more, but I can't really find the words tonight - I'll try again later if you don't get there first ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Worcestershire (pre-proposal)[edit]

Several English counties have started projects in order to clean up and apply a code of standards for all the stubs and articles about the cities, towns, and villages in their county, (and in our case within the category Villages in Worcestershire), and to invite more contributors to complete the infoboxes, extend the information, and add formal references and images.

According to Wiki guidelines, before a proposal for the creation of a WikiProject is made, the proposing editor should gather a minimum of 5 registered Wiki users who are in favour of the idea. You only need to be in favour - you do not need to be an active Wiki editor/contributor.
The place to add your name is here:User:Kudpung/project Worcestershire.

Count me in GyroMagician (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and me, but it will be a mouth before I will have much time Iccaldwell (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

Now that all the settlement articles have been rated and put on 'to do' lists on the project page, probably a serious look at this Worcestershire page is now required because it really ought to be the project's flagship article. Apart for a great many minor edits, there has been a full two-year hiatus until Gyro and one or two others started taking an interest in it in April. Most of the information is in the article, but it needs a massive restructuring and prose rewrite, and has no formal references or sources. There iprobably won't be any objections from previous contributors as Gyro and Iccaldwell were the only editors to respond to to the dozens of editors who were contacted. Maybe a good starting point would be to organise the available material around the schema Giro made on his user page for the malvern article, and then clean up section by section. It might be an idea to archive this talk page to start here (but this action needs a consensus). --Kudpung (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icon issues[edit]

I have reverted the placing of an icon issues banner by User talk:86.42.78.36. After referring back to MOS I have been unable to identify any specific problems with the icons on the page. I have asked the editor to provide further details. Apologies all round if I may have acted in error. --Kudpung (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They places of interest on this article is the only article I've seen that uses a legend like here. A table with a description would be better 86.42.78.36 (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for icon removal
Place of interest Type of attraction Description English Heritage site
Croome Court No
Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings Non free museum No
Walton Hill and the Clent Hills Accessible open space No
Witley Court at Great Witley Historic house A burnt-out shell of a large English stately home, famous for its gigantic fountain, now restored to working order. Currently run by English Heritage. Yes

86.42.78.36 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above example by user 86.42.78.36 was originally transferred from my talk page by me and reverted/replaced by user 86.42.78.36 (see history) --Kudpung (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not! Its ugly and it adds absolutely nothing to the article apart from taking up more space! Jeni (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's ugly isn't much of an agreement while. Ease of reading is, Ease of sorting is. As is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired and Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION and it only uses more space if POI are ever listed in 2 columns which I've not seen 86.42.78.36 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to write the section in prose rather than a table. A sortable table might not actually be that helpful, for example there are many types of attractions and being able to sort that column wouldn't serve much purpose. The information you suggest including in the table would be just as good written as prose. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree moving this to prose would be the best solution. 86.42.78.36 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate aim should be to get this article to Featured status, and so it's a good idea to look at other Featured Articles to see how they deal with such sections. Places of interest is a bit touristy and could be replaced with a more neutral title such as landmarks. On appearances, Somerset (FA) seems to have merged the section with culture. The key and icons are used in several (usually under-developed) articles, however Greater Manchester (FA) does not. It seems the best way to approach a landmarks section is in the form of prose and without the icons. The icons provide a little more info for a bare list, but once the section is expanded, they become superfluous. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The icons and the legend used in the article is commonly used in other articles about places in England as well. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:EngPlacesKey. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Please see the preceding comments by Nev1 - it would be interesting to know how many of those articles a re GA or FA status. I've had a look at one or two of them and some indeed look quite messy.--Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern Fringe Festival[edit]

Currently the article says "Malvern is the home of the Malvern Fringe Festival, one of the oldest festivals of its kind in the world". The reference is to Wikipedia's own article on fringe festivals, and unfortunately doesn't count as a reliable source. Does anyone have something better to back up the claim? Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Wikipeida's own Fringe theatre page gives Brighton starting in 1967 and Edinburgh Fringe as founded in 1947 - and that's only the UK. I always though 1977 sounded a bit late for a first fringe festival, but never checked. It sounds like we should remove the claim. GyroMagician (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Worcestershire County Boundaries[edit]

Hi

Just to let you know that I (with contributions from others) have been working on an article known as Evolution of Worcestershire County Boundaries, which could help clear up the 'Local Government' section on the Worcestershire page. Maybe some parts of the Worcestershire page dealing with historical boundary changes to the Local Government structures can be deleted in favour of a brief overview and concentration on the present local government structures of the county.

This page is already linked from the Worcestershire page.

Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries

Bellow558 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Worcester"[edit]

The usage of Worcester is under discussion, see Talk:Worcester. Found5dollar (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on whether Worcester should become a disambiguation page has reopened. Please visit Talk:Worcester#Requested_move to add to the discussion.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce[edit]

I find it odd that Worcestershire Sauce is only mentioned toward the end of the page. The sauce is the only reason most people have heard of this place. 74.58.46.152 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more people have heard of it than Rockland, Ontarion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From an encyclopedic point of view, Worcestershire sauce is merely a product that originated here. It would be different if this were a promotion for the area.
What I am interested in is opinions on the actual size of the Worcestershire sauce image. If no one objects, I would like to reduce its size to reduce its impact on the entire article.     — BoringJim (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Worcestershire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 00:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

I think the weakest section of this page is the history section. I have been expanding History of Worcestershire so some of that could move here. However I am not sure what the best balance between the two is. I think the Wikipedia advice is that the 'lead' section should be the basis of the crossover? Some time to think, as the history page is not yet complete. Jim Killock (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to guidelines on UK counties[edit]

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion taking place here [2]. All comments are welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation -r?[edit]

I see discussions in the past and old attempts to change it, so I can't follow why all the pronunciations we are giving insist there is an r sound at the end? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worcestershire&oldid=1218706269"