Talk:Trafford

Infobox

How do we get an infobox like on Warrington and liverpool? Other districts have them like Oldham (borough). El.Bastardo 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the subjectivity and non-neutrality of this article not being challenged? It makes fatuous reading for someone who actually knows Trafford and the surrounding area.

I apologize if I have commented in the wrong place, via the wrong procedure, or to the wrong people, but seriously, Wikipedia procedures are so far up themselves that really, I don't care. It's nonsense like this gets WP a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulietMasindi (talk • contribs) 07:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of the subjectivity you believe is in the article? --Jza84 |  Talk  09:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA candidate

I am reviewing this article as a "Good Article" candidate. Axl (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This unwieldy sentence from the lead needs to be broken and re-written: "The borough was formed on April 1, 1974 by the Local Government Act 1972 as a merger of the boroughs of Altrincham and Sale, along with Bowdon and Hale urban districts and part of Bucklow Rural District, all previously in Cheshire, along with the borough of Stretford and the urban district of Urmston, both previously in Lancashire." Axl (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I've rewritten it and think it's less clumsy now. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the formation of the borough on 1st April 1974? Axl (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a reference stating it was formed on 1st April 1974, but I can find one saying 1974. Would it be ok to nick the reference used by Local Government Act 1972 which as the date? (from the lead: HMSO. Local Government Act 1972. 1972 c.70) Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's better than nothing. Axl (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the "History" section: "A 100% increase in population in the Trafford area between 1841 and 1861 was a direct result of an influx of commuters due to the construction of the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway: the number of commuters in Trafford grew." A rise in the number of commuters does not inherently increase the population (number of residents). Axl (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that means that people were moving into Trafford to commute from Trafford into Manchester. Probably ought to be rewritten to make it clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, thanks for taking care of it. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the "Economy" section, the 2001 census data could be better represented in a table or chart format. Axl (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've converted some of the text into a table, it was a good idea. One of the pictures may have to be disposed of to make room though, which is a shame. Would it be worth doing a table for industry of employment? (The answer is yes, I'm just a bit lazy, I'll probably do it anyway) It would raise the problem of where to stick the tables. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from "Culture — Places of Interest" (emphasis mine): "Trafford has three of Greater Manchester’s 21 Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Brookheys Covert, a semi-natural wood consisting mainly of ash, birch, and rowan, with a wetland habitat covering 5.8 acres (2.3 ha) in Dunham Massey;[64] Cotteril Clough, an area of woodland that is among the most diverse in Greater Manchester; and Dunham Park, which is an area of 'pasture-woodland or park-woodland' and has been since the Middle Ages, including many oak trees that date back to the 17th century, and covers 192.7 acres (78.0 ha). Also in Trafford are many parks and open spaces; there is about 54.8-square-kilometre (14,000-acre) of greenspace, 51.8% of the total area covered by the borough." The units used for the areas are inconsistent; the first uses "acre" and "ha" while the second uses "square-kilometre" and "acre". The latter areas are more than one unit, hence should be plural. Axl (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tweaked template. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From "Culture — Sport" (again, emphasis mine): "Trafford is the home of four major sports clubs: Manchester United F.C., Lancashire County Cricket Club, Manchester Phoenix, and formerly Sale Sharks." The use of present tense at the beginning of the sentence doesn't fit with "formerly" at the end. Axl (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "is the home of three major clubs ... and formerly Sale Sharks". Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, statistics in the "Religion" section would be better as a table. Axl (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article passed

I am delighted to pass this as a "Good Article". It is comprehensive, nicely illustrated and well-referenced.

For future improvement, there is some redundancy in the "Economy" section: the details in the table are repeated in the text. Also, some of the other statistics could be put into a table. Axl (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All Grade I listed buildings in the south of the borough?

While most undoubtedly are, I wouldn't have said that All Saints in Urmston was in the south, although it is admittedly on the southern bank of the Ship Canal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've rephrased it to be clearer. The transport section is no longer clearly weak, do you think it's worth putting the article forward for FA? Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done for fleshing out the Transport section. I think the article's getting very close, but you know what sticklers the FA reviewers can be. I'd suggest leaving it for a day or two and coming back to it with fresh eyes, hopefully then being able to spot at least some of the things that will come up at FAC, and head them off at the pass. That'll give others a chance to help with a final pre-FAC polish as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In Greater Manchester? England?

In the lead, (last paragraph), we have "Apart from the City of Manchester, Trafford is the only borough to be above the national average for weekly income". Do we mean the only borough in Greater Manchester? In North West England? England? England and Wales? or the United Kingdom?

I find it hard to believe this means "nationally", but I'm unsure. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, it's supposed to specify in Greater Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

In case we need any adding or swapping, we have some good free-to-use snaps at Flickr, for Trafford specifically. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Turnpike roads

A few roads through Trafford apparently were turnpiked in the 18th century. Between Stretford and Manchester (1751), Hulme and Stretford (1800), Barton Bridge and Stretford (1811), and another between 'Altringham' and 'Crossford Bridge' - latterly, Washway Road through Sale. They're listed here, unfortunately I know not yet of a better source. Worth consideration for this article though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Class

In the section on Demography, someone seems to have inserted some remarkably precise, as opposed to accurate, statistics on "class". Since class definitions are ill-defined and to the best of my knowledge are not included in census questions or figures, I wonder how these figures were obtained. Poshseagull (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sport

should there not be some mention of sale harriers in the sporr section Jamboted (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC) jamboted

Sale Harriers is actually based in Wythenshawe, which is in Manchester, not Trafford. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sale Sharks are mentioned and there based in Stockport; as the Harriers were founded in Trafford, I think it would be worth a mention. Nev1 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's odd in the intro to the sports section that it talks about about three teams and then names four. Sale Sharks, despite their name, play in Stockport, a point already made lower down, where it should be. Also, it is very odd to bracket Manchester United and LCCC with Manchester Phoenix as major sports teams. Old Trafford football and cricket grounds are world famous venues in their respective sports, Altrincham Ice Dome isn't. Again, its mention lower down amongst other minor sports teams in the borough is sufficient.Haldraper (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your message here or I would have replied earlier. Although I appreciate the reasons behind the changes, I'm afraid they haven't improved the article as there are now several stubby paragraphs. Before, the introduction didn't say "world famous" teams (and how famous their ground is is irrelevant), it said major and it was clarified that Sale Sharks were former residents so it was clear that there are now only three major teams resident in the borough. Each of the teams mentioned is in the top echelon of their sport. Although Sale Sharks no longer play in Trafford, it's still relevant to mention them as they still use Heywood Road as a training ground and having retained "Sale" in their name the reader would be left wondering why more about the team from a town in the borough isn't mentioned.

However, I do agree that the section could be restructured on what the reader expects (ie: the two most famous clubs) rather than the teams which were highest in their sport; although I preferred the more egalitarian way of mentioning the most successful teams together, it's probably better for the reader your way. Also, as Sale no longer play in Trafford you're right that they should be mentioned earlier. I've made this change. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

North and South Trafford are not political entities

In the Introductory text the phrases "Labour run North Trafford" and "Conservative run South Trafford" are misleading as these geographical divisions of Trafford are not political entities. Further, in North Trafford 4 out of 9 electoral wards are represented by Conservative councillors.Markem41 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not sure how that crept in there. Nev1 (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Transport - Railways

Quote "The other railways in Trafford are the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Cheshire Lines Committee." - Only the CLC route from Manchester to Liverpool passes through the Trafford area. Stations served are Flixton, Chassen Road, Urmston, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park. The original (Stephenson) Liverpool to Manchester line lies to the north of Trafford and passes through the Salford City Council boundary. Markem41 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:EDITORIAL style of 'working class' in the lead

Surely the style 'working class' is a bit old hat? Low income and mid-to-low income families/a low income, mid-to-low, or middle income population is used in articles in much of the rest of the world. Or do we instead use the social stratification used by divisive, factually incorrect bodies and the kind of journalists who write weighted prose? - Adam37 Talk 20:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Collage

DragonofBatley - setting aside the issue of whether a collage is appropriate, is the caption wording correct? KJP1 (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have read each image correctly although maybe removing from the right is my own error. I will fix that. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

DragonofBatley - There are still two errors in that caption, even after you have corrected the third that you introduced. And there's another in the collage you've done for Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. KJP1 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just fixed the caption here - should have left it perhaps to see whether Dragon could spot the problem. PamD 09:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There's still one left! Who's going to spot/correct it first? KJP1 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed now. Had to go out so hence the late edit. Corrected it to Clockwise from the top; Wigan town centre with All Saints Church, the Leigh-Salford-Manchester Bus Rapid Transit in Tyldesley and Haigh Hall near Aspull. Is that reading correctly? @KJP1 and @PamD? DragonofBatley (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

DragonofBatley - Your caption reads “Trafford Town Hall from Old Trafford Stadium”. But that isn’t where the image was taken from. It was taken from Old Trafford Cricket Ground. The football stadium is behind the Town Hall tower. KJP1 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahh okay, I'll remember to look directly at the photo captions beforehand next time. I will fix that now DragonofBatley (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

I'm looking over this older (2009) FA promotion as part of WP:URFA/2020A. There is significant amounts of uncited text in parts of the article, mainly in the council and sport sections. While the demographic tables have been updated for the 2021 census, the prose for demographics and religion have not (or even for the 2011 census). The education statistics are from 2014; likewise the economic statistics are also old enough (10-15+ years ago) to be of reduced value at this point. There are good bones here, but work is needed for this to continue to meet the FA standards. Hog Farm _Talk 19:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who have participated in other FARs on similar topics recently: @Hog Farm, JacobTheRox, and KJP1:. This article was posted to WP:FARGIVEN and I think it needs some improvements to meet the FA criteria. However, if editors are interested in addressing concerns it then there's no need to post it to WP:FAR yet. Of course, there is no obligation for anyone to work on an article, since we are all volunteers. Is anyone interested in resolving concerns before posting to FAR? Or would an editor like to post this and see if additional editors volunteer to help out? Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Reading the article I'm not sure that it can remain FA without significant overhauling. Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne were both very detailed articles that just needed cleanup, demographic updating, and unreliable citations replacing. However, I will certainly give it a go and see how far I can get without specialist sources (which I could also look for if need be). Unfortunately this wouldn't be until the middle of July at the earliest, but I presume that's okay as FAR normally runs on much longer timespans. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• @JacobTheRox: If editors are willing to work on an article, I try not to post them at FAR. We can keep this on pause and reevaluate in a few weeks. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)