Talk:Trafford Park

User:Anthony Appleyard recently removed the {{Prose}} tag from this article's History section, on the grounds that a list is clearer.

I very strongly disagree with that judgement, which also flies in the face of WP:MOS. So I have reverted the tag. I hope that Anthony Appleyard will now engage in a discussion on this subject, instead of a revert war. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I must agree here. Not (just) with Malleus Fatuarum, but more fundamentally, the style guide policy of wikipedia. List's are generally not a good approach to compendic writing and are heavily frowned upon by the wider editting community for many reasons. What's further striking to me, is that this particular section on this particular article is one of those parts of this encyclopedia that would least benefit from a list approach, regardless.

What I must insist here is that Anthony Appleyard either leaves the tag in place, converts the list to prose or attempt to change the convention itself, rather than remove this important maintainence tag. Jza84 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As written, the article, citing Canal Archive appeared to state that the Fourth Baronet de Trafford had been the landowner who strongly opposed the ship canal in the early 1880s. In fact, Sir Humphrey de Trafford, the Second Baronet was the landowner at this time. He died in 1886, and his son Sir Humphrey Francis de Trafford, was more positive towards the canal. Therefore I have removed the text mentioning the "4th Sir Humphrey de Trafford". Rupert Clayton 18:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know if Nicholls (pp. xii) explicitly states that Trafford Park is the "first planned industrial estate in the world"? Are there any other qualifiers? I'm just wondering what Broadheath is (started in 1885, about 12 years before Trafford Park). Does it qualify as an industrial estate or does it count as unplanned? Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting question about Broadheath. The statement on page xiii is actually a foreword written by Trafford Park Development Corporation, which says: "The emergence of Trafford Park in 1896 gave the world its first and largest industrial park".

What Nicholls himself says, on page 167 is: "Undoubtedly, it is hailed as Britain's, if not the world's, first industrial estate". So maybe it comes down to what qualifies as as "industrial estate"? Obviously there was no development at all in Trafford Park before 1896, but wasn't there some pre-existing occupation of Broadheath before the first industry arrived? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might be right, there was some prior occupation of Broadheath. It looks like it all boils down to what's meant by a "planned industrial estate". Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Slough Trading Estate is making simillar claims to this article. I've raised it at that article's talk page (but it seems seldom visited mind). Looks like it is that article that is lacking verifiability. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Slough's claim doesn't stand up at all, and as you say, it's completely unreferenced. Nev1 has a case for Broadheath, but I think that we're talking about purpose-built industrial parks, not places where there was already some occupation and industry was introduced.

BTW, if you're seriously considering taking up that offer of an admin nomination I've seen on your talk page then posting anything potentially controversial, anywhere, is a big no-no. Think beige, think bland. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying, but when I mix the colours in my mind, I get blood red for some reason... not even off white! Perhaps an omen?... I've probably busted my chances by even stating this!... oh no! On a more serious note though, the Slough claim doesn't stand up at all no. I found it by chance, so there could be others elsewhere in the UK and abroad. I would urge very tight and reliable citation for us here to keep us on our project's successful track! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, we've produced references supporting the fact that Trafford Park started development in 1896. There's no doubt that those references are reliable. Nev1 has suggested a potential counterclaim, that Broadheath was the world's first, in 1885. Again, supported by some evidence, but a claim that I'd reject because the site was already developed, albeit it not for industry. It's down to any other upstarts to provide evidence to back their own claims up I think. Ours are fully documented. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There’s another one: Nela Park in the US (“first industrial park in the world”, unreferenced). If no one else can provide a decent reference Trafford Park looks like the best bet. Even then, only Broadheath is older. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's stretching credibility beyond reasonable limits to claim that a park in which one company plonked itself, with no others, is an industrial park. To say nothing of the fact that construction didn't begin until 1911. I wonder how many other articles ther are making the same claim? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can verify the information about Metrovicks, AV Roe and Rolls Royce is taken from official websites:

• http://www.artistopia.com/stretford/biography
• http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/manchester/local/TRA27952.html

and the hit Old Trafford with the crater in the lawn is here:

• http://www.geocities.com/larwilson2001/manchester_blitz.htm

Michael Palomino (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the links. If you have the sources don't be afraid to integrate them into the article yourself. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It might be worth pointing out though that the aristopia article is a mirror of wikipedia's Stretford article, most of which I wrote. So hardly "official". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would the Trafford Park Hotel be a suitable lead image? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. The article already uses a picture of the hotel; I'll give it some thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was just a suggestion. I wasn't sure how major a landmark it was, though it's a pretty building. Still on a quest to get more static images in these GM infoboxes. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Trafford Park is massive, and the hotel is hidden down a side street by The Village. But don't worry, I'll think of something. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've read over the article and it looks in good shape, I've got a few points but I think that apart from the 'decline' section it's already GA standard.

• A very minor MOS point: dashes are inconsistently used with figures, eg: 8-acre (3.2 ha) and 80 acres (32.4 ha). Since you're using conversion templates, I'm not sure what's causing this.
  • When "8 acre", for instance, is used as an adjective, as in "an 8-acre field", MoS says that it should be hyphenated.
• Should hives and safes be capitalised?
  • I'm not certain about that. Certainly they're capitalised in Nicholls' book, so I'm inclined to say probably they should be capitalised, although I agree it does perhaps look a bit odd.
• May as well merge the two paragraphs under 'Second World War'.
  • Done.
• It's mentioned twice that Ford made Rolls-Royce engines under licence, perhaps not necessary to repeat it.
  • Done.
• It would be worth mentioning which ward Trafford Park is in under 'political representation'.
  • Done.
• In the 'geography' section would it be worth mentioning the surrounding settlements?
  • Good idea. Done.
• "..known locally simply as the Village", use quotation marks around 'the village'? Also, should village really be capitalised later on in the same section?
  • Bit like the Hives and Safes really. Certainly "Village" is capitalised on local road signs, and also in Nicholls' book.
• I've briefly mentioned the Trafford Park Euroterminal rail freight terminal in the 'transport' section. It might be work talking a bit about the Manchester Ship Canal here, however briefly, although it is well covered earlier on.

I don't have a book on Trafford Park, but there are sections in some books I have that I'll look through to see if they can be useful.

Thanks for the help and the suggestions. I'll see what I can do about the rest later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, if Nicholls capitalises the terms that's fair enough, but it may come up if this ever goes to FAC. Nev1 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've made these changes adding a bit on the importance of TP to Manchester and its decline. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's good stuff. All I think we're missing now before a GAN is a bit about the park's regeneration? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and to expand the lead a bit as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is this strictly correct - "Neither the deer park nor the ancestral home of the de Trafford family, Trafford Hall, survived the estate's 20th-century industrialisation." since Trafford Hall was demolished as as result of bomb damage, and not as a result of industrialisation. I have my 'extremely picky hat' on. Also, Cornbrook station - the wiki article for the metrolink station includes a paragraph about the old station, which apparently closed in 1865 - so is it correct to state that the connection to the rest of the network was made via this station? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I suppose you have a point, I'll rephrase that bit about 20th-century industrialisation. So far as Cornbrook Station is concerned, I've checked the source and what it actually says is that the parks railway system linked to the MSJ & AR near Cornbrook, so I'll change that. I'm going to blame Nev1 for that one. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article has undergone a GA review and passed. -epicAdam (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the geography section it says "Chat Moss in nearby Salford, also owned by the Trafford family". Should that be the "de Trafford" family? Richerman (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

IIRC they changed their name a few times, from de Trafford to Trafford and back to de Trafford again, so Trafford might well be right for the 18th century. I'll double check what the source calls them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It calls them de Trafford. Dang, you're right! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am posting this here because I don't know where else to put it. It's about the Metropolitan Vickers entry but the discussion page there has no room for anything.

The MetroVickers article describes how the company grew out of Westinghouse but does not mention any connection with Trafford Park until the bombing of the factory in 1940. Then it obliquely mentions the West Mosley Road site, and only then does Trafford Park come up at all. Compare this with all the other British WWII aircraft manufacturers, or large manufacturing plants in general, where the location is firmly established at the beginning.Brianhep (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're right, that's a very strange omission from that article. The History section is rather poor generally. Needs to be sorted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately reference 2 is a dead link. A short piece on the masterplan is here which is ok for the first two references, but the plan itself seems to have gone. Richerman (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Is this photo any good to the article? Perhaps as the static image? It's grey, it's cold, it's bleak but a good reflection of the landscape none-the-less. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The top half of the image could be cropped, at the moment it rather dominates and draws the eye, perhaps tweak the colours on photoshop to make it look a little less grey. I think it could go in the geography section, if not the infobox. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bit of retouching produced the thumb in the top right. Any good for the article? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking good. It's more representative of the area than the current static image, so should probably go in the infobox, but could we use the other image elsewhere? Nev1 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep, looks good for the infobox to me as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

One thing I noticed is that no size is given for the pre-industrialised estate. I have an 1899 source that states that in 1896 1,183 acres adjoined the MAnchester Docks, fronting to the ship canal for about 3 miles. Does that sound about right? I know I've seen an image of Trafford Hall somewhere, maybe on Trafford Council's archive. I bet there's a map of the old estate also, floating around somewhere. Parrot of Doom 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That sounds exactly right; 1,183 acres is what the 1896 sales particulars say as well. Malleus Fatuorum 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've got an 1896 photograph of Trafford Hall in Nicholls book, but no publication date unfortunately. What would be good to add is a plan of the estate as it was developing. I've got one issued by Trafford Park Estates in 1906 which would be useful, but it's printed across two pages of a book so is practically impossible to scan. Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a picture of Trafford Hall here that we might be able to knock up a plausible licence for, although after all the faffing around with images on Belle Vue I'm not sure. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok I'll add the acreage. Trafford Lifetimes has a few images and sketches of the hall, and one or two sketches of the park pre-industrialisation. No dates but I'm a purple kipper if they're not out of copyright. Scan the estate map at high resolution and email it to me. I'll join it together. Another minor issue is "In 1967, employment had fallen to 50,000" - but the previous section says that employment rose from 50,000 at the outbreak of war. Perhaps this decline was natural, once war ended? Parrot of Doom 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"As of 2008, almost all of the park is in the Trafford ward of Gorse Hill, except for a small area to the west, which is part of Davyhulme East" - that statement appears to be at odds with this map. If Trafford Park is an island bordered by the two canals, then anything outside those canals is surely not in Trafford Park? For instance I thought that the Trafford Centre, Asda and B&Q were outside Trafford Park? Parrot of Doom 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it's at odds with that map or not, as I can't see the canals on it. I'm also not sure what map I was looking at when I wrote that, so probably needs to be checked again. Certainly the definition of Trafford Park that I've been using is the area bounded by the Bridgewater Canal and the ship canal, so I wouldn't consider the Trafford Centre to be in Trafford Park, and I don't think anyone else would either; it's in Dumplington as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re the estate map, the problem is that there's going to be a gap in the middle where the book's stitched together. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The boundary map on the link above follows the line of the ship canal to the north. The eastern boundary of Davyhulme East aligns with the Bridgewater, and then Peel Way. Gorse Hill is to the east of both. I think B&Q is in Davyhulme East, but once past the canal all bets are off.

For the scan, don't worry about the gap, I can sort that. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just uploaded an article here which includes a drawing of Trafford Hall and Old trafford hall. I don't seem to have included the year when I saved it originally, but it's definitely pre-1900 (as the archive finishes in 1900) and I'm sure it's sometime in the the 1890's. It's all out of copyright anyway. The drawing or the article may be of interest.

The date is on the name of the file at http://groups.google.com/group/gmwp/files?upload=1 and the year at the top of the article looks like 1893 0r 5 Richerman (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interesting stuff. That must have been published in 1895, as it talks about the first (abortive) attempt to sell the park coming up "shortly". Looks like there's some good stuff there that might help with this sad offering. Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

(ec)I'd forgotten I'd saved that one when I worked at Salford Uni. Unfortunately since I've retired (you see you're not the only old git on WP after all!) my user name and Athens access has expired and I can't get into the British Library newspaper archives any more. I do have plans to try and get access again though as it's a wonderful resource. Richerman (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know where I got the idea from that part of Trafford Park was in Davyhulme East, as that's clearly complete bollocks. I've just checked Gorse Hill's ward profile, which starts off with "Gorse Hill is the northern most Ward in Trafford. It is the third largest Ward in area size, and contains the Trafford Park Industrial estate", so that pretty clear. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a Trafford Retail Park outside J10 of the M60, that's in Davyhulme. Maybe too many late nights :) Parrot of Doom 17:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's quite possible, or maybe I just dreamt the whole thing about having checked on a map, or maybe the ward boundaries have changed since I wrote that bit. Anyway, I'm going up to the Lakes for the weekend so won't be around until probably Sunday evening at the earliest. I was thinking of FAC some time early next week? Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It all looks pretty good to me, bar the odd thing which I pointed out (and which you've already corrected). I do wonder if mention should be made of the Mersey and Irwell Navigation, since that predated the Ship Canal? Parrot of Doom 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven't found any indication that the Mersey and Irwell Navigation had any impact on the park, and it doesn't seem to have seen all that much traffic anyway. No objection to something being added if I'm wrong though. Some of these (de) Traffords are quite interesting, like the 15th-century alchemist Edmund Trafford, who was granted a licence by King Henry VI to transform base metals into gold that would be used to pay off the king's debts. He also married his wife, Alice, when she was 11 years old. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the sources to hand but I was wondering if any locks were adjacent to the Trafford Park estate. Perhaps a road from the Hall down to the navigation, that kind of thing, for deliveries etc. Parrot of Doom 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

[1] I'm not sure what to do with this so I'll just put it here. Parrot of Doom 15:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It might be worth a sentence somewhere, but I'm at a loss as to what a Business Neighbourhood Area actually is and what the implications are and suppose many of our readers may be in a similar situation. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trafford Park. 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/20120308083646/http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/DocMan2Document.asp?document_id=DD1FBEE9-38F4-4024-B10C-C0515C48C2C4 to http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/DocMan2Document.asp?document_id=DD1FBEE9-38F4-4024-B10C-C0515C48C2C4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805132532/http://www.northwest.groundwork.org.uk/manchester-salford-stockport/our-services/trafford-ecology-park.aspx to http://www.northwest.groundwork.org.uk/manchester-salford-stockport/our-services/trafford-ecology-park.aspx

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) 20:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The image linked on the right of the Trafford Park village section is incorrectly identified as 'Eleventh Avenue'. There is no Eleventh Avenue there never was. There is however an Eleventh Street, and from looking at an old aerial photograph^[1][2] taken by the RAF I believe it is looking east from a point just east of Third Avenue.

Madengineer84 (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe you're right, so I've altered the image caption. Eric Corbett 20:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trafford Park. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.trafford.gov.uk/content/tca/display_image.asp?ImageID=1416
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021007194649/http://www.mangc.co.uk/history.htm to http://www.mangc.co.uk/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930153657/http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/DocMan2Document.asp?document_id=181B1502-8B02-4FCB-A49F-BD2467F098F0 to http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/DocMan2Document.asp?document_id=181B1502-8B02-4FCB-A49F-BD2467F098F0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813035530/http://www.cube.org.uk/thecity/archisnap_detail.asp?id=84 to http://www.cube.org.uk/thecity/archisnap_detail.asp?id=84
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.thisischeshire.co.uk/2007/1/12/283162.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://traffordparkrailway.fotopic.net/c1470492.html

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) 02:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trafford Park. 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/20131203221337/http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/Documents/PDFMaps/Met-FUTURE-PS-GEO.pdf to http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/Documents/PDFMaps/Met-FUTURE-PS-GEO.pdf

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) 02:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the featured article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• The lead, at six paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at WP:LEADLENGTH
• There are several uncited sentences and paragraphs.
• MOS:CURRENCY concerns in the "Current and future transport" section
• "Political representation" needs to be updated.
• The article's history section stops at 2008. Are there any recent events that should be added?

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply