Talk:Cirencester

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

The name Cirencester[edit]

The discussion on the origins of the name Cirencester has become quite lengthy, certainly too long to remain as part of the main paragraph. In any case it's too detailed to belong in the article summary.

I've combined it with a similar explanation in the 'History' section of the article, corrected a misunderstanding about Cirencester and Ciceter, and put the whole lot in a section of its own. Chris Jefferies 23:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Details of pronunciation and the history of the name seem to me inappropriate in the main paragraph. Wikipedia policy is to keep this paragraph brief and use it to summarise the major facts on the topic. I suggest that people searching for information on Cirencester will first want to know where it is, how large it is, what kind of place it is and perhaps how old it is. All the detail should be in the main part of the article.

I am therefore moving the information on pronunciation to the section on 'The Name of the Town'. Similar information already exists in this section but in a different form. The two will need to be rationalised by somebody with the necessary knowledge.

One more point, I was born and brought up in Cirencester in the 1950s and I never heard the form Ciceter in conversation. Most people abbreviated the name to Ciren, and still do. My understanding is that 'Ciceter' was invented by Shakespeare and was only ever used by some of the more wealthy and educated inhabitants. It was never the standard name of the town. Chris Jefferies 08:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was taught to pronounce the name as 'sisester' (stress on the i) at primary school in around 1964, in the East Midlands: it was on a list of weird spellings (eg Cholmondoley is pronounced 'Chumly') that I guess a lot of kids of that period had to learn. Zosterae (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and History sections[edit]

Although there's a lot on history, there was nothing on the geographical aspects of the town. I've made a start, but this section needs expanding. History on the other hand is almost large enough to become an article in its own right, with just a summary in the main article. We need to keep an eye on this possibility as work continues. Chris Jefferies 01:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Royal Agricultural College[edit]

I took some photographs of this college today. Drop me a note to ask for them when a stub is created. – Kaihsu 16:44, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

A pronunciation note might be useful here. I have no idea how this name would be pronounced, given the general weirdness of pronunciations of English place names ending in "cester". john k 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a bad idea. However, I don't have experience in constructing pronunciation guides. The correct pronunciation is: siren (as the noise on an emergency vehicle or the Greek mythological creatures) and sester (as 'sister', but said with a short 'e')
No it's not, it's /Siren-ster/, /Sis-ter/, /Siss-iss-ter/ or /Siss-itt-er/. And on that point, could the non-locals stop prefacing all but the first pronunciation with "historically". That is very offensive to anyone from the Cirencester area. Unless you consider the natives as non-humans. To be honest, I wouldn't at all be surprised. 91.85.165.30 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo found[edit]

Sadly I know little about pictures and wikipedia. I found this on the german page for cirencester and wondered whether anyone could transfer it to the english version? Jt spratt 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done Traveler100 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation (again)[edit]

The .ogg file at the top of the page uses the "Sister" pronunciation. Given that (as is mentioned lower down) this pronunciation is now fairly unusual, wouldn't it be better to put the "Siren-sester" version up there, simply on the grounds that it is much more common. If "Siren-sester" were actually wrong like, say, "Nor-witch" then I'd feel differently, but since it isn't... 86.132.141.139 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it pronounced 'sister'. It's always pronounced 'siren-cester' and, as the article says, most local people refer to the town as 'Siren'. I propose that the ogg file should be removed, as this pronounciation is so archaic that it is misleading. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I was about to implement this, but now I'm unsure about a few things:
  • when you say "Siren-sester" you mean like a police siren, and jester, right?
  • is there just a traditional "sister" pronunciation -- or also "sissitter", "sizzitter" and maybe even "sinster"?

75.36.154.55 (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)me[reply]

Sadly the IPA pronunciation mostly looks like a load of squares. 91.84.98.154 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, me again -- after some prowling Google I removed the .ogg and put in IPA for "sissitter" and "sigh-ren-sester". I'm ignoring the other possible local pronunciations and just hoping no one's ever said "sigh-sitter"!

75.36.154.55 (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)me[reply]

As I said a year ago I've never heard the pronunciation 'sisiter' and I have yet to meet anyone who has, so I've removed it. If anyone can find a reference to the contrary please reinsert it. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciation doesn't depend on what you or anyone else has personally heard. Even the most basic web search will reveal many references with the other pronuncations. 82.152.214.154 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirencester and the Phoenix[edit]

Cirencester has a close association with the Phoenix bird of fire, the symbol has been used since the 17th century and as such many roads, business, clubs, and even a surgery have used Phoenix as part of there name.

The Phoenix is even a symbol on the mayor's Chain.

--PhoenixDriving 18:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable people[edit]

Could somebody clarify what relationship these people have with Cirencester? Were they born there, do they live there, or is there some other connection? --Ef80 (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cirencester Wrestling Federation[edit]

I have re-removed this section of the page as it had no citations, appears to be non notable, the sentences do not start with capitals, etc etc.

I removed it before but it was re-added with the edit Summary "Keep removing and legal action will be taken".

―JuPitEer (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cirencester. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cirencester. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cirencester. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus service[edit]

User:Garuda3 has added excessive detail about a bus route that may be of interest to a bus spotter but is superfluous to the general reader. He is attempting to start an edit war, complaining that the information should go here as there is nowhere else to put it. Other views invited. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have detailed information on roads, railways, and airports (none of which are particularly close). You can argue this is only relevant to train spotters, aviation enthusiasts etc. Bus services provide vital services to people across the country (iirc more people use buses than use trains) and should be included. Garuda3 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your additions doesn't actually say anything, it appears the service is still running and the general reader is not interested in which depot it runs from (I assume that is what the red link refers to). As to other sections, WP:otherstuffexists is not a justification to keep adding irrelevancies. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think roads and railways are irrelevancies? Garuda3 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:otherstuffexists is not a justification to keep adding irrelevancies this implies you feel the rest of the transport section is irrelevant to the article? Is that the case?
If it isn't, then why is road content, airport content, and rail content allowed but not bus content? That feels to me like IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say bus content wasn't allowed. I repeat: Your additions doesn't actually say anything, it appears the service is still running and the general reader is not interested in which depot it runs from (I assume that is what the red link refers to). Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment makes no sense. How can you conclude that Route number 58 is a circular bus route that operates hourly within Cirencester, connecting the town centre and Stratton. The route was created in 2019 as a replacement for withdrawn 51A journeys. In October 2022, it was announced that the route would be withdrawn on 28 November 2022 as part of wider timetable changes by its operator, Stagecoach West. However, on 21 November 2022, it was announced that the route would instead transfer to Cotswold Green. is not saying anything? Your point about excessive detail is flawed as said bus content is no longer than the road or rail content already on the article. Garuda3 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake, the bus service is still running, If you want to add it's operated by CG, fine. All the background detail is not relevant to an article about the town. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've restored a shortened mention of the bus route to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The operator of a bus route changing is as notable as any other local business changing hands, i.e. it isn't. Nukerstt (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, Notability is on a per-article basis and does not concern the contents within articles. You are misunderstanding our guidelines. Garuda3 (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is a policy on whether s subject matter is noteworthy enough for an article, nothing to do with a section of text. I.e. is the bus route notable for its own article, clearly the view of the community is not. Adding the text to this article is aeemingly a determination on your part to include it somewhere within Wikipedia, even though most editors disagree. Perhaps it you made yourself more familiar with WP:N, you would not write articles about non-notable subjects and then find yourself in regular conflict with other editors in AfDs. Nukerstt (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've never even participated in an AfD before or written an article yourself so you can cut out the suggestions. I will quote from WP:N this time: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. Garuda3 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49 in this comment you said to go ahead and add the content back. Please explain your rationale behind reverting me now. Bus routes are not "trivia" any more than railway stations or airports. Garuda3 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I said then, I didn't say add all the trivial details. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted everything that I added. If you want to add it's operated by CG, fine. okay, I will add this back in. Garuda3 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was already there in the first para, you merely, yet again, added the excessive trivia you've been told by two different editors is not suited to the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are moving the goal posts. In your previous comment (which I already quoted above) you were okay with this content. Why are you so insistent on removing other people's work? "Excessive trivia" is your opinion and ignores that many folks rely on bus services. To them, the numbers of roads leading out of Cirencester (content you don't appear to have a problem with) is likely irrelevant. Garuda3 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, details of a bus route are trivial and not required. Nukerstt (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Wikipedia at all is "not required" - this is a nonsense reason. What is trivial is subjective and plays down the importance of bus routes to many. Garuda3 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SovalValtos: can you please explain why you feel a bus route serving the town is less relevant than an airport sixty miles away, or railway stations that are now closed? Garuda3 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Garuda3 your assumption about my feelings is unjustified.SovalValtos (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of the content doesn't make sense when we have similar content on other transport modes. Thats what I'm trying to say. You haven't put forward a good reason for removing the info on the bus route. Garuda3 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no support for Garuda3 in over two weeks. I consider this topic is now worked out.SovalValtos (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the reasoning above is valid. There is a key misunderstanding of WP:N, which does not dictate article contents. Wikipedia works on policy and guideline based arguments, not the quantity of opinions. You still haven't put forward a valid reason either. Garuda3 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a case of me refusing to engage in discussion, more that like seemingly all other editors who have expressed an opinion, I felt the discussion had run its course. You are within your rights not to like it, but after a couple of weeks there is a clear consensus to not include the disputed text. You can badger editors as much as you like, but it is unlikely to result in them changing their opinion. It would be in everyone's best interest (including yours) if you channelled your energies on more productive activities to improve Wikipedia rather than flogging this dead horse. Nukerstt (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cirencester&oldid=1206700553"