Talk:Derby

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

Miscellaneous[edit]

I've noted that the entry states that Bonnie Prince Charlie stayed at the Bell Inn in Sadler Gate in December 1745. This is incorrect, though possibly some of his men stayed there, as they did at the George Inn (just around the corner on Irongate) and at many of the houses and taverns in the town. The prince, stayed at the large and grand Exeter House on Full Street, which stood on the banks of the Derwent.

Destruction of City Centre - there is an appropriate remark in 2nd edition Pevsner on the clearance of the city centre for the inner ring road and bridges. (roughly 'as a road scheme it is claimed to be a triumph, but as townscape it is a disaster.' )I'll enter it when I find my copy again and check out.Linuxlad 17:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When was the inner ring road built? Not mentioned in the piece. jamesgibbon 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mid 70s I dimly recollect - Pevsner 2nd edition was published in 1978. Bob

I see - thanks. I first moved here (Derby) in 1989, and it was certainly here then! jamesgibbon 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes rather before then (though post-'72 I think, when I effectively left Derby) - the guy who who did the ring road for Derby Borough moved down and did Gloucester Dock for BWB - and was under contract to rejig Sharpness Dock when I first bumped into him in the early 90s. Linuxlad

I see that someone has totally removed all this section as POV - I find that surprising, especially the Pevsner quote, and hope that they will justify. Linuxlad 12:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Derby is fail man theres no culture or anything its all made up. we have 1 church ..all the clubs are sausage fests and about 40% of the population are over weight and the rest are gypsies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.217.10 (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Area against Borough population[edit]

I was wondering why Derby has a bigger Borough population than Urban Area, I have always thought the Urban Area would have extended further than the Borough, i am probably wrong, but would like to know why I am nevertheless. --Wilde89 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Media and railway section[edit]

I have made some small changes to the media section. If anyone objects, feel free to roll them back (I'm new to this :) )

I've also changed the article to reflect the fact that train manufacture continues in the town to some extent.

(1.8.06) The 'Media' section looks to have been changed again recently - BBC Radio Derby, is the BBC local alternative, aimed at the over 50s, broadcasting on 104.5 FM - I wouldn't personally agree with this; I know loads of people under this age who enjoy the features it broadcasts. (I'm 18 myself!)

All BBC local radio services are aimed primarily at the over 55s, although they take audience from across the age spectrum.

I can't vouch for the 55 'cut-off' line, but it is true that local BBC stations are aimed at a mature audience. The only time I'm even aware of a large youth audience paying attention to the broadcast is when the football's on. - Hayter 22:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deaf Community[edit]

I added a section to history on Derby's Deaf community - I'm not sure whetehr this is the best place for it or to start a new section. Derby is nationally famous for its large sign language using community and for as a cultural centre for the Deaf World. It's a big ommisin if it doesn't get a mention somehwere on the page. I could ask permission from Harold Mold whether perhaps a photograph or two from his Book "Derby Deaf" which chronicles Derby's Deaf Community might be used - in which case it might be worth generated a separate linked article with more detail? --Topmark 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

occasionally people erroneously edit this entry to say the Royal School for the Deaf (RSD)in Derby has closed. This due to confusion with the much publicised closure of the "Derby College for Deaf people"after the withdrawal of LSC funding.

RSD remained open and has now taken over residential post 16 prevision for Deaf students in Derby in partnership with Derby College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.80.97 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I don't want to disturb the article without something worthwhile to include but before it is commiited to CD perhaps something could be researched about its function as a trading post, the function of the Roman Garrison, the carriage of lead from Wirksworth and its position relative to Rynield Street.

Also there was once a later castle though it is almost completely forgotten, which would explain the name of Castlefields. I would have expected it to be at the top of what is now Bradshaw Way, but what clues I've gained suggest it was on Cockpit Hill (now completely hidden under the Eagle Centre. see http://homepage.mac.com/philipdavis/English%20sites/769.html

Another item to explore is the origin of the Buck in the Park (also the name of a pub in Friargate) part of the Derby coat of arms and the emblem of Derby before the snail took over. A fine example is those on the spandrels of the Fiargate bridge, though they don't show up very well in the photograph

External link? http://www.derbyshireuk.net/derby/derby_history.html


I think it would be nice to mention Denby pottery within Derby's industry. Also Lara Croft was created in Derby and the actor 'Robert Lindsay' is from Derby—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GumballMod (talk • contribs).

Denby is some way outside Derby so would be more appropriately mentioned in the Derbyshire article. Similarly, Robert Lindsay is from Ilkeston, not Derby.--Michig 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Denby also have a factory of somekind opposite the DRI?
That would be Royal Crown Derby I think. Chevin 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think it would be worthwhile mentioning Denby pottery either. Not meaning to offend, but Denby is not IN Derby, it's IN Denby. Hence the name, DENBY pottery. (Aml96 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Waste Management[edit]

Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


districts[edit]

I think the disrict links could do with a cleanup. Maybe changing to the official wards of the city and removing some unnecessary links Dommccas 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wards[edit]

As above i have put a table on this page with the official wards and all areas contained within it. I'm currently working on Allestree which as a ward contains what was Markeaton Village. It doesn't seem theres a lot of interest in changing derby at the moment. However i was wondering what people would think if i merged markeaton and allestree with a view to having only 17 ward pages with all the information for any area's contained in the ward in the correesponding page. ie have Markeaton in Allestree, Little Chester in Darley Abbey etc. With most of these there should be no problem as the smaller articles such as Heatherton Village really offer no use as a seperate article. But markeaton has a long history and maybe deserves it's own article or a redirect to the right part of the allestree article. i'm going to go ahead and add Markeaton to Allestree. if anyone objects leave a message here or on my talk page User_talk:Dommccas or just change it. It would be good to get a consensus though. Just wondering what people's thoughts were on this.

cheers

14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sign your comments officially please, it's much easier. As for your idea, as a resident of the Allestree I can't see it being a big deal - we can always split it later if enough is gathered for seperate articles Philipwhiuk 23:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

I would dispute the assertion that Derby, along with York, is one of the few places in England to have retained a name of Viking origin. All place names ending in 'by', of which there are many in the East Midlands, are Viking in origin. Ulysses54 07:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and think someone should change it... this article is at the minute full of both unnecessary and incorrect information. --88.106.127.58 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Derby Residents + Random[edit]

John Osbourne (Look Back In Anger, The Entertainer) lived in Derby with his wife... this being the setting of Look Back In Anger. Some the scenes from the film were also film in Derby. James Morrison (Singer) was 'discovered' in Derby if that's of any relevance. hmmmm there is probably plenty of things i've forgotten. I just think even though the city certainly lacks culture, it surely has more than just a football club. Plus there are more venues than just the Victoria Inn and more famous/popular bands having played there than Snow Patrol and The View.


Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a list of who played were. Try to keep it short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamwade (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transport: Bus and Coach section — Red Arrow service description sounds like an advertisement?[edit]

I thought that the way the Red Arrow service is described as "successful" and "operating up to every 15 minutes, and up to early hours at weekends" sounded a little like advertising.

What do we think? Catalina 123 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly advertising, have removed it. Didn't spot this before :O Philipwhiuk 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (moved Philipwhiuk 23:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ever heard of a Derbidian?[edit]

substantiation needed -->If you are from Derby you are refered to as a Derbidian (pronounced "dar-bid-ion") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevin (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Derbeian - never heard of a Derbidian! Regnerps (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of a Derbinian! [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I've tackled some of the un-cited comments with a series of edits, here's hoping I haven't upset anyone. Some of it was plain advertising and some was just badly formatted. Thanks Philipwhiuk 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping and Nightlife[edit]

This section is pretty terrible, the "Many cities have a thriving nightlife, Derby is no exception" bit especially. Also, the entirety of Derby isn't split into Sadler Gate and Westfield. Especially as I'm pretty damned sure that Sadler Gate is just the single street. I'm unsure of how to go about describing Derby properly though. :/ 88.106.6.69 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the article is what would be very useful for me to complete my coursework, it would be good if more could be said about Derby and its shopping scene. Also, should there be a sentence about kebabs in an encyclopedia article about a city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.8.76 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 Derby Facts[edit]

10 Derby Facts

1. England's most central city and with a population of 250,000. 2. Derby is rated number 1 in England for visible exports per capita. 3. Derby is England's fastest growing city (by wealth creation GVA). 4. Home to England's first public park. 5. City centre has a UNESCO World Heritage Site. 6. Home to Toyota - Europe's largest inward investment. 7. The World's leading Aerospace city - Rolls Royce. 8. Derby has more listed buildings than the city of York. 9. Derby has a top 10 rated health service. 10. Derby is the UK's leading Rail Technology city.

http://www.urcs-online.co.uk/companies/company.asp?id=21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.75.26 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fact" number 8- there appear to be 600+ listed buildings in Derby and 2,000+ listed buildings in York. The BBC Derby site states "Architecturally, Derby has more than 600 ‘listed’ buildings of historical or architectural importance and boasts more ghosts than York". York has 140... Ning-ning (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of RR and other places in WW1 & 2[edit]

I added a note to the historical section on the (comparatively light) bombing of Derby, especially Royce's, in WW1 & WW2. I've since come across a little book 'The bombing of Rolls-Royce at Derby in two World Wars' by Kirk, Felix & Bartnik (published by the RR Heritage Trust, 2002). On a quick read, the 'false factory' appears to have been part of a 'Starfish' site, which was in the fields down at Foremark apparently, but is only part of the story. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derbyshire's County Town[edit]

According to the list of county towns Derby is shown as the county town of Derbyshre. The county town is in actual fact Matlock. 87.113.85.90 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)19/02/2008[reply]

pronunciation[edit]

The first attempt to show pronunciation is of no use. Only IPA will serve. I assume that the point of the inadequate transcription is to show that the first vowel is like the vowel in "park" rather than a long schwa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Everything on Wikipedia to do with Derby is just wrong![edit]

I have lived in Derby all my life and now I will point out some things that are SO wrong it is unbelievable.

1. Mackworth Estate has NEVER been called "Little London" so that is wrong.

2. There is not a lively punk atmosphere, the Punx Picnic isn't famous and there is never any adverts for it.

3.WHO IN GODS NAME ARE ANTI PASTI, AND WHAT HITS DID THEY HAVE!?

4. Little Chester? LITTLE CHESTER? No. Never heard it, never been called that, not on any maps apart from Google. Stupid.

5. You can't just walk into Robert Ludlam Theatre. It is in a school, idiots!

6. "The Derby Ram" is never used at Derby County football matches, ever. It is "Steve Bloomer's Watching".

7. Derby, one of the inspirations for Central Park in New York? Sure.

8. How come Model Car collectors wouldn't get a mention, or jewellery collectors, but Keith Hamer, a Test Card Collector, does?

This article needs a serious cleanup. The people who put the information on have likely never been to Derby, just got the information off Google. Clean it up, residents of Derby! Koshoes (talk) Andrew R (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with your sentiments but I am pretty sure that this article has been mostly composed by over enthusiastic Derby residents. The history section is far too long and seemingly namedrops anybody who has ever been to Derby. The lively punk atmosphere is quite a lie... The Victoria Inn is a very small underground scruffy place and, although Derby has little to offer musically compared to larger cities, there are larger/more attractive venues. Some other complaints:

1. Why does Chester Green need a grid reference?

2. How many translations of Anglo-Saxon/Old Norse do we need in order to establish Derby's origins?

3. STOP NAME DROPPING EVERY INDUSTRIALIST/NINETEENTH-CENTURY FIGURE!!!

4. I'm pretty sure every, or nearly every, other settlement in the UK has 'fairtrade status'... it does not make Derby special.

5.'The Revive Healthy Living Centre' is not a 'Landmark'.

6. Saying St. Alkmund's was 'magnificent' with a 'glorius' churchyard is POV and is ridiculusly over-the-top.

7.We do not need to know what airlines serve East Midlands Airport in the 'Derby' page... this should be covered in the East Midlands Airport page where I'm sure it already is.

8.The Casualties, UK Subs and Agnostic Front are not 'big names' these were not even 'big names' back in the day. More importantly in the before the mid-80s Derby hosted many actual 'big names' notably a Smiths gig for The Old Grey Whistle Test in The Assembley Rooms and The Sex Pistols being banned from Derby sparking off their being banned in other cities. (I'm not even sure if I would mention these two things... I just feel that the hardcore punk thing is very overstated).

Thanks Wilde1989


4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.95.214 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments on the above:[edit]

Little Chester is the area around Chester Green, a hamlet which became incorporated into Derby as it expanded. It should be possible to corroborate this. In the meantime I suggest a reference to the website Chester Green - (Little Chester) may be helpful.

I can't believe Koshoes has lived in the city for so long without hearing Derby County F.C. referred to as the Rams or seen their badge or the emblem on the facade of Pride Park Stadium. Chevin (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People[edit]

I have been attempting (without much success so far) to remove some people from the "Notable People" list who are not actually from Derby, but have a variety of increasingly tenuous connections to it. This has been discussed a little on my talk page, but I wanted to see if we can broaden the debate a little. I would contend for example that Florence Nightingale should not be included, as the only real connection is her home at Lea Hurst near Cromford, visibly not part of Derby. There are others on the list who are not really from Derby at all and have no real connection with it, or even the County of Derbyshire, other than the most tenuous, such as Henry Cavendish, whose relatives chose to bury him in Derby but had no other connection and Erasmus Darwin, who was born in Notts and lived in Lichfield. At the same time, during a purge on what was once a much longer list in June 2009, people like Alan Bates, born and raised in Derby, were inexplicably removed. Sometimes these things are a matter of pride and therefore sensitive, but Wikipedia surely needs to be both accurate and true? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these cases are certainly worthy of debate, and the project guidelines at WikiProject UK geography might be of some assistance in helping us sort it out. The guidelines advise including "A note on any notable births in the settlement" (no debate there) and "A note on any notable residents in the settlement". This is significant in that it allows the inclusion of non-native Derby residents such as Darwin. I have some sympathy for the case Jamesinderbyshire makes but I would be less strict than him in wanting to limit the criteria to those born in Derby. It is also suggested to us that we "Do not use a list format in this section. Please write this as prose". Of course, the advantage of changing to this approach is that it would give us more scope to spell out the exact nature of each individual's connection to Derby, whereas the current format lacks any such context. Jellyman (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also more for inclusion than James, I agree with jellyman that the way to go is slowly to pick them off from the list, inserting them in the body of the article and expand details a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on what I was saying before: I do think that the inclusion of some individuals is debatable at best. My tuppence worth on some of those mentioned:
Nightingale Fairly tenuous, never lived in Derby, but has been somewhat "adopted" due to local (ish) connections. Hard to justify inclusion really, despite statues and a pub named after her etc. If anyone is to be removed, she should probably be the first.
Cavendish Again, quite a stretch, as burial in Derby is his only firm connection. Like Nightingale, there are family links with the county, rather than Derby itself, and indirect memorials such as the former Henry Cavendish School. Another one I would be happy to lose, really. I should point out that the Cavendish area in Derby actually derives its name from the local Cavendish Hotel, which in turn is from the Cavendish family generally (Dukes of Devonshire etc.) rather than H.C. specifically.
Royce One justification given for his inclusion is an unsourced mention in his article of him living in Derby circa 1912. Maxwell Craven's Illustrated History of Derby reports that Royce lived outside the town at Quarndon, and then only briefly. Again, personal connection to Derby is limited; Rolls-Royce is undoubtedly important to Derby, and Royce undoubtedly important to Rolls-Royce, but I'm not convinced that makes Royce himself an important Derby individual. Another one relying too much on having a statue somewhere!
Darwin This is one case where I strongly support inclusion. Darwin was indeed born elsewhere and is strongly associated with Lichfield but to claim he had nothing to do with Derby is just wrong. He spent most of the last 20 years of his life living in the town, at Full Street. He was a member of the circle of intellectual and scientific elite in Derby at that time, such as Whitehurst, Wright (who painted him), Burdett, Pickford etc., a group strongly connected to the Lunar Society of which Darwin was a key member. Even more significantly, he founded the Derby Philosophical Society. Darwin is commemorated by a suite in the Assembly Rooms, a plaque near the sight of his Derby home and a likeness on Exeter Bridge. I think that makes for a pretty significant impact on the town for a non-native. Keep Erasmus!!
I know I've used memorials etc. as part of my Darwin argument but this is extra evidence, my main argument is based on his long residence in Derby and contribution to the community. Conversely, with some of the others, the memorials are just about all there is to tie them to the place! To put it another way: Queen Victoria visited Derby a few times, including one state visit when she knighted the mayor on the station platform; Victoria Street and Empress Road are Derby streets commemorating her; and there is a statue of her (originally at the Spot before moving to the DRI). Despite these tangential connections, would anyone argue for putting her on the list? No, didn't think so. Something to bear in mind when we consider some of our other so-called "Derbeians".... Jellyman (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes[edit]

Would anyone object if I were to reduce the image sizes down to their default size, they look scruffy as they are and are not in line with convention. I shall obviously keep all lead images and panoramas at a reasonable size. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures[edit]

A new edit goes back to the assertion (from a reference to the Business Link website that is factually incorrect) that Derby was the 2001 Census 18th-ranked Urban Area in the UK. This is not true, as a quick check on National Statistics website will confirm - Derby does not even rank in the top 25 largest Urban Areas in the UK. [1] (see table 3.1 on that PDF). The problem here is with definitions - "Urban Area" is a very specific National Statistics definition used to compare conurbation areas and is not the same as "City", or "Settlement", both of which are rather more vaguely defined. Compare with the Wikipedia article List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population, where Derby is listed (still incorrectly) as 22nd largest - this table conflates Urban Areas and Local Authority areas. This can be a minefield, but the new version we have at the top of the Derby article is incorrect and I will attempt to revise it, but would be interested to hear any other views. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about the City, the population figures and any ranking associated with them should be those of the city itself (2006 estimate 236,300).--Michig (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for the City population 2006 estimate please Michig? I suspect that is actually the 2006 National Statistics "Unitary Authority (Derby UA)" estimate. In fact, if we are using NS UA estimates, we can use the 2008 ones which are out now [2] - in that table, Derby Unitary is now estimated at 239,200. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the Derby UA 2006 figure. I hadn't realised that later figures were available.--Michig (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they just came out recently. I would personally be happy to cite Unitary Authority figure as the population of Derby and remove the incorrect ranking figure (which refers to a wrong source on Urban Area populations) and have a corrected ranking figure on Urban Areas - 2001. Ranking on Unitaries is pretty much wierd, as Unitaries don't bear much resemblance to largest actual places. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derby (All Saints) Cathedral[edit]

Greetings. Can we now agree as to the true height of the tower ? (212' to the tip of the pinnacles). One has since obtained a copy of the buildings official guide... 212' be their reckoning. One can but assume past references to 172' +/- 1'/2' be the height to the parapet ? Whatever, even at 212' it still only ranks seventh among English Anglican Cathedral Towers. Sorry to burst any delusions to the contrary ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... that would appear to be the case. But, did you know... the guidebook (and one or two other books) speculate as to the original intentions... to cap the tower with either a lantern (as with Boston Stump) or even a spire. If only...!The Syth ! (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marley[edit]

Suspected vandalism. Some unknown person has added Bob Marley to the list of notable residents.I am unwilling to delete it out of hand, though if it were true I think I would have heard about it. I've enclosed it in comment tags for the time being. Can anyone confirm or refute it? Chevin (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Revolution - world's first waterpowered mill[edit]

Are there references, sources, for the statement, in Derby "world's first" waterpowered mill was build ? It interests me, because the German region Bergisches Land, were I work now, seems to belong to one of the first waterpowered industrial area's. Friedrich Engels was born there in 1820 and his family than already was wealthy from earnings with cotton mills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.45.70 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derby's water-powered silk mill was built between 1717-1721. cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_Industrial_Museum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatross89 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mill is Lombe's Mill, but Thomas Cotchet's (failed) mill of 1704 was earlier, using copies of Dutch throwing machines - see The Silk Industry of Cheshire and Darley, G. (2003), Factory (Objekt). London: Reaktion Books. ISBN 1-86189-155-5. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raddy Majewski[edit]

Someone has added footballer Raddy Majewski to the list of notables. However I can't find any link to Derby. He was born and raised in Poland, only moving to England in 2009 and he's played for Nottingham Forest ever since! Even if he currently lives in Derby (does anyone know if this is the case?), I'm not sure this short period of residence would allow him to be classed as a 'notable' for the city. I'm loathe to delete him arbitarily but he was added by a non-logged-in user so I can't contact them to ask for justification. Can anyone provide any reason not to remove him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much encapsulates the issues of 'notable people' section: the link has to be notable as well as the person. A quick Google search just turned up stories about Majewski playing against Derby. I'm in favour of removing this entry. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed him (he was added by an ip, and I moved him to the correct alpha order) Ning-ning (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Groome[edit]

Is Georgia Groome a Derby person? Chevin (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An industrial boom?[edit]

I query the idea that an industrial boom began in Derby when Rolls-Royce opened. . . . in the town in 1907. Derby had been an industrial town since the days of James Fox in the late eighteenth century. Chevin (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Why does Derby direct here, and not to the disambiguation page? There are a lot of things called Derby, doesn't make sense to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://stats.grok.se/ in the last 90 days (since 22 August)
  • "Derby" has been viewed 70109 times (typically 700 per day, with a peak of 1135 on the day of the Manchester derby)
  • "Derby (disambiguation)" has been viewed only 4269 times (typically 40 per day, with a peak of 175 on the day of the Manchester derby).
It suggests that most people who viewed "Derby" found what they were looking for. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or gave up. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Pronunciation[edit]

I'd query the pronunciations shown here. Received Pronunciation is entirely non-rhotic, so there shouldn't be an "r" in the first transcription. And I'd be surprised if there were many rhotic speakers in Derby either, so the local pronunciation shouldn't have an "r" either. 109.147.50.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia convention to include rhotic "r"s, for the benefit of rhotic speakers worldwide. See WP:RHOTIC. I've removed mention of RP. -- Dr Greg  talk  01:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology[edit]

Goodness, this page is seriously lacking any content about the habitats, wildlife and sites of interest for nature conservation occurring here. Any takers? Parkywiki (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, no strong evidence against this as PRIMARY topic and title has been stable for many years Mike Cline (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– It seems fairly evident to me that this city can not be the primary topic. I imagine most people would think of Derby (horse race) before this place. Sampling a few topics that are listed on the disambiguation page (as there are more than 10), the article Derby receives 67% of the pageviews. When adding the Kentucky Derby to the equation, this drops down to 28%. Such a prominent meaning of Derby means that this city cannot possibly be the most likely definition of Derby. Therefore, I propose making "Derby" a disambiguation page with prominent meanings listed, for easy access. MelanieLamont (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pageviews: [3] MelanieLamont (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move I'm not sure I can fully accept your personal opinion, or the evidence you put forward as justification, as being sufficient reason to change the primary topic. My reading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and looking at the link to the stats, suggests that Derby (the city) does have both greater usage and greater long-term significance than all the other articles beginning with the word "Derby". Had you demonstrated that Derby (horse race) was receiving considerably more traffic than the city, there might be cause to agree with you of a need to change the primary topic to avoid confusion, and reduce reader clicks. However, this is far from the case. Whilst Kentucky Derby clearly has many more page views than Derby, it seems a spurious statistic to insert as justification for requiring change. The two article names are so very distinct. I am sure that if other experienced editors had perceived this as an issue there would by now at least be an entry to the Kentucky Derby article on both the Derby (disambiguation) and the Kentucky (disambiguation) pages, and neither has happened as far as I can see. This proposal seems to be more of a solution looking for a suitable problem to fix. Parkywiki (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 67% is not a clear primary topic. A search for derby on Google brings up results that are almost all about horse racing. It clearly doesn't fulfill the pageviews criteria, and derbys have been around for a long time, so I would say long-term significance isn't bigger for one of the other. Oh, and the other places called Derby too. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not the primary topic by page views. It's likely this page gets extra page views anyway because it has the advantage of being undisambiguated. kennethaw88 • talk 16:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the argument made by kennethaw88. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the pageview stats supplied above, Derby gets over 7 times as many hits as its nearest rival Earl of Derby, over 14 times as many as Derby (horse race) and, more importantly, 18 times as many as Derby (disambiguation). That suggests that, at worst, only 1 in 17 visitors to Derby were looking for something else. Google gives you results that are customised to your own preferences and your own country. When I used Google in the UK, all but one on the first page were about the British city (and the other was about the Epsom Derby). -- Dr Greg  talk  20:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Dr Greg - the stats show that the vast majority of people who search on 'derby' find what they're looking for (the city) and have no need to subsequently go to the disambiguation page. All these would be inconvenienced if 'derby' became the disambiguation page. Neiltonks (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Dr Greg/Neiltonks - the stats are pretty clear...Jokulhlaup (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead section[edit]

The lead section of the article was recently edited by User:Haldraper to "cut excessive administrative detail". I think this is the second time they have performed a similar action; I restored these details a few months ago. I'm fine with the removal of the urban area population figure, but is it really "excessive" to have a few words outlining the city's local government arrangements, i.e. the fact it is a unitary authority area and not governed as part of the administrative county? Merely stating Derby is a "city in Derbyshire" doesn't provide much context; city status in the UK is a pretty nebulous honour in itself. As an example, Bristol (a featured article) begins: "Bristol is a city, unitary authority area and county in South West England..." Jellyman (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Haldraper did this with the best of intentions, however I don't think it helps in any way to remove the term "unitary authority" from the lead sentence. Derby can be described as two things: it is very definitely a city, and it is also very definitely a unitary authority. These are entirely different entities, but equally important, gives clarity to the intitial sentence, so it should go back in without the need for a full revert (albeit his/her deletions were quite minor). There are numerous other examples where mentioning both types of descriptors is accepted in the lead sentence. e.g.for Bristol and Leicester and a similar one for Manchester, Kingston upon Hull, Hereford etc. Noting also that the lead sentence to Nottingham does not clearly state that it, too, is a unitary authority as well as a city, I have now added this key bit of information. Parkywiki (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Haldraper, while now apparently accepting the inclusion of the additional information, has cut the opening words from "Derby is a city and unitary authority area..." to "city and unitary authority". Is this appropriate? To my mind, the term "unitary authority" describes the the body that governs the area, not the area itself. The new wording sounds to me a bit like saying "Derbyshire is a county council". Looking around other articles, both are used, but "unitary authority area" seems to be more common. Jellyman (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points you raise. I have come across this problem on WP and elsewhere many times. A geographical area and a local government institution are being used interchangeably. They are two quite different things. The main problem is that the same words are used describe both. 'Derby', in this case, mean two different things - a city and a LG authority (it can actually mean several more different things as well). The problem is enormous and just creates endless confusion and discussion. WP has never properly addressed the problem. Look around various articles about cities, historic counties, lieutenancies, unitary authorities, and others. Most of them are muddled because this distinction has not been properly addressed.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the comments by Jellyman and then Roger 8 Roger. (COI declaration: I have been an employee of both Derby City Council and, currently, by Derbyshire County Council.) The former is a unitary authority, the latter is a county council, as briefly described on the GOV.UK website here. Derby is a city and also a geographical area within which a unitary authority (called Derby City Council) operates. Therefore Derby can be rightly and helpfully described as a unitary authority area in the lead sentence. But to be pedantic and correct, it cannot be said to be a unitary authority. I believe it is helpful - indeed essential - to use the correct description within the lead sentence, but, rather than immediately reverting it to the correct form I have described, I think it would be polite to invite Haldraper to offer the opportunity to present an an alternative view here first.Parkywiki (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: A quick check (by just looking at what's displayed in the lead sentence in Hovercards), reveals 14 towns, cities or proper place names - out of 55 entries in the current list of unitary authorities in England - have the term unitary authority area within the lead sentences for the placenames. But there were only 2 such entries where only unitary authority is used. Where the articles' titles referred to an electoral region rather than a purely geographical placename, unitary authority area is used 7 times, and unitary authority five times - there, both uses would seem correct. I couldn't be bothered to read all the other articles to get more stats, but it seems to reflect a reasonable amount of accuracy in most of these articles using the word area when describing the regions or places within which these unitary authorities operate. Parkywiki (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Derby. 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) 04:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Derby. 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) 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for organizing "Notable people" list[edit]

Because this list isn't quite large enough to merit a standalone page, if the entries are broken up by category, the categories should be fairly broad; i.e., collapsing visual arts, music, literature, and enterainment into a single category, and likewise with science, technology, and academia. Sorting alphabetically is the standard for lists like this; chronological sorting is only appropriate for timelines and other lists where that information is essential. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change to broad categories. I am not so sure about the change you made[4] to alphabetical rather than chronological sorting citing WP:MOS. I have had a quick look in the MOS and cannot find such guidance. Is it not better to keep it as written, given there are dates for the entries and they cover a broad span of years?SovalValtos (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if any policies or guidelines specifically declare that name lists should be alphabetized; rather, they single out cases where chronological sorting should be used instead (e.g., timelines, a list of presidents of an institution, etc). Alphabetical seems to be the de facto ordering for most lists except in those cases. (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people). I don't recall seeing any other "notable people from a place" lists in chronological order. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I`m continuing to add to the list of notable people in Derby by reconciling what's already there with the Category:People from Derby. I'm making good progress, but my guess is that the list is going to get quite large. That might merit creating a new, separate article for the full list with a link and brief narrative summary in the Derby original. Any thoughts? ArbieP (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there are guidelines somewhere for when to split off the subject. Meanwhile continue the good work and perhaps narrow the categories when you see how numbers develop. Chronological sorting works well.SovalValtos (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished adding Derby notables by reconciliation with Category:People from Derby. I'm not proposing to do the Sportspeople from Derby too! As it now stands, the list is really rather bulky and the four sections each fill a screen - which strikes me as unattractive visually. Some readers might also feel the notables list now dominates the article as a whole in an unwelcome way. Each of the current (four) sections could be split up, perhaps to make seven or eight sections. And/or the whole list could be moved into a new article of its own and linked back with a new narrative summary. Any further thoughts on these two points?

ArbieP (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is a bit unwieldy. When lists get this big, the tendency is to either (1) reduce the font and break the names into columns or (2) spawn a standalone article. I think (2) is a better approach in this case. Precedents are mixed; Birminghame and Manchester break the list up into alphabetical chunks, whereas Glasgow, Edinburgh, and York take the current approach here. It seems awkward in List_of_people_from_York to begin this list with "individuals" that is essentially "miscellaneous" then doing specific categories. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Nearby settlements' sub-heading should be removed[edit]

In my opinion, the 'Nearly settlements' sub-heading contained within the article should be removed if no information can be added to it as in my opinion it looks strange to have a sub-heading in the article which has no information underneath it. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have "no information": it contains a (collapsed) template showing nearby settlements. There's an argument that the template should be expanded by default, though. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be expanded. The information it contains is compact enough to show by default. Neiltonks (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Area Merge proposal[edit]

I think we should merge the Derby Built-up Area article into here as it fails WP:GEOLAND and doesnt contain much more than just Derby plus a couple villages. Eopsid (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd agree without further consideration. Is this part of a suite of other Built Up Area articles, and how far out do these villages go? Little Eaton and Duffield aren't remotely part of the City of Derby, unlike parts of Quarndon, Borrowash or Ockbrook. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the Built-up Area articles need to be looked at because we can't base articles simply on ONS definitions. There needs to be sources that discuss the area descriptively as an entity without relying solely on ONS stats.----Pontificalibus 12:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The area isn't notable because it doesn't satisfy WP:GEOLAND and there aren't multiple independent sources discussing it in detail. The options are merge or delete. A merge to Derby makes sense because there's already a "geography" section within which this area can be mentioned in the context of Derby city and its surrounding settlements.----Pontificalibus 12:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wrote the piece originally. Just add the detail to the summary section, which I also added. And Nick Moyes, the ONS delineation of an urban area is sound as it's a UN based definition. It is the result of building in a time when little planning was taken into consideration which is why these distant areas seem at odds, being inter-connected by thin strips of development. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The merger is now complete Eopsid (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Assembly Rooms[edit]

There does seem to be a need for a link to a stand alone, or section of another article. "Last-ditch bid to save Derby's postwar modernist gem from bulldozers". the Guardian. 2 May 2021. The citation tells the full story of its notability.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: I just made an article: Derby Assembly Rooms. Feel free to expand. Best, Thriley (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derby&oldid=1217383213"