Talk:Cheltenham

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

Pronunciation[edit]

It's [tʃɛlt.ən.əm]: three syllables, not two. Even that would probably be considered a slack/casual pronunciation; I've heard [tʃɛlt.ən.həm] and even [tʃɛlt.ən.hæm]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.53.241 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely two syllables. At most.
--MartinChelt (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three syllables is the correct pronunciation as dictated by the rules of language language. There are three clearly defined syllables and this is the correct prounounciation.

Maj.Barton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maj.Barton (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two syllables. I've heard it called all sorts of things - mostly by people that don't live anywhere near it - but it is "CHELT-num", for want of a better way of putting it. Not "CHELT-en-um", or "CHELT-en-ham", or "chelt-en-HAM", just easy ol' "CHELTnum". Greg1138 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely CHELT-num. The Saxon name for the village was something like Ciltahamm or Celtahamm. The Cilta referring to a hill or cliff (Cotswold scarp) and Hamm meaning well-watered valley. By 1086, Domesday called the village Chinteneha. It is likely that the river that served the population got its name from the village - not the other way round.

Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.255.246 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "it is likely" does not cut it in an encyclopaedia. Your assertion, however logical it may seem to you and to others, that the river is named after the place would have to be verified by reliable sources. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the pronunciation question..... I lived the first 18 years of my life in Cheltenham and wouldn't dream of pronouncing it using anything less than three syllables. Could I dare to suggest that the two syllables/three syllables may be a simply difference between a Gloucestershire accent and RP? nancy 19:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ;) Greg1138 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In support of 212.139.255.246 above, to say that the particular assertion "does not cut it" smacks a little of bureaucracy (see Wikipedia's own rules). When it comes to Saxon and pre-Saxon history, Wikipedia itself is full of articles that use the phrase "it is thought"; "likely"; "unlikely"; "probably" etc, indeed, so is Britannica. It is a phrase used out of necessity to indicate that here is a "more than likely" piece of information that the reader may like to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.156.186 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC) And of course, everytime you see "citation needed" it is just supposition/conjecture - shame on you Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.90.202 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Council control[edit]

The control of Cheltenham Borough Council is given as NOC, but it's actually a majority Lib Dem administration now. Since the elections in May 2010, the composition has been LD 25, Con 12, People Against Bureaucracy (PAB) 3. The leader is Cllr. Steve Jordan. I'm not technically adept enough to edit this as it isn't simple text so I'll leave that to someone more competent!

See https://democracy.cheltenham.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0

--MartinChelt (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carroll and Charlton Kings[edit]

I found the page states Carroll/Dodgson was inspired to write his Alice stories by a mirror at a house in Charlton Kings. However, what is in shorthand known as Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass were two stories, each first published six years apart (1865 and 1871). This makes the possibility of both stories being inspired at the same time highly doubtful.Cloptonson (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate - totally agree with you. I've replaced the section in question with the relevant info from the Charlton Kings article, along with its cited source. It now specifies 'Through The Looking Glass' and is worded more appropriately. 77.99.12.140 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No info about the bus station?[edit]

Nothing under #Transport? Cheltenham bus station is red link. Ditto Royal Well bus station. Work needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cheltenham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge[edit]

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheltenham. 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) 00:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transport - Cycling Section[edit]

This recently added contribution contains only a not-notable image which does not improve the article in my opinion. I propose to remove the image and section in due course but will listen to discussion here. Please also note comments on contributors page. If non-notable contributions are made to the section without discussion here I will still remove the section. I am aware it is possible to resurrect the Cycling section with a notable contribution and references and if I had unlimited bandwidth I would do it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC) This Cycling contribution appears to have been removed with oldid=784002247.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious image has been re-introduced through shoehorning in a Gallery section without discussion in talk. see WP:Gallery. Contribution may be promoting WP:Fringe cycling - train bias. Gallery removed by undo as per WP:Gallery guidelines Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Perfectly willing to have this go to 3rd party mediation or have a discussion with contributor. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheltenham. 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) 02:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheltenham. 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) 20:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations[edit]

For interest, the station now called Cheltenham Spa was originally Landsdown Road, on the main line from Gloucester to Birmingham. There was a station in the town centre, Cheltenham St James, which was the terminus. I remember in the late fifties going by steam-hauled train from Paddingon to St James; the train had to reverse at Gloucester. I apologise for my ramblings, but, as I said, it may be of interest.

Minnesinger (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Minnesinger[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

I believe the article should be split as the borough has notable settlements and they are civil parishes. These include:

Charlton Kings, Leckhampton with Warden Hill, Prestbury and Swindon Village.

I think these are quite distinctive settlements and also constitute enough for a split for the wider Borough similar to Borough of Chesterfield and Borough of Warrington for example. They contain civil parishes and so does Cheltenham although it is unparished. I believe it's easier to distinguish the two by moving the borough to one article and keeping the main town itself separate.

Thoughts?

@Crouch, Swale @JMF @ADHope @Rupples @Chocolateediter& @KeithD DragonofBatley (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support the boundaries are quite similar but did change in 1974 and again later but I'd go from 1974 like Slough as it seems like it was a legal continuation. This would also allow Category:Unparished areas in Gloucestershire to be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis that mapping shows one urban area, no significant detached villages and not a great deal of difference between the built-up area and the borough boundary. Hence, not immediately seeing any value in separating into two articles. Rupples (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, same logic as given by Rupples. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for exactly the same reasons that the split of Worcester, England was reversed. The so-called "unparished area of Cheltenham" is NOT a valid definition of "Cheltenham proper" or the "settlement of Cheltenham". Mertbiol (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheltenham&oldid=1206638790"