Talk:Stafford

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Areas

Is the 'areas' section really necessary? It could be vastly improved, and i would be willing to do this (perhaps moulding it around the town council wards?), but i would like some other input from more experienced users before i set about the task. JamesDanielMartin 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, It is general to put an Areas page on a town page such as this. There is also a Stafford (borough) page about the Borough so as to keep the details apart. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide. Cheers, Regan123 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the population figure to that of the Stafford Urban Area as defined by the ONS in the 2001 census. That figure is 63,681. Fingerpuppet 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change doesn't seem to have taken effect - the Stafford page actually shows TWO populations, neither of which is 63,681. The main text shows 124,531 and the side box shows 120,553. Of course, AKAboth of these are the population (at various times) of the borough, which is shown with yeta different figure (123,600) in the Stafford (Borough) entry. Let's have just one (presumably 124,531 is right) listed in the borough piece and 63,681 listed for Stafford town.

Hey, Fingerpuppet!, our population has been massaged upwards again. The figure shown is way over the odds for the town. Why do we have the entire area included?; many of the people included in the highest figure as Stafford residents are many miles from the town through open countryside, and would never think of themselves as Staffordians. Let's have the old 63,681 figure back.

Healthcare

The comment that Stafford is divided into multiple PCTs, each served by a GP is a drastic misunderstanding of the whole PCT system. I really wish people would bother doing the research.

Stafford is covered by the south staffs PCT[1] which consists of 98 practices! [Alex] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.159.11 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Big Checka

Would the people who keep adding the Big Checka rubbish to the page please stop it. It is neither factual, nor relevant, not indeed even interesting. Coob (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Would there be any interest in starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Staffordshire? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual population for sidebar?

OK, both here and on the Solihull article (I'm going through a few midlands cities to get the populations for a project I'm working on), someone seems to have conflated the actual town population with the wider area's one, and put that on the sidebar as just "population". Most other towns/cities seem to have a more precisely defined separation of urban and district populations in that section (after all, there may also be separate articles for the various suburbs that also list their population, and it could end up being counted twice). Which way is more correct, do we think? Because I'm erring towards the latter and wondering if I should make a change.

For now, I'm going to split the difference and just take the average of the two, as I'm not defining things with the greatest resolution and don't need much more than a general idea of the local population density, but anyone using this information for more serious means could have difficulty because of this... 80.189.49.237 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stafford. 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/20070602172012/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/penkridge.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/penkridge.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) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons Link

The link directs to a very pathetic gallery instead of the rich collection in [Category:Stafford - Wikimedia Commons]. What should be done to fix this? Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]