This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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)