Talk:Chandler's Ford

Upsurge in crime

The following statement 'Chandler's Ford has seen a recent upsurge in crime, and the Police have had to divert resources from the Capital in an effort to deal with this' is currently being supported by this reference: [1]. This article on the BBC is talking about just one event, and has no mention anywhere of any general upsurge in the crime levels. The statement in the article as it stands suggest that there has been this upward trend in recent times, and there is nothing in the BBC article to support that claim, or that the Met are diverting resources (in fact, it even goes so far as to describe Chandlers Ford as 'sleepy'). The Flying Squad had one operation in the town, and that's it. Hence in my opinion the statement should either be removed, or a suitable source of reference should be cited. Martocticvs (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the crime statistics for the Eastleigh West area, which covers the Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury policing areas. At present, the stats show a year-on-year reduction in every type of crime, so yes, the statement is utterly false. Waggers (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Check facts - CF burglaries up 29%; Armed robberies up 100% - crime is on the up in CF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.202.55 (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that that BBC link in no way supports that claim, as it refers to one isolated incident. If you're going to make a claim like that in an encyclopædia, you're going to need to provide a reference that clearly supports it. Martocticvs (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The statement does have some value though, because there was little major crime until the bank raid. Crime probably has risen in that respect, but calling it an 'recent upsurge of crime' seems ridiculous. It sounds like I should be boarding up my windows, calling my family, avoiding dark alleys and not going out at night.131.231.223.41 (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have altered the wording of the first sentence of the second paragraph to better reflect the data shown in the supplied ref. Burglaries are the only are that show an increase, and there were only 32 of them! To call that an 'upsurge' in crime is just a little bit over-dramatic. Martocticvs 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You say only 32, but as stated later in the article there are only 2,674 households in Chandler's Ford. This means that more than 1 in every 100 houses were burgled last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.202.55 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"aka The Ford"

There's absolutely no evidence for this alternative name, and, being a local resident, it's not something I've ever come across. If no citation is added within the next 48 hours, it will be removed and stay removed until a citation is provided. Waggers (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Waggers - honestly local youths do call it 'The Ford' ie "we'll meet up the Ford tonight etc". It's going to be hard to provide a citation but this is honestly what teenagers refer to Chandler's Ford as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.202.55 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Waggers, I can't see what use there is of teenage slang in a Wikipedia article. I have heard it being called The Ford, but it's by no means a universally accepted alternative for its name.131.231.223.41 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you live near a big ford, you might call it "the ford." Just like people who live near NYC often just call it "The City." I'd find it highly unlikely that any distinctive feature that has nothing similar to it locally wouldn't be referred to as "the <insert anything here>." So unless this is nonlocally known as "The Ford," it doesn't need a mention here. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fairly conclusive. It's coming out and staying out. Waggers (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference found - The Ford is Chandler's Ford's historical name - The village acquired this name from either the ford on the Winchester-Southampton road or that on the Hursley Road. In the late 16th Centrury Chandler's was added to the name - its origin remains a mystery! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fordarian (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Puts paid to Wagger's "It's coming out and staying out" heheheh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.202.55 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Demography

I dispute the numbers given in this article for the population of Chandlers Ford, and the knock on effect on the statistics on crime earlier in the piece. There are over 1000 children attending Thornden alone, and so even though not all of them live in Chandlers Ford, the figure of 6361 for the whole town seems too low. The links to the ONS data no longer work. I can't find anything verifiable, but a quick search reveals the Labour party reckon the 2001 census gave 5926 people in Chandlers Ford West (http://www.labourlink.com/Eastleigh/Ward-CFWest.htm) and if I put my full postcode into this: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/ it comes up with 1332 people in the 500 dwellings in my "neighbourhood" (estimated in 2006 admittedly, but it still makes a total population of 6361 look odd). Other sites quote 10000 and 20000, with a historical figure of 3000 given for the inter-war period. Lyonstigers (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the reference link in the article. The figure given is for Chandler's Ford (Ward), there is also a Chandler's Ford East (Ward) with 4,851 and a Chandler's Ford West (Ward) with 5,296 in the 2001 census. I will leave it to others how to cover this in the article. Keith D (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the numbers given here are somewhat misleading. The census definition for "Chandler's Ford (Ward)" is: "This area belongs to the 1998 Administrative Hierarchy list of areas"; for "Chandler's Ford East (Ward)" and "Chandler's Ford East (Ward)" they are "This area belongs to the 2006 Administrative Hierarchy list of areas". I think the 2 wards should be combined, and it should be made clear they are the local council wards, not including Hiltingbury.

I also think the comment about "1 in 100 homes burgled in 2006" should be removed. Not only is that apparently based on data for police area 'Eastleigh West', which is (roughly) Chandler's Ford, Hiltingbury and part of the Eastleigh West ward (all of it west of the M3), it's also data that is now not findable at the link - they say burglaries in the 'current' year are 10, compared with 15 in the previous year; but it's not clear how that matches to the information the CADDIE system gives when you search it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace Makes Plenty (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Section purporting to be from Daily Echo site

I have removed this paragraph:

On 13 September 2007, Officers from the Metropolitan Police's Flying Squad foiled a Bank Raid on the HSBC branch in Bournemouth Road, Chandlers Ford near Southampton around 10:10am. "One robber was shot dead at the scene while another died in the back of an ambulance en route to Southampton General Hospital." Schools were contacted and were told to keep children inside at all times. Toynbee School in Bodycoats Road was contacted first to warn of diversions in place because of its close proximity to the cordoned off area. After the shootings, "A MAJOR hunt was underway for two remaining gunmen who attempted to rob a security van outside a Hampshire bank this morning. A police helicopter was continuing to circle the area above Bournemouth Road and Hursley Road this lunchtime as the search to find the other men continued. Officers in unmarked cars as well as on foot were scouring the area, inside a 150 metre cordon which had been put in place by police. It is thought that staff inside many shops and businesses at the Fryern shopping centre had been ordered to stay inside for their own safety while initial searches of the area were carried out." "I saw blood everywhere, it was horrible," says witness (This information was taken from the Daily Echo website)

from the article, as I have been over the Daily Echo site and can't find anything containing the quotes given here. Other information might be obtainable but 'taken from' suggests it was just lifted directly, which would be a copyright violation. Martocticvs (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a straight copy-and-paste job would be a copyright violation. The problem with the Daily Echo, along with other Newsquest websites, is that stories get archived or deleted after 6 months or so, so references just disappear. That said, there are other, more reliable references for this story (for example, it was reported on the BBC News website and can still be found there; it was also reported on WikiNews and there are probably other reliable sources listed in those articles.) But in the scheme of things, the robbery didn't really shape Chandler's Ford in any way - including the story in the article is just an example of recentism really. waggers (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the incident is probably covered in quite sufficient detail as it stands right now. Martocticvs (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"a town of housing estates"

I consider the following from the article to be of little helpfulness, and perhaps intended as an insult.

"Chandler's Ford could be described as a town of housing estates and little else."

Perhaps it could be removed? --jezmck (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Changed: Thanks for pointing that out, made a quick search and it is still there. I agree it appears quite like an insult, I have edited it now to be more constructive. Jwikiediting (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Chandler's Ford or Chandlers Ford

The apostrophe is not used universally within the article, and a quick Google search seems to find more hits for "Chandlers Ford" than "Chandler's Ford". Is there a definitive answer? BealBocht (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All the local roadsigns have the apostrophe present, but of course that's not a source we can readily link to. The local government website (www.eastleigh.gov.uk) for the area also uses the apostrophe throughout, as do the local school websites. Basically, anything official seems to use the apostrophe. waggers (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On that basis I've now edited the article to insert apostrophes where there were none. waggers (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Section On Schools?

Would it be a good idea to add a section to list the schools in the area? Jwikiediting (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please be bold! By the way, it's customary to add new sections on talk pages to the bottom of the page. waggers (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay I will compile a list soon and add it! Thanks. (I do normally add new sections to the bottom of the talk page, not sure why I added it to the top on this one... must have been tired, sorry.) Jwikiediting (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Will compile a suitable list probably tonight or tomorrow and add it Jwikiediting (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! Hope it's okay! Took a long time to compile! Jwikiediting (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Does not seem to be a civil parish

In the lead it is claimed to be a parish.

As far as I can tell Chandler's Ford is a ward and "other settlement", but not a parish. Try searching on: http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/

So that claim needs to be updated unless someone can find a source regarding the parish. Danrok (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Streetmap has it as a civil parish, as does the lists on the Historic England search facility. Keith D (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ONS also have as a parish see here, Keith D (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added reference to its Parish Council, demonstrating that it is a civil parish. But there is a wider problem with the article. It begins by saying that Chandler's Ford is a parish within Eastleigh borough. Contributors have then added detail about areas which are not in Eastleigh. So it is no longer clear whether this is an article about the main parish or about the wider areas which may sometimes be referred to as being in Chandler's Ford. This needs to be resolved. Any views? Sixsevens (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to focus on the civil parish area, as that provides a clear distinction/definition - otherwise I can foresee endless discussions concerning where the borders are or what should and shouldn't be included. Obviously if something outside of the civil parish provides important context or has some baring on Chandler's Ford (as defined by the parish) then it should be included. WaggersTALK 12:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)