Talk:Peterborough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articlePeterborough is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 20, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 29, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 16, 2015Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Railway bridge[edit]

Nice photograph, but was it built by Lewis or (his older brother's namesake) Sir William and his son Joseph Cubitt? There seem to be conflicting sources and the plaque in the image has been altered. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plaque in my picture also says the bridge was built in 1850, which conflicts with the current text of the article. I can file a renaming request on Wikimedia Commons if necessary, since I put '1850' in the title of the photograph. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I was flipping channels last Sunday and came across an English Christian program called Songs of Praise and they pronounced the city's name /ˈpiːtəbrə/.
Is it necessary to have the American pronunciation for an English city? --121.214.165.3 (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please remove it. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --121.214.165.3 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you have another look—I'm not an expert in this. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You re-included the American pronunciation "PEE-ter-bu-roh". The general English pronunciations are either "PEE-tuh-buh-ruh" or "PEE-tuh-bruh". --124.180.153.98 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was received pronunciation rather than American? Chrisieboy (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No burrow /bʌrəʊ/ for borough is not RP. You perhaps think it is because you say /wɪndə/ and /barə/ and are used to correcting these to /wɪndəʊ/ and /barəʊ/.83.244.230.115 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC) We (non-rhotic) English pronounce peter as /piːtə/ rather than Scotch, Irish and Yank /piːtər/. 83.244.230.115 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, /bʌroʊ/ is not RP and your reasoning wrt Chrisieboy's misunderstanding sounds good. And you're also right that non-rhotic English (or RP) pronounce "Peter" as /piːtə/, but Wikipedia's general transcription for this sound is /ɚ/ or /ər/, so it will be transcribed as /piːtɚ/. If you disagree with this please bring it up here. --143.238.232.51 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this "we" business? Wikipedia is supposed to be a world encyclopedia for the world's people; not a little blimey encyclopedia for little blimey people. Is it necessary to have the English pronunciation for Paris, France? Frankly, if one removed everything that was not necessary, one would remove all of Wikipedia.Grandmotherfrompeoria (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Druids and Pagans???[edit]

I've been an established pagan for the better part of 9 years in Peterborough, and I'm not aware of any public temples dedicated to any of the pagan or neo-pagan faiths to the same extent as any of the other religions mentioned. Is this really an appropriate statement to put in this article, there is a small pagan population everywhere, there's nothing particularly special in Peterborough to warrant its mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.130.13 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's now almost a month since the addition was made (the only edit by that user account), and I then tagged it for citation. Given this is a featured article, i'd be perfectly happy to see it removed again. David Underdown (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who has been putting the Pagan comment on the Peterborough page and I think that the point is relavent. Why should Christianity and other major religions get more of a mention than smaller religions? I think that if everyone put a small statement about their religion then the page would be a much more diverse community and that is good. Also I think that whoever keeps deleting the comment should think before they do because just because they believe something is wrong doesn't mean it is. They do not rule wikipedia. From the other comments of this section it seems that some people are unable to accept that there are other religions in the world other than christianity and major religions. Also since when did the number of temples dedictaed to a religion signify the importance of it? I think that this idea is kind of small minded and if everyone thought that then where would the world be? There would be no equality because religion would be based on capitalism. And the pagan faith doesn't really have a proper temple as any pagan would know that nature is our temple. In the nearby woods as well, there is an unusually large group of druids and pagans. That is why it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlywurly1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unusually large, then presuambly that will have been reported somewhere, and so long as taht source meets the criteria for being regarded as reliable in Wikipedia terms then that will be problem solve. However, everything in Wikipedia needs to be cited to an external source - that is the reason why the information has been deleted. We have no way of telling who you are and whether what you say is credible - you have to be able to back up your edits with evidence. This is particularly important as this article is a featured article. David Underdown (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that we don't think that paganism is a real religion, so put away the flaccid rhetoric about editors being small minded. The main problem is that it's unreferenced; please read WP:V as it explains how to provide proof and WP:RS explains what is considered reliable. While I have no reason to disbelieve that you are a pagan in Peterborough, I also have no reason to believe you. Hence, we require proof such as an article discussing paganism in Peterborough. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there was a newspaper report in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph that is about wicca in peterborough. Surely this counts as proof enough to suggest that there is paganism in Peterborough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.234.54 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds and looks fine to me - bear in mind that the preceding comments here are from early to mid July, some months ago now, when no-one was offering what you just have - and, all they're saying is, find something like that, and work on it! Why not have a go? If you're a Wikipedia newbie and want help, open your Talk page by clicking on the red link, type {{helpme}} (note the curly brackets) and then explain what you want help with - then sign what you wrote (with ~~~~ or use the signature button above the text entry box, looks like a squiggly f next to a blue pen) and someone will come along and give you a hand pretty shortly, usually within minutes, but easily the same day, if you check back. Or, if anyone else wants to have a go, the piece mentioned by 77.102.234.54 (I assume) is this one, report in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph published 21 October 2010. I'd do it, but right now I'm semi-retired. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this merits inclusion. The article doesn't mention the number of Wiccans in Peterborough (in fact, despite being published in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, it doesn't even mention the town). It's just a general interest article about Wicca, not about Wicca in Peterborough. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation - the subject of the Evening Telegraph article says that "covens do exist, but they are not easy to find. Some Wiccans join covens, but they don’t advertise them! You have to know the right people and find out by word of mouth. Others choose to practise alone.” I'd suggest that, as it's been published in what I would assume is a WP:RS for Peterborough, and as that Peterborough RS uses the word "local", then this is an acceptable thing to include - and, the "evidence" in the article for Wiccans in and around Peterborough is in a sense "negative evidence", as the subject of the article effectively explains, but that alone doesn't justify its exclusion here, IMHO. We've got an RS, why not include it? I don't see it as a big issue, just a sentence with a ref and a wikilink to Wicca. I'm not about to get worked up about it, but, say someone put in such a sentence, in an appropriate manner/style etc., I'd be minded to keep it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would such a sentence say, though, that would be supported by the source? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the material you quote above is not what the newspaper is saying, but a direct quote from the interviewee and I'm not sure that she counts as a reliable source. Moreover, it's still not clear that she's talking specifically about Peterborough. According to the article, she's from Tallington Lakes, not Peterborough. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but this is all a bit hypothetical, don't you think, seeing as it hasn't been done yet, and I'm not proposing to do it myself? I know I suggested to someone else that they went ahead and did it, but I've already offered my view - and, if they asked for help, as I also suggested, the help might even agree with you, not me - why not wait and see? Who knows - this topic was started in July, and it's only about a week since the Evening Telegraph article was published, so by the time someone actually tries to do something with it there might even be more to work with. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was just making the point that I don't think there's anything from that source that's worth mentioning in the article. I'd be pleasantly surprised if someone came up with something that was. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation required[edit]

Several places, all important in their own right, share a name with this Peterborough. As such, Peterborough (disambiguation) should be moved here, and this article moved elsewhere. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disagree - this "Peterborough" was the first "Peterborough" among the others currently listed on the dab page, which may well all be named after it, or at least were named later, by several hundred years. I'm sure there are plenty of parallels, e.g. London, London (disambiguation) is virtually identical, and the hatnote dab in the current article is adequate IMHO. Nortonius (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London is clearly a different case. It is an alpha global city, known by every person around the planet. Age does not determine the primary topic (otherwise there would be no need to have disambiguation pages in the main title, we'd always link to the oldest thing or person). We don't link to the oldest John Smith, because many John Smith's are important. The disambiguation page is the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree - I brought in Peterborough's age because I believe it is relevant, in this context - it may not be London, but it's certainly not "John Smith": in terms of English language place-name formation, this Peterborough has primacy. In any case, for primary topic status see also the page view figures: in September 2010, this Peterborough article had 20,807 views, followed by Peterborough, Ontario with 11,535, and all the others currently listed on the dab page - apart from those covering UK topics related to this Peterborough, which are clearly secondary - are way, way behind. This Peterborough article is by far the primary topic, IMHO. Nortonius (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Per Nortonius and WP:PT. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Peterborough clearly has primacy as a city. It is one of the earliest Wikipdia articles ever, is a featured articled, and does not need changing now. Any disambiguation should be limited to a hatnote to a disambig page. The merge suggestion is fatuous.--Kudpung (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This discussion is premature due an ongoing policy discussion that has not yet been resolved. .--Kudpung (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need for population section[edit]

I suggest that the article needs a population section, preferably as a sub-heading under the Demographics header. We can then avoid using a reference for the population in the introduction, and add some material on the historical population size. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If doing this the following might be useful for more recent years and planned expansion:
  • Estimates of the size of the Hampton development, and any further planned expansion to the south towards Norman's cross
  • Peterborough development plan which is issued periodically by the city council - and last time I looked included very substantial growth plans (9000 dwelling?).
  • The last published plans by EEDA
  • Figures on transient population from the EU accession countries, admitted under the Schengen Agreement. (P'boro was a "dispersal centre" or whatever they called it).
HTH Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
That all sounds good (although the UK is not part of Schengen, and the EU migration is already well covered, plus the dispersal issue relates to asylum seekers, not EU migrants). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Town Hall to Charing Cross[edit]

What is notable about the distance between Peterborough Town hall to Charing Cross station? I've never seen this in any other wikipedia articel for a British town/city. Vexorg (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit odd; I've seen articles with their distance from London, and this may be an idiosyncratic was of saying that. I don't think it would hurt to change it. Nev1 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Peterborough is X miles north of London" where "Peterborough" is taken to mean the Town Hall and "London" is taken to mean Charing Cross is perfectly adequate. I don't think we actually need to specify whereabouts in Peterborough and particularly not whereabouts in London since Charing Cross is the usual point taken to as the centre of London. Note Charing Cross doesn't mean Charing Cross Station, they're about 200 meters apart. Adambro (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Adambro. Specifying how north Peterborough is from London is fine. The insistence on 'Town hall' to 'Charing Cross' is very idiosyncratic. Vexorg (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you change instead of removing it? Anyway, it is now done. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main page?[edit]

Have you considered putting this excellent article forward to be Today's Featured Article? I couldn't see any dates that would be relevant to the city (suggestions?), but TFA is always looking out for non-specific date articles. It's been quite a long time since it was made an FA as well, which gains it 2 points at the nomination. If you need any help writing a main page blurb, do get in touch. Bob talk 15:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just written a potential blurb. Bob talk 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
West front of Peterborough Cathedral.
West front of Peterborough Cathedral.
Peterborough is a cathedral city and unitary authority area in the East of England, with an estimated population of circa . Situated 75 miles (121 km) north of London, the city stands athwart the River Nene. The local topography is flat and low-lying, and in some places lies below sea level. The area known as the Fens falls to the east of Peterborough. Human settlement in the area dates back to before the Bronze Age, as can be seen at the Flag Fen archaeological site to the east of the current city centre. This site also shows evidence of Roman occupation. The Anglo-Saxon period saw the establishment of a monastery, then known as Medeshamstede, which later became Peterborough Cathedral (pictured). The population grew rapidly following the arrival of the railways in the nineteenth century (the city is an important stop on the East Coast Main Line railway) and Peterborough became an industrial centre, particularly noted for its brick manufacture. Following the Second World War, growth was limited until designation as a New Town in the 1960s. In common with much of the United Kingdom, industrial employment has fallen, with new jobs tending to be in financial services and distribution. (more...)
Great news; looking forward to the 20th :-) Chrisieboy (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brill, just be prepared for a lot of reverting on the day (and a bit of a cleanup the day after!). I'm happy to be around to help out, along with several other editors who keep an eye on main page entries during the Today's Featured Article appearance. Bob talk 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American punctuation in an article about a British town?[edit]

This is an article in British English about a town in England and I can't help but notice that it only uses American punctuation. Don't get me wrong, I like U.S. punctuation and think that the ban on it should be lifted, but still, if we're spelling "labour" with a U and "privatised" with an S, we should punctuate to match in the case of indirect quotations, sentence fragments and expressions: "like this". Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance[edit]

In reply to user:Chrisieboy

I wondered where in the East of England isn't flat? As I'm not from the East of England my topical geography of the area is not great. According to East of England The area is mostly low-lying, and the highest place is the top of the Dunstable Downs at 243 m (797 ft). Which doesn't seem particularly high, but what do I know? I did not discuss previously as all that was left for me was a ambigous 'rv'. Bevo74 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, trust me, it's very flat. So flat that you can see the curvature of the Earth! Talking specifically about The Fens, they aren't just a little bit flat, i.e just little hills; there aren't even the hills, really. From the edge of a field near me, you can see Ely Cathedral, which is 25 miles away. Holme Fen, which is just down the road from Peterborough is 9ft below sea-level due to peat sinkage. Bob talk 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what the problem is, Peterborough is in East Anglia, East Anglia is in the East of England. The article mentions elsewhere that Peterborough is in the East of England. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagcruft[edit]

Per WP:MOSICON I removed some decorative flag icons but I see they have been replaced. Does anybody wish to attempt a rationale for this or shall we remove them again? --John (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed the entire table and replaced it with bullet points. There's nothing in WP:MOSICON about that. What it does say though is: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country..." Chrisieboy (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did. Tell me, why do you think it is important to have the twin towns placed in a table? And why do you think it is important to retain the flags? That's what I meant by a rationale. In your own time. --John (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally in preparing your rationale, you may want to read this recent RfC which seems pretty conclusive to me. --John (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) How about you tell me your rationale for removing them and try to build a consensus first. The flags have been there since 2006 (through GAN, FAC and TFA) and nobody has had a problem with them until today. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, how we work here is that the onus is on someone wishing to retain or introduce material to justify it. I removed it, you restored it, and now we are discussing it. The RfC I linked to above shows a strong central consensus that such use of flags is distracting and overemphasises this material. I concur with this consensus. What is your rationale for wishing to retain it against consensus? Are you able to point to a local discussion, perhaps, where it was decided that these flags were essential to convey the information about Peterborough's twin towns? That still wouldn't outweigh a central consensus but it would at least give us something to talk about. --John (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer and gives greater context than a list. The discussion to which you refer is not binding. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does it give greater context? How is it clearer? --John (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It gives greater context by providing additional information and that information is more clearly conveyed by virtue of rows and columns. Okay? Chrisieboy (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By greater context, you mean the sub-regions where the various twin towns are located, or the flags thereof, or both? Why is it important to give greater "context" and/or more supporting information on a Featured Article to the towns it is associated with overseas? Sorry to be a nuisance but I am looking (in vain so far) for a compelling reason that outweighs the dozen or so carefully considered rationales that went into the central consensus I showed you. I take it as you have not mentioned it that there was no discussion about introducing this table of flags? Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are fairly common, particularly among FAs and GAs, but I must admit I'm struggling for a reason why. I can think of several articles I edit that use these tables and have done for years, but I haven't really questioned their use until John suggested it may breach MOS:ICON. I added one to Warwick last year (since removed) it was because it was done on articles such as this rather than because I thought it was particularly helpful. The flags and coats of arms aren't particularly important: when you see the word "Germany" you don't need a flag next to it to get the point across. Tables can be a useful way of presenting information, particularly statistics or something that can be sorted, but a short list of this sort doesn't really need one. Looking at how the removal of the table affected the City of Salford article, the only information that was in the table but not the bulleted list was "County / District / Region / State" which perhaps isn't that important anyway. It seems like a reasonable change to me. Nev1 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Nev, that makes sense. As regards the FAC argument above, I note that this was in 2007 when flag usage was much more common and less discussed, and standards were generally much lower, and that the promoted version had national flags, but not the grotesque table that I removed. This was added on 1 November 2010 by Chrisieboy, without any discussion let alone consensus that I can see. Correct me if I am wrong. --John (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues[edit]

I've just been checking the links that are tagged as dead, and one http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-9547 redirects to http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/community_information/about_peterborough/historical_peterborough/civil_war_and_return_of_peace.aspx that reads:

"When Civil War broke out, Peterborough's community was divided as the citizens declared their loyalty to either the Royalists or the Parliamentarians. The city lay on the border of the Eastern Association of counties, which sided with Parliament, and the war reached Peterborough in 1643 when Parliamentary soldiers arrived in the city to attack Royalist strongholds at Stamford and Crowland. The Royalist forces were defeated within a few weeks, and they retired to Burghley House, where they were captured and sent to Cambridge."

The article reads:

"When civil war broke out, Peterborough was divided between supporters of King Charles I (known as Cavaliers) and supporters of the Long Parliament (known as Roundheads). The city lay on the border of the Eastern Association of counties which sided with Parliament, and the war reached Peterborough in 1643 when soldiers arrived in the city to attack Royalist strongholds at Stamford and Crowland. The Royalist forces were defeated within a few weeks and retreated to Burghley House, where they were captured and sent to Cambridge."

The source says "all information on this website is protected by Copyright". It doesn't look to me as though sufficient care has been taken with regard to copying material in this case. Editors working on the article should familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy, to guard against re-use of copyrighted material and take any necessary remedial action. DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the edit history would have to be checked, but I have found from other articles that this is sometimes the other way around. Bob talk 22:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and FA status[edit]

Given that this is a featured article, I was a bit surprised to find this edit to the population data in the article left unreverted for more than a year. There was also a 2013 figure in the census population table (there was no census in 2013). This makes me wonder how many of the other statistics in the article might have been vandalised. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, the ethnicity statistics in the infobox were wrong, and they seem to have been removed from the article text entirely. I've added figures from the 2011 census. If anyone has the time, they could do with having more detail added (i.e. the breakdown within the "white", "Asian", etc. groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The culprit (or one of them) seems to have been User:Adambream (contributions). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other FA issues[edit]

I've been having a scan through the article text and have spotted plenty of other issues. Parts of the politics section are unsourced, and while the 2005 election is mentioned, the 2010 one isn't. There are several unsourced statements in the heath service and public utilities sections. Most of the data used in the economy section is a decade or more old. Information about the city's new statutory development plan appears in the ethnicity section, for some reason. The ethnicity section is a bit dated and also includes the stnence "Cambridgeshire's population is one of the fastest growing in Britain and is projected to rise by a further 8.5% by 2016, mostly fuelled by eastern European migrants", with no indication of when that projection was made. In the religion section, "The majority of Muslims reside in the Millfield and New England areas of the city" is unsourced. The first paragraph of the education section is unsourced. The arts section includes material on restaurants, some of which is very old: "In the closing months of 2006, for instance, Polish, Japanese and Mexican restaurants were all opened". The sport section includes the sentence "City of Peterborough Hockey Club men's 1st XI are currently top of the East League and close to regaining their place in the England Hockey League for 2011/12", which is unsourced, time sensitive and out of date. Parts of the media section are unsourced. There are also some unsourced statements in the affiliations section. That's just what stands out from an initial scan. I'm minded to list the article at WP:FAR unless progress can be made on resolving these issues soon. It's been over seven years since the article was promoted to FA status and I don't think it meets the criteria any more, due to a combination of lack of updates and possibly some remaining unreverted vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisieboy, you nominated the article for FA status, so I'm just tagging you to make you aware of this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked this source, which is cited in support of the statement in the employment section that "The leader of the council said he believed Peterborough had taken up to 80% of the 65,000 people who had arrived in East Anglia from the Baltic states". The council leader and the newspaper seem a bit confused about their geography: "THERE were fears today that the city could struggle to cope with the influx of migrants from the Baltic states. Today, council leader John Peach said he believed Peterborough had taken up to 80 per cent of the 65,000 people who had arrived in East Anglia from countries such as Poland and Slovakia". Given that Poland and Slovakia aren't amongst the Baltic states, should we reword this? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, later on it makes it clear that the statistics are for the 2004 accession states as a whole. I'll change the wording to reflect this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern Europeans???"[edit]

The term Eastern Europeans cannot be accepted. It tells the reader nothing. The article needs to be country-specific. Perhaps countries from which the migrants come are not in Eastern Europe but rather in Central or Southern Europe. Either way, no generalistic terms, please--82.132.234.178 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article needs to be country specific. Eastern Europe(an) is commonly understood to refer to the former Eastern Bloc. The source uses it eight times and does not mention central Europe at all. You have replaced one term with the other. How is that less of a generalisation? Chrisieboy (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see User:82.132.234.178's point, and generally I would refer to Poland etc. as being in Central Europe, but the use here does seem consistent with the UN Statistics Division's definition outlined in the Eastern Europe article. The article on Poland, however, defines it as in Central Europe (as does Czech Republic - I haven't checked them all). A compromise might be to use "Central and Eastern Europe"? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it is currently the subject of an edit war. Central and eastern Europe would be better. The source refers to Slovaks, Lithuanians, Czechs, Estonians, Hungarians, Latvians and Slovenians, as well as Poles. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice that. I see an RfC's been opened about it on the talk page. If we do change it to Central and Eastern Europe, there are sources we could cite in relation to Peterborough that use that term, e.g. this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16,000 central and eastern Europeans were living in the city in 2006 - what about 2015?Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Farage Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/20/immigrationandpublicservices.immigration. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about? The introductory map.[edit]

The first sentence says Peterborough is a city, implying the article is about the city. The map is of the unitary authority implying the article is about the unitary authority. Which is it? It cannot be about both because they are quite different in all respects except their shared name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the City of Peterborough, which is a unitary authority area. I hope this clears up the confusion. 2.25.221.186 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Peterborough. 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) 15:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peterborough. 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) 18:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle AD 963[edit]

Peterborough ms: see for example https://classesv2.yale.edu/access/content/user/haw6/Vikings/AS%20Chronicle%20Peterborough%20MS.html.

I think this information has been removed since the history section refers to it. It is, however, important, either here, or in the Peterborough Monastery article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]


Worst Place to Live in England[edit]

I saw someone had added reference to the iLiveHere annual "worst place to live in England" as Peterborough has won for the third year running. I should have thought that was relevant information to include in the Wiki entry for the town; it is a very British kind of notoriety. The edit has been reversed, which I think is a shame. Should such information be excluded or included on Wikipedia? For example, if it had been listed as "best place to live in England" I suspect nobody would be objecting to that being included. This was the addition that was reversed:

Voted three times in a row "worst place to live in England".[1]

SandJ-on-WP (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem a very reliable source - even the website admits that it was probably subject to "vote rigging" Bob talk 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Top 50 Worst Places to live in England 2021". iLiveHere - Britain's worst places to live. Retrieved 2021-07-01.

City of Peterborough[edit]

I have restored the article to it's pre-12 July state, pending discussion here. There is no distinction between the settlement and the district (or the city of Peterborough and the City of Peterborough) and no boundary. Parts of the present-day urban area are parished. The articles were previously merged in 2005. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction between the settlement and district, see this map, more that half of the district is rural land. This was already discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#District splits and follows WP:UKDISTRICTS, it doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria for being combined. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Crouch, Swale.
  • The urban or built-up area, the city, is Peterborough, .
  • The unitary authority area is City of Peterborough.
A similar arrangement arises at City of Carlisle and City of Milton Keynes, to pick at random two UAs with large rural component. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already been their and discussed it. Just opening an excuse to remerge it. That's all I see from the anon DragonofBatley (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, I know the area well and I strongly oppose this content fork for the reasons stated above. It was briefly mentioned at WikiProject UK geography (where even User:DragonofBatley expressed reservations), but no notice was left here. I would prefer to see a consensus of users that have actually contributed to the article. In terms of the criteria, there are a lack of other large settlements in the district; the majority of the district's population live in the urban area; and the current boundaries of the district are long-established and predate reforms in 1974, in that they broadly conform to those of the former Soke of Peterborough. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to User:DragonofBatley, "the anon" is relying on WP:BRD, WP:CFORK and WP:COMMONNAME and is mindful of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. 17 years is "long established", two months is not. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the tests, (1) the built-up area is significantly smaller than the district with significant rural land, (2) it has plenty of distinct settlements and has 10 separate BUAS[1] in addition to many other smaller settlements, (3) the 2011 census for the BUASD is 161,707 and 163,379 for the BUA compared with 183,631 for the district, (4) the boundaries are recent, in addition to Peterborough MB Old Fletton UD, Barnack, Peterborough and Thorney RDs and part of Norman Cross RD were merged in 1974 so even if they are similar to the Soke they aren't to the former district, (5) there are 29 civil parishes in the district and 2 unparished areas in addition to Peterborough namely Old Fletton and Stanground North. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issues your raising and why your against it being as is. I suppose one could argue against an article for the likes of City of Milton Keynes and City of Lichfield. But they have their own articles and the first one was a new town around the same time Peterborough became one for mass housing. So these two have had the same boundaries since 1974 same as Peterborough. Milton Keynes covers a wider area, Lichfield covers a wider area and so does Peterborough. So again I ask. What's the issues of having one for the settlement (Peterborough) and it's district (City of Peterborough including Eye Green & Thorney which are civil parishes and have their own councils)? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Milton Keynes or Litchfield are relevant here but, if you are really interested in a discussion, you should engage with the points I have raised above and explain why we should have separate articles, instead of engaging in an edit war. I would appreciate it if you would revert your edits, pending the outcome of the discussion here. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works, It isn't me only. Two-three others have reverted you just as well on the district and city page. So singling me out isn't going to work to revert them. They can stay until a so-called consensus come about. Removing them doesn't make a decision come any quicker and why should they be deleted at the behest yourself?

Also, you ask why mention MK or Lichfield? That's because like Peterborough both are cities and have separate articles for the settlement and district. Peterborough has one for the city (Itself) and district (Including its hamlets and villages). Should Huntingdonshire be merged with Huntingdon? No because of St Ives, Godmanchester, Huntingdon, Ramsey, and St Neots being part of it. So Peterborough has the ability to have both. @Crouch, Swale: have done the checks and others. It passes the Wiki: Geo requirements. So Again, I see no reason for this debate or attempting to tamper with the article or carry out your request to revert my edits. Until a consensus is reached. It can stay as is. Both Peterborough and City District of Peterborough. I won't in other words accept your request to revert it. Removing it again will be seen as WP: Edit Warring so you've approached this correctly to debate but leave it now until a consensus is reached. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note something I was wandering about a few days ago after Huntingdonshire County Council article was created is if Huntingdonshire district should have a separate article to the former county like Cumberland (district)? My answer would probably be no as we don't generally make a distinction between current and historic boundaries but it may be worth discussing but with Peterborough it is standard to make a distinction between settlement and district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@95.149.88.147: the UAs of Carlisle, Lichfield and Milton Keynes are relevant here because, like the Peterborough UA (aka City of Peterborough), they have a rural component that is significantly larger than the primary settlement. Having a separate article allows NPOV treatment of settlements in the rural area and not part of the urban city. The point being made is that Peterborough does appear to be unique and so deserving of special treatment. For a counter example, see City of York which redirects to York. I don't know the area but it appears that the ratio of urban to rural is much higher. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
York also has large rural areas and should probably also be split, Cambridge is probably a better example at it seems to pass all of the tests. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peterborough&oldid=1218705900"