Talk:Peterborough

Archives

• Talk:Peterborough/Archive1 (City of Peterborough article, merged with Peterborough) discussion 09 January 2005 to 24 November 2005
• Talk:Peterborough/Archive2 discussion 27 September 2003 to 13 September 2007

Recent citation requests

What precisely needs to be cited regarding the civil war? Peterborough was hardly unique in being divided, the same could be said about virtually anywhere in England at the time. What would be a better short-hand definition of Roundheads in your view? In general the name was applied to supporters of Parliament, and Long Parliament refers to this period specifically. David Underdown 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple claims need multiple citations. I'm not too fussed about page numbers, but WP:CITE encourages them and this is supposed to be a FA. And it's dang hard to find anything in that EB, so page numbers are very useful for verification. The article doesn't specify it means at that period, it seems to be saying that's the definition, meaning before the Long P there were no Roundheads, which is incorrect. Yes, this is pedantic. That's what FAC should be. And the clumsy reversion was just arrogance. --Dweller 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Roundheads was the name given to supporters of Parliament during the English Civil War (1642–1651). The Long Parliament lasted from 1640 to 1649 and was briefly restored in 1660. So no, there were no Roundheads before the Long Parliament. Chrisieboy 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I stand (sit) corrected. However, someone joining the Parliamentarian cause in 1650 would be... yadda yadda, it's silly point-scoring, but you get my drift. Why not (as you, and our article, do) just define it as a supporter of Parliament? --Dweller 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Slightly confused by some of the most recent requests, edit summary says it's home of the harrier needs citing, but the position of the cn tag makes it look more like it's the fact that peterborough is surrounded by Lincolshire, Cambs etc.. This BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/319944.stm contains a ref to "Home of the Harrier", so that can go in if that's what was meant, citing the surrounding authorities ought to be possible, simplest way would probably be to say look at the relevant OS maps. All the climate info comes from the one source, so we're again down to whether every single sentence of a para should carry its own reference to the source, when WP:CITE suggests that this is overkill. I've also used this source to cite the fact that the land is very flat, and some is below sea-level, whether this is adequate for the word notorious, I'm not sure, but when you live there it's certainly somehting that non-residents harp on about. David Underdown 14:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The "notorious" issue seems to have come up again, Wiktionary:notorious seemsto make this a peferctly good descriptive word, what are the Fens known for, other than their flatness (and wetness)? Similarly, the OED gives:

• 1. a. In a notorious manner; as a matter of common knowledge; recognizedly, admittedly.
• b. With depreciative or unfavourable connotations.

either of which could be said to apply. David Underdown (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Excellent work to those who helped secure this entry at WP:FA - it's a truly fine article.

Peterborough doesn't seem to fall within a localised WikiProject and so has probably missed the WP:UKCITIES guidelines on layout which are UK wide recommendations based on those at WP:CITIES. If there are no objections, I could apply the guidelines which would only mean a cosmetic rejig and retitling of some sections. Hope they are well recieved? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure has at times been surprisingly contentious in this article (check the good article and FA candidacies). I'd recommend not proceeding too quickly to give people a chance to look over the guidelines first and come up with any comments. Personally, I don't see any real problems, although the Administration section of this article seems to cover slightly wider ground than the nearest equivalent, Governance, in the guidelines, and it's not immediately obvious to me where the remainder would fit under the proposed structure. David Underdown 08:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised the WP:FA reviewers didn't pickup on the structure. Non-UK reviewers typically try to apply WP:CITIES to settlement articles. It would be a shame if Peterborough was the only English, or British settlement with FA status not to conform with WP:UKCITIES (see Dundee, Sheffield, Shaw and Crompton - whilst GA settlements include Stretford, Manchester, Chew Stoke and many more).

To me the only four changes would be changing Administration to Governance, moving Geography to the third section, and rename Demographics to Demography (which is the correct use of the term). The use of "Famous" for notable people is considered as a point of view/peakcock term and would also be renamed. I can't see any points of contention, but can certainly hold on. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned in passing during the GA process, and possibly during the first, failed FA candidacy. On the other hand, all the sections are there, just not necessarily named in the same way. David Underdown 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments (1) Administration is a broader term than Governance and, in the case of this article, includes health service and (in particular) public utilities sections, which don't fit the narrower term. It is not immediately apparent, as David mentions, where the other content would go. (2) Demographics should be changed to Demography, as this is the correct use of the term (although Demographics is used throughout Wikipedia). (3) Famous could be renamed Notable, possibly the first sentence of that section could then be changed to famous or another adjective to avoid repetition? (4) Although I agree that Geography flows more logically at 3; I strongly feel that with the affiliations section, the climate chart and the listy nature of urban areas and surrounding villages it sits better at the end of the article. Cheers, Chrisieboy 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure if you meant you agree or disagree with the proposals sorry! If my senses serve me right, I think you're broadly in favour of the changes right?... To demonstrate how I envisage the article under these proposals, I've created a version here, in my sandbox. I think it looks great! Hope you agree, -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not agree with the proposed changes and I prefer the format of the article as it stands for the reasons given above. Cheers, Chrisieboy 09:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why that's so. Your points seem to support the change. For example, Famous is a peacock term, using Demographics means we'd use Geographics, Histographics and Economics as titles which is very poor grammar. You've also asserted Geography is more logically placed at 3. A consensus exists to have a standard layout, and I very much agree with that position. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's called reading what you want into something. I fail to see how this amounts to "four small cosmetic changes." Many of the things you have now introduced have been the subject of lengthy discussion here before. The "consensus" exists as a guideline and should not be used in the way you are doing. Sorry, Chrisieboy 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, infobox aside (I should've explained I'd converted the infobox to the modern version that all the other major city-districts use), it really is just four small changes to the headings so that readers find material where they'd expect to find it - I've barely touched the prose. Can you please explain what it is I've introduced that you objectionable? Granted I have altered that Peterborough is not a unitary authority, it is a unitary authority area (a unitary authority is a council - a group of people, not a division of land!), but I can find no other length discussion about that. Other than this, I sincerely believe this furthers the article and brings it into the WP:UKGEO family. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

London Gazette refs

Construction of urls referring to individual issues of the London Gazette has recently undergone a fundamental change, breaking the links that were in this article. I've elected to fix them using {{LondonGazette}} as this should make it easier to keep them right in future - as this probably won't be the last time they get changed. I know that there has been some resistance to the use of templates for this sort of thing in the past, but in this case the output is substantially the same as the wording that was in the article previously (the one difference is to do with the way the publication date is presented, which I'm going to suggest some changes to on the template talk so it should end up even more similar to the previous look shortly). Please discuss here before reverting, and do remember that the old urls are broken. David Underdown 11:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been queried on my talkpage, and user:163.167.129.124 has proposed that the links are changed back to using the url (albeit the updated one. Can I just point out that the resulting text prior to my change was:

“ Under the New Towns Act 1965 (1965 cap.59) cf. The Peterborough Development Corporation (Transfer of Property and Dissolution) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1410), see the London Gazette (Issue 44377) published 1967-08-01, which states that the designation was made on 1967-07-21 ”

“ Issued under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 1974-06-25, see the London Gazette (Issue 46334) published 1974-06-28 ”

post my change:

“ Under the New Towns Act 1965 (1965 cap.59) cf. The Peterborough Development Corporation (Transfer of Property and Dissolution) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1410), see the London Gazette: no. 44377, 1 August 1967, page 8515, which states that the designation was made on 1967-07-21 ”

“ Issued under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 1974-06-25, see the London Gazette: no. 46334, 28 June 1974, page 7419 ”

so the main change is that the new version also includes the page number, which would be useful to anyone consulting paper editions of Gazettes, a slight change to the way the issue number is presented, and some variation in how publication date is presented - which is in fact now more in line with how publication data is presented for all other references, not less so. Using the template makes ongoing maintenance of these urls far easier, as the url construciton needs to be fixed in only place, the template, rather than individually on every page which references the Gazette. David Underdown 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom regions

Is there any justification for Template:United Kingdom regions at the end, given that no other city or local authority has it and Peterborogh is not mentioned? --Rumping (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is nobody offering a reason to keep it, so let's try without it --Rumping (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. We have the City (of Peterborough), the County (of Cambridgeshire), (Districts of) the East of England and the top-level UK (home nations and English regions) templates, which together provide a natural progression. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points: (a) nowhere else has this progression; (b) Peterborough is a link from the first three, but not from the fourth. So the fouth does not belong here.--Rumping (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I removed it before even spotting this discussion here. If a link to the entry doesn't appear in the template, it should not be included. That's the nature of navigation templates. I'm also concerned about some ownership issues with this article and some of the templates. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography? Topography?

Why are electoral wards included in the topography section? Wards pertain to Governance. Simillarly, Linguistics seem oddly placed in a Geography section. I also am concerned about some use of language in the article "Notoriously", "Famous" - fine as part of a quotation, but these are loaded terms. We should let the facts speak for themselves, as part of neutral point of view writing.

Simillarly, WP:CITIES and WP:UKGEO recommend Geography be a primary, "higher" section in place articles. It too seems odd that it's the final section if it is so notorious. Can I suggest a rethink and copyedit? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some other issues I've found - Is Peterborough part of East Anglia or not? This is unclear. I'm concerned about some statements in Ethnicity too - "Since then, race relations have improved significantly", have they? "Peterborough, with traditionally low levels of unemployment," - I'm not comfortable with the term "traditionally" here. It is also unsourced.... "is a popular destination for workers and has seen significant growth through the migration of workers over decades" - this seems a little flowery and subjective to me.

There's lots of grammatical redundancy too: "This site also shows evidence", "The Roman Fen Causeway is also visible at Flag Fen", "A new network of high-speed roads, known as parkways, was also constructed around the city at this time", "Apart from some minor repairs", "The museum has a collection of some 227,000 objects"... there are many more.

Has this article ever been through the formal Peer Review process? These issues of language suggest this article could potentially be delisted from FA status. It would be nice to avoid this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We wrote on the notorious issue almost simultaneously, see my comment above where the issue had previously been raised. I don't think we necessarily have to resort to bland language to be neutral, and the OED definitions show that it can be used in a neutral sense. David Underdown (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does the confusion over East Anglia arise in the article? I suspect that historically with the Soke being more associated with Northants, and only becoming administratively part of Huntingdonshire and then Cambridgshire relatively recently it may not have alays been regarded as such. I'm not sure how well East Anglia is actually defined as a concept, although the only rigorous definition offered in East Anglia, for the purposes of European statistics is stated to unambiguously include Peterborough. all the language you refer to was present when the article was granted FA status, and there has been little substantive change since that status was granted, though probably some of those somes could be trimmed. I take your point about wards not really belonging under topography. David Underdown (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think this is a FA class article, but certainly a few minor points have been overlooked. The FA process can be a lottery sometimes, meaning some issues are drilled to death, when others are ignored. It is normally convention that GA candidates have been through the formal Peer Review process to ensure the Manual of Style is adhered too.

"Notoriously" is problematic. It is in breach of the NPOV guide on facts as has been said. It also implies that this is common knowledge, well, it is and it isn't. I doubt rural Sylhettis are familliar with Peterborough's topography! Indeed, I wasn't, and I live in the North West! Is there a source that says the local topography is notoriously flat? If not, this could be a potential breach of Original Research and Attributation too.

I was concerned with East Anglia's use under Ethnicity. It says somethings like "East Anglia is an important region for such and such"... well, does that include Peterborough?

I still advocate the application of WP:UKCITIES here. I also provided a proper converted infobox (not a pink table) in my sandbox some time ago (but this was never commented on after a single objection). Certainly a strong copyedit is needed here before a more brutal user pops along and delists this article outright. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see taht notorious is such a big problem, the same idea is mentioned in the third para of East Anglia, though somewhat curiously it isn't directly addressed in The Fens, though the naming of various sub areas as something Level is a bit of a giveaway. I don't know if you're familiar with the West Lancs mosses (say between Southport and Ormskirk), the Fens have much in common with that sort of landscape, and for much the same reason.

On FA status, as I udnerstand things it would have to go through WP:FARC and WP:FAR before it could actually be delisted. David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not famillar with them no (it's a deadlink too sorry!). Are you sure you really advocate the inclusion of notoriously in the lead? I assure you it does nothing for the article or context. Indeed if some parts are below sea level and others are not, it really isn't all that notoriously flat anyway! Do you think you (or anyone else) could get a source?

East Anglia is an unsourced article, and has several conflicting uncited assertions in it as to what exactly is/was East Anglia. We certainly cannot rely on this as it stands as any kind of evidence for here. That one person says P/boro is in EA may not be a viewpoint shared by others, I'm sure.

You are right about the delisting process, but the potential for listing is there, and doesn't take an awfully long time to finish too.

Again, however, I've applied some MOS compliant changes but had User:Chrisieboy revert these without explanation. Could I ask that he provide some commentary? This seems to be an ongoing problem on this article now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if East Anglia really is defined as a NUTS3 area, that at least should be fairly easy to source, and would certainly make sense in the context being discussed under ethnicity. David Underdown (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

actually it's NUTS2, UKH1, see http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/maps_searchpage_en.cfm I can't work out how to make it a persistent link, but the search isn't too bad. I'm not sure how best to go about clarifying this in the article. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think it's a NUTS2, and cursory search suggests P/boro is part of that territory yes. If the converted Template:Infobox settlement had been used, we would have known :P. This seems to be in conflict with some historical definations of East Anglia mind, though I would urge users to use contemporary and official defintions myself. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, going forwards, is there a source for this word "notorious"? If not it's gonna have to go per a whole host of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (not my own). Furthermore, is there anyone willing to provide sources for some of the "flowery" unsourced text elsewhere on P/boro? Or copyedit out the significant amount of gramatical redundancy? I could do alot of these, but in a climate of having fairly basic MOS edits reverted, I'm disinclined. I'm not comfortable having this article up with the rest of the WP:UKGEO FA family in its current condition as it's kinda letting the rest down. I think there's a sound rationale to possibly delist this article in the near future if an improvement drive didn't generate a higher quality article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a definitive source for notorious, but I'm prepared to bet that jsut about any general source on the fens, one of the first things to be mentioned would be flatness, all of which adds up to the fact that it is common knowledge, even if you weren't actually aware of it (and I, in the NW of England was certainly taught it in GCSE geography). Now the Fens are basically drained, it is the main physical feature, look at an OS map, move east from Peterborough and just about the only contour lines you'll see are the 0m line (and the spot heights are mostly 1m, 2m, or if they happen to be on a levee, you might get 5m - and on the contrary, there are quite a few -1m!), until you're at Downham Market, or edging a bit more SE, you'll hit the Isle of Ely. Still, I suppose we shouldn't get too wed to a single word, but just to remark in passing that's it's flat doesn't really do the landscape justice. I've got various other things I'm trying to sort out (and won't have opportunity to edit at the weekend ). Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask for more eyes from WP:UKGEO, and if that fails, well maybe the best way to get more input would be to list it at WP:FARC and see what happens from there. David Underdown (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that it's a loaded redundancy. Sure The Fens are flat, but that "The Pennines are notoriously hilly" or "Space is notoriously cold" or even "The Pyramids are notoriously ancient", just doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It's not professional or concise, in my point of view. That said, it is just one word amongst many issues that diminish this article's potential.

I know of a couple of users at UKGEO who may be able to pass comment in their capacity of copyeditors and FA writers. I think more input, as you say, will help out here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jza84 asked me to take a quick look at this article as I have some experience with UK places at FA. I think it is a good article & a lot of work has gone into it. The article is generally well cited, however there are a couple of bits in history (eg Fairs etc 1189-1876, sugar beet factory dates etc) which are cited at the end of the paragraph but it is not clear if they support particular facts. It may just be a case of using the same refs several times. In Health I expected to see a link to Edith Cavell Hospital (but it might need expanding!) In education a cite is needed for "39.4% of pupils attained five grades A to C, including English and Mathematics, in the General Certificate of Secondary Education." In demographics it might be worth doing summary tables (see Somerset current FA candidate, Bath, Somerset current GAC for examples). In places of Interest I'm not sure about the symbols - I like them but have not see them elsewhere - warning EH symbol may soon be deleted - you could support more these with cites to Images of England. There are a couple of examples eg "nine feet (2.75 m) below sea level" where the {{convert}} would be a more elegant way of doing units per WP:MOS. These comments are meant constructively & please let me know if I haven't made any of them clear, or you need any help with doing them.— Rod ^talk 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is generally a good article, but I do think that it falls just a little short of what is expected of an FA; I think it might struggle at WP:FAR, so it would be easier to avoid having to find out by fixing the more obvious issues. From a fairly quick look I've identified just a few of them. The links need to be checked; one of them, #29 has gone dead, and several have been moved, so their urls ought to be cleaned up. I noticed some discussion about the word notoriously further up the page, but there are quite a few other peacock terms like "the very best of live entertainment", "a proud history of cup giant-killings", "an impressive 3.78% increase between April and September 2006.", and "a rather pretty green bridge". The writing also needs to be looked at by someone with a fresh eye, as there are quite a few places it doesn't really make sense, is awkward, or is grammatically incorrect like "... having undertaken a lengthy purchase from Barry Fry ...", "Throughout the city there are a diverse range ...", and "A more recent issue is that an unknown figure of eastern Europeans ...". The organisation of the article looks strange in placess too. For instance, why is this sentence tagged onto the end of the Topography section: "Peterborough is divided into 24 electoral wards.[137] 15 wards comprise the Peterborough constituency for elections to the House of Commons, with the remaining nine falling in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency.[138]" ? There are numerous MOS breaches, and of course MOS compliance is mandatory for all FAs. Is there some reason why this article persists with the old infobox instead of using the new one? I could go on, but in summary I think that this is a good article that is in some danger of being pulled over to WP:FAR without some work being done on it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jhz84, I agree with David on the use of the word notorious. That aside, pick up a book on the Fens (I presume you don't have any to hand, but there's a ref. in the main body if you care to look). I have added a footnote (and ref.) to support the use of East Anglia, although this too is not contentious. Do we need one for England, or can we take that as a given? I doubt rural Sylhettis are familliar with English geography! I've also had a look at the grammatical redundancy you mention and also is quite properly used as an adverb and not as a conjunction and provides cohesion. When some is used before a number, the number is an approximate or rounded one. I'm fairly certain the museum doesn't have a collection of exactly 227,000 objects.

Rod, I have added a ref. for British Sugar and wikilinked to ECH. Thankyou for pointing that article out to me, I've expanded it a bit now. A ref. for GCSE results has also been provided by another editor. I only added that sentence a few days ago, but had somehow not got round to it. If the EH symbol is deleted, I shall remove the others, but, like you, I do rather like them.

Malleus Fatuorum, I have been through all URLs and found only one (94), other than (29, now 32), that had been moved. Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. As you say there are several, but not which ones, would you mind pointing any others out..? You will see, I have taken on board most of your points regarding grammar and vocabulary and I have added refs. for a couple of others. For instance, I think proud history of cup giant-killings is okay; they are proud of their history and, as David mentions, I don't think we necessarily have to resort to bland language to be neutral. I do take your point about Topography and have recast the sentence on electoral wards to follow Urban areas and Surrounding villages.

I am bound to say that I do not think that FAR or FARC are at all appropriate and I am particularly surprised at that suggestion in light of User:Jhz84s earlier congratulations. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re checking the URLs: this tool is quite useful and saves having to check each one personally. Nev1 (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of image

Why is their use of Lord Burgley (sorry if my spelling is incorrect), he's not mentioned (as far as I can see) in the famous people section, so why is he there?