Talk:Norwich/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Map coordinates

Map coordinates are WAY off. Anyone know how to correct this? 24.19.37.181 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed - flipped W to E Angryhaggis (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Text

Just removed this from the bit about the bus system: Many a stinky granny is there on the buses of norwich, of piss they smell quite repulsive to say the least.

Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.228.242 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on the pubs of Norwich requested

When I was living in Norwich, I thought the best thing about the place was the large number of alehouses there. -- LuoShengli 12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Norwich is well known as having a church for every week of the year and a pub for every day. There should be further reference to the many graveyards in the centre, you cant help bumping into them! It sort of links to the tourism section, and it is a legacy of the medieval history.
A pub section could mention the beer festival & local breweries. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on Politics requested

A section on politics please.

Yes. see perception --78.86.146.148 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why here?

This is an excellent piece, but why is it in Talk rather than on the main article page? -- Arwel 18:12 May 6, 2003 (UTC) (UEA 1976-9!)

County town

'County town' is the correct name for the admistrative seat of a county in England, even when the seat is technically a city rather than a town. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Two articles?

This article currently consists of two articles, one after another. This is absurd and needs fixing by intregrating the later sections into the first. Morwen 09:54, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay Morwen Have ammended the mess of a poor article into something more substantial and coherent. More to follow from Norwikian 10:33, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Disconnected

This is one of the worst articles on a British place that I have ever seen. It is a mass of incoherent disconnected drivel that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. Someone just needs toi ammend the opinion and put in some corredct spelling and grammar. Pjbeef

Err - well, please go ahead. GRAHAMUK 12:41, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

you are welcome PJBeef, but what exactly is your prob? THere's 1000 years of history to cover, i object to it being called drivel, none too polite more like a pot-pourri of rare quotes i've collected over the years. Any suggestions how to improve, indeed such is the nature of wikki that you yourself are free to tidy this drivel yourself, alternatively offer constructive crit. only. 62.253.32.5 20:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Phew i nearly believed you PJBeef !! i have just taken a look at other City's entries. C'mon itsa notso badda . Have courage to maintain a talk page PJ! I doubt you would be quite as caustic then !! Besides with an pseudoymn as yours to a Veggie of 30 years standing that's a challenging handle, your caustic nature may result from too many testotosterone enriched burgers!!62.253.32.5THE NORWIKIAN 20:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All-too-often these days an individual's sense of identity and pride in belonging to a place is attacked as parochical to the increasing number of nomadic peoples who wander the earth. The great figures of Norwich (Sir Thomas Browne, George Borrow, John Crome) did not, contrary to Mr. PJBeef create drivel. I suspect that User PJBeef suffers from an all too common jealousy of the rootless to those rooted to a place and attacks the article on Norwich on grounds of incomprehension as to why anyone should bother to quote the numerous favourable comments made by travellors, visitors and those choosing to relocate to Norwich from a sense of inferiority or alienation. Norwikian 12:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Come out, come out wherever you are PJBeef take a look at the first entry on this talk page, User: Arwel Parry appears not to agree with you either. Norwikian 16:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Erm, sorry about the comment above under my name - i've actually only just come across it by coincidence. I found out it was written by my brother who likes to live on the edge by talking drivel (and actually never contributes to Wikipedia). Sorry about him, the REAL pjbeef thinks that the article is very good and I am about to change my Wikipedia password and kick my brothers ass. Keep up the good work guys - if 'i've' spoken any more 'drivel' anywhere please tell me. PJBeef 20;16, 21 April 2004

Cleanup

I've changed a few numbers (e.g. 2) to two and removed "In effect the City..." on the 2nd paragraph. I think aspects of this article read as though spoken. I think it needs a bit of cleaning up; PJBeed is right with regards to grammar. Mononen 00:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

UEA not a redbrick University

Have corrected (twice now) the statement that UEA is a redbrick University. Excellent though it is, it could not be termed redbrick. It was not established at the same time as the civic universities of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, etc. Cheshirec

Seems to be confusion between the redbrick universities of the 19th C and the New Universities that emerged in the 1960s ... AndrewMcQ

Plus, anyone who's been to the UEA could not possibly confuse it with anything resembling red brick! There's a reason the student union magazine is called "Concrete", that's all I'm saying. Cromis 01:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

UEA is not a really a new university either in the modern sense of the word; it is more accurately described as a plate glass university. The term new university is now used almost exclusively to refer to post-1992 institutions. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Roads

"Norwich is also the only English city not to feature on a single motorway sign anywhere in the country." I don't think that this is the case. When travelling North along the M11 the "A11 Thetford Norwich" is sign posted from the M11 junction. Next time I do a Stansted run, I'll check.
LewisR 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It states that Norwich sits "astride" the A47. How would it do that? Norwich is above the A47, not astride it, whatever that means. Still need to check the M11 sign. LewisR (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Internet by citizens

"A large proportion of the population of Norwich are users of the Internet..."!! The sound of a barrel being scraped, surely? Furrypop 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha HA! : D

El Viejo as a sister city

Could anyone clarify the position of El Viejo as a "twin" of Norwich. From what I understand of this excerpt from the Norwich City Council website, it is a formal twinning, not an "unofficial" one:

"An important development ion 1999 was the decision by the Norwich City Council to add El Viejo to the list of existing formal civic twinnings with Rouen in France, Koblenz in Germany, and Novi Sad in Serbia. The Link is recognised as the official organisation for the operation of the civic twinning of Norwich with El Viejo." [1]

81.100.216.53 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My impression was that Rouen, Koblenz and Novi Sad were the only 'official' twins - and that the link with El Viejo was instigated some years ago by the local Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign. I'm glad it's now official that Norwich has a link with that needy country. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


External links, Nov 05 edit

I removed:

  • John Innes Centre Genome Laboratory, meritorious and serious though the site be, since it's not about Norwich in any shape or form: if we start listing everything that happens to be in Norwich, we'll get a long list of junk.
  • BBC article about Norwich's internet savviness, because it's just a small anecdotal article, which, in addition, will likely disappear off the Web pretty soon as these things do: a temporary page. Bill 14:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent re-write

The recent reorganisation and re-write on 6 November was long overdue. This is now much more like the article it deserves to be. Congratulations to the editor. I have just added Bill Bryson to the list of contemporary people associated with the city - as he now lives in Wymondham, only a few miles away - and he opened the recent Norwich Heritage Open Days in September, I thought it was appropriate. -- Bruce, aka Agendum Talk 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Westwood grew up in Lowestoft not Norwich

Demographics

The main text says: The population for the Norwich Urban sub-area was 174,047 in 2001. It is the 27th largest settlement in England using this measure

But the box says: Population: Ranked 152nd - Total (2004 est.) 125,000

To my non-expert eye these appear contradictory. Is there a demographer in the house? Barnabypage 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Norwich urban sub-area includes suburban settlements contiguous with the city but not within its jurisdiction - Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston, Old Catton and parts of Hellesdon to the north and east are all within Broadland District. The 125,000 figure excludes these areas. Ghughesarch 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Barnabypage 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Amelia Opie

The mini-biography of Amelia Opie, while interesting, is mis-placed. Far better to put all this detail on her own page. I propose that the unnecessary detail be deleted from this Norwich article. Agreed? Agendum 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. IMHO, a list like that should contain the briefest of blurbs on the individual, enough to give context or highlight something important to the city. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. Barnabypage 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Chapelfield or Chapelfields?

When I lived in Norwich I always referred to it -- meaning the park -- in the plural, but I note from the mall's Website that they mostly (but not exclusively) use the singular. Does anyone have a definitive answer on this? Barnabypage 12:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to just swing by and research, but it's a little far. :) That's why I deferred with what's in the mall's website, even though it contradics the Chapelfields article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It is definitely used in the singular, and has been ever since I have been in Norwich, hence 'Chapelfield Garden's' - see http://www.cfsoc.btinternet.co.uk/history.htm; and the new shopping centre on the site of Rowntree Mackintosh factory (formerly Caley's) is officially called 'Chapelfield' (although - strictly speaking - that should be the geographical area of which it is a part), and more colloquially is known as 'the Chapelfield mall' or 'Chapelfield shopping centre'. See http://www.chapelfield.co.uk/ But I have never seen it used in the plural, and have worked in Norwich for over twenty years. Agendum 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been bold and edited and moved the shopping centre's page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan Partridge

I am somewhat tired of seeing the name Alan Partridge associated with Norwich - especially three mentions in one article, which is unnecessary. I am considering whether this joke is a little bit tired now, and mention of this character should now be omitted from the piece - especially in view of Steve Coogan's article about the creation of his character in the Eastern Daily Press of June 27.

Admittedly, Partridge is a parody, but it now turns out that the choice of Norfolk for the home of the character of a radio sports presenter was almost accidental. - Agendum 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we keep only the reference under Perception. Views? Barnabypage 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Weblinking

Every other page on a political area in the UK has a link to the government website in the box on the right. I don't know how to do it, but it'd be good to have a link to www.norwich.gov.uk in there for consistency.

Why? - a link belongs under External links unless its only a reference link or there was a field for it. GraemeLeggett 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, every other one has it. You should go through the entire list of UK districts and change them instead.

Norwich Citizens

What are the people of Norwich called?- SCB '92 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Norwicians" is one term, you can see how it might not get used at lot. The (Anglican) Bishop of Norwich is "Norvic". GraemeLeggett 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Millennium Library

It appears that there are at least two Millennium Library buildings on this planet... one in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the other one in Norwich, England. I renamed the Winnipeg one (my hometown) to Millennium Library (Winnipeg) to avoid any semblance of confusion. --Jimj wpg 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

Norwich, East Anglia → Norwich — Article was moved without consensus, needs to be discussed beforehand; move back to restore the previous naming. Even if we were to move the article, it should be to Norwich, Norfolk, not here. However, this is easily the most common usage and Boston (given in the edit summary) is not an analogous situation due to the US naming convention of using state names. DWaterson 08:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved. "Norwich, East Anglia" was never going to be an acceptable title, so I have undone it. I'm prepared to see a move request to have it moved to "Norwich, Norfolk", but it would definitely need to be discussed first. --Stemonitis 08:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I originally Intended to request the move, not actually move it. I do however, believe it should be moved because of Norwich, CT and Norwich University. I dont understand why the boston issue isn't relevant. Also, if you look at Rochester, which is both a city in England and NY State, the one in England is under the title Rochester, Kent. I feel a similiar move should be made with Norwich to Norwich, Norfolk (or East Anglia, whatever is more appropriate) WhiteKongMan 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions for American places are different to those for other countries. I would be happy to see "Boston, Massachusetts" at "Boston", but that's an issue for the US community. For British places, the standard method of determining the primary topic apply, which in this case means that the East Anglian city gets the article Norwich, with the others at Norwich (disambiguation). Norwich, Connecticut is considerably less important than Norwich, Norfolk (less than 1/10 of the population, and even less of the renown), and so must be dismabiguated (as it would be anyway, because of the naming conventions for US places). --Stemonitis 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Norwich → Norwich, Norfolk – {Norwich is also the name of an important city in Connecticut, and a US University. Also, There are Norwich's in Canada and Jamaica. Rochester and Boston are two similar examples of a situation like this where Rochester in England is found in the article Rochester, Kent and Boston in england is found under Boston, Lincolnshire . Also, when I moved the article the first time it was inadvertent because I had intended to simply to request a move. I was also unaware that Norfolk and not East Anglia would be the correct term to use. If this article were moved, Norwich would redirect to the new one until links to Norwich could be rerouted to the new article. I hope you guys take this seriously. Try not to be too sentimental about this proposal too WhiteKongMan 09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)}

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. SUPPORT I like idea of it being moved beacuse of Rochester, England (which I have always felt is more noteworthy than Norwich, England) is put under the title Rochester, Kent. I also think it might hwlp reduce the perhaps of a pro-K bias on wiki Mrscottjackson 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Searching for the Term 'Norwich' on Encarta.com lists Norwich University as its first search result. Brittanica online's first search result for Norwich is Norwich, CT. Norwich, CT is second on Encarta. Also, Google.com (US) Lists Norwich University as its first result, as does CBC.CA (Canada) 199.94.73.221 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I would say I support this move on the all cities should after follow the Comma Rule (City, County/Province/State). I say this because for some reason Wiki only applies this rule to US and Canadian cities, but should be extended to British ones because alot of US and Canadian cities are named after British ones. The exception to this rule would be places like London, York, Edinburgh, etc. And Norwich, given the fact that a well know University in a different country uses this name, shouldn't fall into this 'One name-only' category. 146.115.47.229 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    The usage of City, State/Province/abbreviation - as in Dallas, Texas/TX or Edmonton, Alberta/AB - is, I suggest, much more common in North America than in Britain (probably because of the frequent duplication of city names in North America). It would be quite unidiomatic in the UK to refer, for example, to 'Shrewsbury, Shropshire' or indeed 'Norwich, Norfolk' except in a postal address. Barnabypage 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is not the place to overturn the established policies. If you think this should be the official policy, propose it at WP:D. Though pre-emptive disambiguation of the sort you describe has always been overwhelmingly opposed when discussed in the past. Joe D (t) 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Clearly there is no primary use. If there was, it would be Norwich, Connecticut which is the only city I was aware of before this discussion. That just proves that our perception of importance is based on proximity or local knowledge rather then unique importance associated with one place over the other. Adding the University to the mix screams for a dab page at Norwich. This is another example of a problem caused by the settlement naming conventions dropping some cities into the main name without giving consideration to other uses. Vegaswikian 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, which is why the policies advise keeping subjectivity out of it, and going by facts - like the fact that this Norwich is several times the size of Norwich, CT. Joe D (t) 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    And saying larger is better is not subjective? Is size the only thing that matters? No, which is why the dab page is the better choice since it takes no opinion, completely free of any subjectivity. Vegaswikian 04:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    The objective, if difficult, test of primary use is usage. If you doubt that Norwich is more commonly referred to than Norwich, CT, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to arrange a search. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    And usage is not the same as 'primary use' which is what the metric is in this case. Since the guideline is that if primary use is not clear the disambiguation article should occupy the name space. Vegaswikian 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Primary use is subjective. Make Norwich the disambig. Rename the UK city of Norwich to the (next) most appropriate title. ZueJay (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support move to Norwich,something. Norwich should be a disambiguation page without a doubt. The city is Connecticut is very notable. If not more notable then the UK city, at the very least it offers a compelling alternative for what article editors and the curious reader intend to find when they type in Norwich. 205.157.110.11 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Rochester and Boston are irrelevant to this discussion: Rochester, New York is ten times the size of Rochester, Kent, and Boston, Massachusetts is much bigger than Boston, Lincolnshire. Norwich, Norfolk, however, is the biggest and best known of the Norwiches. See WP:D#Primary_topic. As an aside, I'm not sure how Rochester could be more noteworthy than Norwich, either, what with Norwich being five times the size, and with arguably greater historic importance. Joe D (t) 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. OPPOSE The English Norwich is of considerably more notability than any of the others and as such is likely to be the desired subject of a user searching for 'Norwich'. The comparison with Rochester doesn't persuade me, because Rochester (New York) and Rochester (Kent) are both quite notable, so there is more scope for confusion and need for disambiguation. Barnabypage 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - the original Norwich is more notable than anything that has taken its name thereafter.GraemeLeggett 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. First, of the other items listed at Norwich (disambiguation), four of the six are directly traceable to Norwich (, Norfolk). Second, population-wise, this is the most significant of the cities named Norwich. Third, by virtue of their football team, which has played as recently as 2005 in the Premier League, the city has international clout and is more likely to be the intended search target of a user just searcing for "Norwich". Finally, note also that there is discussion (see the intro) to make Norwich a unitary authority - meaning we risk another discussion down the road about whether to move this to Norwich, England or Norwich, United Kingdom, since at least governmentally, the unitary authority move would pull it outside the county. I don't see anything gained by this move, but a lot of things lost. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, such a move wouldn't be neccesary -- as per the ongoing discussion on the talk page of WP:UK geo disambiguation suffixes should use the ceremonial county, unless there's good reason not to, and as a unitary authority, Norwich would remain ceremonially within Norfolk. Joe D (t) 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. MOST STRONGLY OPPOSE. There would then be significant pro-US bias, because we simply do not refer to our cities in this way. On the other hand, does anybody (with the possible exception of those in Connecticut or neighbouring states) ever refer to "Norwich, Connecticut" in any other way? The notation "city, province/state" for North American cities neatly solves the problem of clashes with the UK and also avoids squabbles over which NA city is more important of two with the same name. -- 博 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Obviously, the first thing to keep in mind is that the reason behind the guidelines on naming is to make it as easy as possible for the most readers to find the article they want. I'll assume the people commenting here are correct in thinking that most Brits would type in "Norwich" to try to get to the article about the English city. In the U.S., major cities like "San Francisco", "Dallas" and "Chicago" are so well known that the Associated Press (as per its manual of style) will not use the state in the dateline for their stories because it would be a waste of space (roughly 20 cities have this status with A.P.). This is obviously not the case with Norwich, Connecticut, which a lot of Connecticut residents don't even know about (although it's list of prominent residents, I see, compares pretty well with Norwich in England). Americans who know Wikipedia would type in the state name along with "Norwich". It helps that Norwich in England is bigger, older, has a longer and richer history and is more well known. A disambiguation link at the top means anyone who is misdirected by typing in "Norwich" will get to the right spot a few seconds later. Noroton 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, per all above. Primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I wrote the Norwich University page and I think it's a bad idea. The most well known place by the name of Norwich is the city in the east of England. Indeed, both the other Norwiches in this argument draw their names from the English one. There's a link to the disambig at the top of the page, that's more than enough. Desk Jockey 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Most Strongly Oppose. The Norwich in Norfolk in England is the one from which all others derive their names, and therefore needs no further definition. Inhabitants of the 'lesser' Norwiches regularly come here on 'pilgrimage' as to their fons et origo. It's somewhat like Paris, I suppose: except in the US, it is not necessary to say 'Paris, France'. Also like The Times newspaper: all others have a definer - 'The Times of India', 'The San Francisco Times' etc. Nicllwyn 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Paris, France" is archaic, even in the United States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I do on ocassion hear the phrase 'Paris, France' or even 'London, England' I would also like to see a source for that pilgrimage statement (though I find it likely)Black Harry 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Mildly Oppose If you put a gun to my head and asked me what I thought, I'd say keep this here (especially since Norwich would redirect to that page anyway). However, I think that on the disambiguation page it might not be necessary to say that 'Norwich (england) is the namesake of the other cities. Maybe we could include a link to Norwich University in the Disambig part of this page.Black Harry 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose primary usage. Noel S McFerran 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose The Norwich in question is the original Norwich. All my other arguments are as per above. PeeJay 10:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Norwich in Norfolk, England gave its name to all the other cities and towns of the same name. The disambiguation page already exists to clarify any potential confusion. – Agendum 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Norwich, England is much bigger, particularly if you include the metropolitan area. The area around Norwich, Connecticut isn't usually thought of as being the "Norwich area", unless I'm mistaken. However, I'm dismayed that some people would feel that the fact Norwich, Connecticut was named for Norwich, England is relevant. I think that if that were regularly considered important in cases like these, people outside Britain would have good reason to complain. Joeldl 06:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose, provided there is a direct link to Norwich, Connecticut. The Norwich-New London metropolitan area has a population of 270,000. However, how much of this can be said to be the "Norwich area" isn't clear. So looking instead at the cities themselves, Norwich, Connecticut is about 30% as big as Norwich, England. This is close, but I think I'd lean against a disambiguation page. Joeldl 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Apologies for inadvertently deleting the comment above earlier today - as you surmise, it was an error. Barnabypage 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pro-UK maybe? Barnabypage 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on the opposition one referencing the AP, I have a copy of the AP Stylebook right here, and Norwich isn't listed at all in it, and isn't a stand-alone city according to them
    • The problem here is only disambiguation, since the default for British locations is just to give the name of the city. So it is a matter of the importance of Norwich, England relative to other Norwiches, not its importance as a city in the world. Joeldl 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Internal evidence: all the other Wikipediae with "Norwich" articles describe the English city. Only some of them even have disambiguation pages. One of these, the Norwegian one, does recognise that there are other Norwiches but nobody has bothered to write/translate an article on any of them yet. I suggest this indicates that Norwich is the Norwich for anybody outside New England. -- 博 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Two more added today (Danish and Bosnian): both Norwich only. (It's not me doing it!) -- 博 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As a quick experiment, I looked through what links to this article to see what the incidence of incorrect linking is. From a quick flash through the first 500 or so links I found one. GraemeLeggett 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be useful to Wikipedia to have some kind of rule about British community names and how that might interact with, let's call it the "British diaspora" in the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. It would be very, very useful for the English language Wikipedia. Very, very, very useful in avoiding this kind of discussion in the future. Noroton 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect such a rule would have to come down to notability, which is the sticking point here. How might it usefully differ from the already-established principles on primary topics and disambiguatiom? Barnabypage 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Anybody else surprised by what you get if you enter "Washington"? -- 博 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's because we are following a pre-existing disambiguation, natural in American; the city is at Washington, D.C., the President at George Washington. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, though I had to look to see what came up. I should have known; Georgia (U.S. state) is the only U.S. state that requires disambiguation. Again, that makes sense, since the common legal name of the state is Washington. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is very much like the situation with Philadelphia and Montreal. These places are so notable that we dispense with "Pennsylvania" or "Quebec". Norwich, England is the centre of a sizeable metropolitan area and its importance therefore goes well beyond the population of the city itself. It is a well-known city. Norwich, Connecticut, its closest competitor, is part of a metropolitan area, but doesn't really seem to be its "centre". If somebody can persuade me otherwise, I might support the move, but as it is, Norwich, England seems much more important. Joeldl 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the move but just indicating that the Norwich in Connecticut is locally important being one of the five "original" incorporated cities of Connecticut. In terms of metropolitan area size, it is also similar to the Norwich in England with a population exceeding 260,000. Norwich (CT) is one of the two centers of the Norwich-New London metropolitan area (both cities are part of the same urban area).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Park and Ride

Do we really need this much detail on the Park and Ride system? See WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Barnabypage 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged xenophobia

Is there any evidence of this? All that is given is "increasing anecdotal evidence", with no examples or citation - original research? Certainly I never saw any evidence of this in the three years I lived there. If no one can come up with anything reliable, I'd delete this bit. Anglo-Norman (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, although I know where the comments come from (I hear this type of thing all the time). It's a general perception, but is more anecdotal than accurate. – Agendum (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference for 'transition town'

http://transitionnorwich.org/
--78.86.146.148 (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Norwich never was and has never been England's second city. Bristol is the city that was second to London pre-industrialisation. You need to back up radical claims like this with reliable sources. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.119.59 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the third, as I recall and stated to be so, at some times. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

some refs Googled book Norwich third Googled book Bristol third Norfolk record society 2 or 3 and I see that Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom#History has some refs that puts Norwich as second from size. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a radical claim, it's routinely made in books on national, even European history by authors who are hardly Norwich partisans. Just fishing around in books I have to hand I found the following: Christopher Hibbert in 'The English: A Social History' puts Norwich second in terms of population at the end of the sixteenth century (p233, p284); an essay by Penelope Corfield, professor of history at Royal Holloway, in 'Norwich since 1550', puts Norwich second in terms of population in 1700 (p158); 'The Making of the English Landscape' by W G Hoskins (p139) - "the largest provincial town"; 'Reformation' by Diarmuid MacCulloch (p535) "the largest city in early Stuart England after London". Jamrifis (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents

I wonder if I am the only one who finds that the list of "Notable residents" is difficult to read as it attempts to convey too much information at once. I think it would be better to keep just a list of names and a short description such as, for example "Elizabeth Fry (1780–1845), social reformer" (and maybe the exact reason why they are connected with Norwich) and to store all the other information in the relevant biography. What do other users think? Cyan22 (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Jones (singer)

Hi. Why is Paul Jones listed on the contemporary people associated with Norwich? Northmetpit (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello everyone

Is there anybody out there willing to take part in editing pages of other Norfolk area.

We are sadly lacking in editors of recent times and it would help greatly if the Norfolk pages were anywhere bear as complete as the Norwich page is.

If you are interested please contact me thanks : Chaosdruid (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I live in North Suffolk, I was educated in Norfolk and Norwich. I know some parts of Norfolk fairly well (South, East and parts of the North. Depending upon what is planned, I may be able to assist.Roaringboy (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No museums then?

Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please add a section on museums if you can - offhand, I wouldn't think any of the Norwich museums/galleries apart from the Sainsbury_Centre_for_Visual_Arts are of great national or international notability, but they are certainly notable enough in the context of the city to be mentioned in this article. Barnabypage (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Norwich museums are of great importance to the city. However, I should point out that the Castle has one of the finest collections of East Anglian painting in the UK plus the teapot collection which is also unique in the country. I believe that the textile and costume collection at Strangers Hall is also of great importance. What is dispiriting is how Strangers Hall and Bridewell have been diminished by closure etc over the last 30 years or so - tho' I believe the Bridewell is now having work done on it.Roaringboy (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a nationwide trend, I noticed during research for another project that many mining museums as well as museums of the industrial revolution are closing down or already gone. We have 5 main candidates as far as I can tell and 1 closed for work:-
The Castle Museum is definitely of note, as it is the major centre in the region and has several collections which are unique, such as the teapots, Lowestoft porcelain and the wooden depictions of executions, there are also the remains and findings from local digs (and I don't mean crusty workmens socks from bed and breakfast lodgings!).
Strangers Hall
Norwich Aviation Museum - although outside city of Norwich boundary by a couple of miles it's name gives it away
Dragon Hall - not sure if there is another like this in the country though not sure if it is of note for full explanation I think a short mention would be appropriate
Bridewell alley should also get a mention even though closed for refurbishment.
Royal Norfolk Regimental Museum but I am not sure how that fits in as its only notable feature apart from the history of the local regiment and letters to familis etc is the archive of pics of the regiment in India
We also had Jarrold's Printing museum though I am not sure it still exists.--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Neatly summarised, Chaosdruid, and I for one would go along with your analysis. Jarrolds Printing Museum is still going judging from this link http://www.johnjarroldprintingmuseum.org.uk/ Roaringboy (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunno bout this one - most of the Jarrolds offices and plant on that site were flattened last year to make way for more shopping centres we don't need Im sorry I meant highly needed shopping centres lol. I'll ring them and see if they got moved somewhere else --Chaosdruid (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup it's still open every wed morning - got moved to the St James Mill premises as old building a bit demolished --Chaosdruid (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They dont know what they will be missing. What a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.124.69 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, chat, but still no mention of anything in the article! NFN I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoken Word Bad

The spoken "Norwich" is terrible with a loud metallic sound. Is this because it is Ogg insteaad of MP3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.145.137 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Norwich- Sport-Boxing - Herbie Hide

I notice that Herbie Hide isn't mentioned in the Norwich boxers paragraph. Should he be in there? I believe he lives in Norfolk, but whether in Norwich I know not. Please advise. Roaringboy 07:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Herbie Hide article states that he is "from Norwich" but doesn't expand on that and in fact the information following is a tad self-contradictory. He lives in Bawburgh, according to the Norwich Evening News (www.eveningnews24.co.uk), which is nearly Norwich although not technically so. Barnabypage (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say he shouldn't be in the Norwich article. Roaringboy 13:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norwich/Archive_1&oldid=1068846758"