Talk:Peterborough/Archive 2

I would like to mention that Peterborough is also a town in Ontario, Canada. For more information go to www.cityofpeterborough.ca or email coenbruin@hotmail.com

City of Peterborough should merge to here

I just noticed that there is an article of this title which appears to be part of someone's project to make a format for articles about towns in our region. This article has a lot more text in it, but theirs has some funky info-boxes (and a navigation template which I have already added here). I think we should merge these articles to here (especially since, on the Peterborough disambig page, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK is the primary reference)PaulHammond 05:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is becoming clear these articles should merge as there is conflict between them. Both are starting with text like "Peterborough is a city....". This should not be so. Either Peterborough is a place in the City of Peterborough (2 articles) or Peterborough is a city... (1 article). MRSC 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and merged these two as not one person objected to PaulHammond's suggestion in January. 10 months is ample time to lodge objection. MRSC 17:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Which county is Peterborough in?

I note this discussion is all old now (last comment in 2003) Maybe should be archived? Just one comment: I was born in Peterborough and have always considered that Peterborough was in Cambridgeshire PaulHammond 05:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peterborough is not in any county. When a unitary authority is created, the county borders are adjusted to exclude it. ( 19:30, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is correct, although it's worth mentioning that hardly anyone now takes much notice of the official boundaries (postal addresses, sports teams, and many maps use older borders). Enchanter 19:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is worth mentioning, as well as the historical situations. ( 19:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Enchanter is correct. It should be noted that the Boundary Commission consider the Peterborough unitary authority to be part of the Cambridgeshire region for their internal administrative purposes. -- The Anome 19:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See also http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961878_en_1.htm, particularly the 2nd page:

     Constitution of new county of Peterborough
         3.—(1)  Peterborough shall cease to form part of Cambridgeshire.

         (2)  A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Peterborough and shall be named the county of Peterborough.

         (3)  Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the county of Peterborough.

So it appears to have been part of Cambridgeshire. I'm not sure how geographical county is defined (someone was suggesting it was in the geographical county of Northamptonshire) ( 19:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Officially, Peterborough is not in any 'administrative' county. Peterborough has always been in the 'geographical' county of northaptonshire. When the boundary chances took place, the geographical county ceased to be the same as the administrative county (since P was administered as by Cambs). This did NOT mean P suddenly jumped out of Northants, or the Northants suddenly strunk. Government administration doesn't change geography.

If the French invaded the UK and took control of this country, renaming it "greater france", the area of Kent would suddenly cease to exist, because Kent is defined geographically, not politically. Whether or not sections of the border regions are administered by the local government authority called "surrey county council", those regions that lie within Kent are still part of Kent.

Council names such as "surrey county council", etc. are throw backs from the pre-local government boundary change days, where county councils actually did govern counties. The fact that "surrey" and "county" still appear in the name of this authority is irrelevent, and any argument attempting to use this fact is grasping with semantic straws.

Unless someone can logically counter this statement of fact (and I'd like to see them try) I strongly suggest that my original edit is replaced - this emphasized the differences between the former administritive "county", and the unchanging geographical county.

Regarding the http://www.hmso.gov.uk link - that is a notice of boundary changes to the 'administrative' area name - in this case the administrative county of cambridgeshire. As I have already explained, the original boundary changes meant that administrative "counties" became independent of geographical counties. Thus, the "boundaries" refered to in "The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996" is administrative only.

Is "geographical" county the same as traditional county? I have a suspicion that this concept is simply the administrative counties of an earlier era. However I wouldn't rule out the possibility that counties can be defined in a meaningful geographic way, e.g., following river boundaries etc., if there was widespread agreement on how they were defined. ( 20:06, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article you mention actually states:

"traditional counties" (also known as the "geographic counties") 

To say they are "administrative counties of an earlier era" is rather like describing England as "part of the roman empire at a later date"! The concept of "administrative counties" has been around for 30 or so years, whereas geographical county boundaries have been scarecly changed in hundreds; some date back more than a millenium. At the time of the "boundary change" the government could have expressly stated that geographical counties boundaries as they were then were to be superceeded by the new administrative 'counties. However, it didn't - quite the reverse, in fact.

On the 1st April 1974, upon implementation of the LGA 1972, a Government statement said: "The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change."

'NOTE "They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties" '

I suggest you read a very good explanation of the matter at http://www.abcounties.co.uk/counties/confusion.htm

80.225.etc

Some administrative history: http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/subsites/libraries/libraryguides/guide.shtml. It seems reasonable to describe peterborough as part of the "traditional county of Northamptonshire" as well as listing the administrative changes. (

I also think this passage has huge relevance:

'"Whilst the Counties are no longer used directly as the basis for any major form of public administration they do, of course, remain significant cultural and geographical entities. They are also the ultimate source of definition for the boundaries of many modern local government areas. For example, the LGA 1972's "county" of "Norfolk" is defined in terms of the boundaries of the LGA 1888's "administrative county" of "Norfolk" which was defined in terms of the historic County of Norfolk. The boundaries of Norfolk are not set out in any Statute. Yet they exist and can be determined to high accuracy. If they didn't and/or couldn't then the modern local government area's boundaries could not be defined. "'

RE: "It seems reasonable to describe peterborough as part of the "traditional county of Northamptonshire" as well as listing the administrative changes." This is what I effectively initially did. However, to revert it to that would require "The Anome" to eat his words and stop throwing his admin weight around...

For the record... My edit was:

Peterborough is a unitary authority and city in the east of England. 
It was founded by the Romans in 43 AD and is geographically in the county of Northamptonshire, 
although included within the local government administritive area of Cambridgeshire

What the Anome wrote, after he edited my correct information out, was:

... was traditionally in the county of Cambridgeshire ...

which I hope you would agree is plain wrong.

And yet he had the arrogance to exclaim:

OK, I'm finding dealing with this user tedious. 
The Peterborough/Cambidgeshire edits are particularly silly 
-- a moment's research shows his edits are wrong

which is complete fiction of the worst kind.

RE: " It lies in the geographical county of Cambridgeshire but in the historic counties of Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire."

It doesn't lie in the "geographical county of Cambridgeshire" - the wikipedia article on "Traditional counties" states that "geographic" and "traditional" counties are synonymous. Look at it yourself!

Administratively, P doesn't lie in any "county". The ONLY county it is in, TODAY, is Northamptonshire.

There are three kinds of counties - administrative, geographic, and historic. Administratively, Peterborough is a unitary authority so doesn't lie in any county. But it lies in the geographic county of Cambridgeshire, and it lies in the three historic counties mentioned. --Wik 21:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall, here. Let me put this as clearly as possible:

1. We have established (by link posted by the anome) that administratively, peterborough is in no administrative county - it is a UAA. 2. We have also established that Peterborough is in the traditional (syn. "historic" and "geographic[al]") county of Northamptonshire.

Therefore:

1. saying "It lies in the geographical county of Cambridgeshire" is untrue. 2. saying it lies in "in the historic counties of Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire" is highly ambigious, since only "Peterborough UAA" does, and you have first stated: "Peterborough is a unitary authority and city"

Well, I disagree with what you have "established". Geographic and historic counties are not synonymous. And the city and unitary authority are coextensive. Only the original core (the "Soke of Peterborough") is in historic Northamptonshire. Other parts of today's city are in historic Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. --Wik 21:16, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Wikipedia traditional county article states ""traditional counties" (also known as the "geographic counties")". I had established this with another comment-maker. However, the posting of the above link hereby formally establishes it for you!

Can't we all agree with something along the lines of "Peterborough" is now administered as a unitary authority. The centre of the city is in the historic county of Northamptonshire, with other parts of todays city in the historic counties of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire"?

Wik, you make a distinction between "historic counties" and "geographic counties" - I'm not clear what the distinction is between these terms (and the article isn't clear either).

Enchanter 22:21, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A geographic county has a lord lieutenant. It typically comprises an administrative county and one or more unitary authorities. For example, geographic Cambridgeshire comprises administrative Cambridgeshire plus the Peterborough unitary authority. Administrative Cambridgeshire in turn includes historic Cambridgeshire and most of historic Huntingdonshire. --Wik 22:35, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, to avoid more confusion, why not simply call these "Lord Lieutenencies", particuarly as the wiki article on "Historic counties" synonnymises them with "geographic"? In any case calling Lord Lieutenencies "Geographic counties" is rather a misnomer, since geographically, historic counties form the basis of both LLs and ACs, and without them, neither could be defined.

LLs may carry the word "county" but they are no more counties than Administrative counties. Thus calling them counties is unnecessarily confusing, particularly when simply "Lord Lieutenencies" is equally correct and far less ambiguous. 80.225

OK, we now have a compromise that I am happy with. -- The Anome 08:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

It is misleading to state that Peterborough is in Cambridgeshire; it is only in the 'Ceremonial county' (i.e. Lord Lieutenecy area) of Cambridgeshire, and this is explicitly stated in the info box on the right.

Constitution of new county of Peterborough

3.—(1) Peterborough shall cease to form part of Cambridgeshire.

(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Peterborough and shall be named the county of Peterborough.

[1]

I have thus removed this unqualified mention of Cambridgeshire. 80.255 17:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly P'boro has been part of Huntingdon and Peterborough, Northahmptonshire and of Cambs, for different purposes, as well as standing on it's own. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45 31 January 2007 (GMT).

Welland?

I've never been to the UK, but I keep Welland on my watchlist due to the multiple places in Canada called Welland. Can someone more local tell if the addition by 80.3.145.9 (talk • contribs) is correct? If so, should we change the link to Welland (Peterborough) following the trend of other district pages' names? Is it notable enough to get an entry on the Welland disambiguation page?

Thanks, Qviri (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Mary Queen of Scots.

She's another point of distinction. --GwydionM 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox/economy changes

An anon keeps changign the figures for population breakdown in the infobox. The existing figures aren't cited admittedly. I tried to get some proper figures from teh ONS website, www.statistics.gov.uk but it's not particularly user-friendly, waht figures I could find were clsoer to what's currently in the article, rather than what they were changed too. They really should be cited properly one way or the other of course. The latest edits also deleted some cited info from teh economy section without explanation, so I've reverted all changes. David Underdown 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed and referenced the ethnicity data, but for future reference, the best way to find stats on the ONS website is to go to [2], type the town name into Box 1, and select 'Local Authority' under 2. Click search, and you get a list of links. The top one, '2001 Census: Census Area Statistics' has most of the data needed here. Cordless Larry 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity data

As alluded to above, people seem to be making unreferenced changes to the ethnicity data in the infobox. This has happened a number of times over the last few months, but due to the diligence of other editors, these changes have been reverted. This is just a note to make people aware of the correct data, which is available here. A simpler version of the stats is here. It would be helpful if people could keep an eye on this to make sure unreferenced changes don't slip through the net. Cordless Larry 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Or direct from the ONS here. Cordless Larry 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Demographics

This is a dispute about the repeated removal of references to the Italian community in Peterborough by user:80.3.253.138. 163.167.129.124 12:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

163.167.129.124 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pass

2. Factually accurate?: fail. There are few sources. Too much of the material is unsourced

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?: pass

5. Article stability? pass

6. Images?: pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Sefringle 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

I think we probably ought to talk about the use of the templates ehre, rather than arguing it back and forth in the edit summaries. OK, WP:CITE does say that they are neither ecnouraged nor discouraged, but I've only used them for references I've sourced myself - what do you see as the problem with them? Maybe it's jsut because of my line of work, but i prefer to see more context in the refs than the bald fact of wehre they came from, and when they were originally published, by stripping my tags away you are removing information I've gone to the trouble of finding, and which others may find useful, there's no obligation to put all the other references in the same form,or even to try and get the same level of information for them. David Underdown 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have spent some time sorting out the references properly and the two uses of templates are untidier and not in the same format as the other 25. It's not a major issue, but the only additional information included is superfluous, ie. the publisher of the ET and (latest) date retrieved. I will leave them on the diocese page as you have put them, but do you mind leaving them on the city page for now? Thanks, Chris/163.167.129.124 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind one way or the other about Johnston Press, but I'm not sure date retrieved is that superfluous. Websites get revamped from time to time and can break existing links (or a website may be temporarily unavailable), date retrieved to some extent reassures people that the link was valid at some point in the past, even if not right now this minute, and together with things like Google cache may help in establishing the current valid link if links do get broken. Generally it's better to capture more info rather than less. I will leave it for now however, any chance that in return you could make more use of preview, rather than doing lots of small edits (I don't always remember myself), but it does make the history of the article clearer? It's also easier/friendlier talking to a name not an IP, there's obviously no compulsion to register, and if you use a pseudonym your actually giving away less info than when an IP address is a available for everyone to see. David Underdown 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further on date retrieved, see WP:CITE#Full citations states that date retrieved should "typically" be amongst the info presented in a full citation. David Underdown 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers David. I take your point about preview. Chris/163.167.129.124 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Development of Greater Peterborough

The article is shaping up nicely, but still no info about either:

• the Peterborough Development Corporation (the Government body that promoted investment, and development in Peterborough);
• Tom Hancock, the man who developed the Greater Peterborough Master Plan in 1966, setting out how the city was to expand over the next 15 years; Tom was also responsible for pioneering the Parkway concept as crucial to the city's growth.

There is information about these in both Peterborough Central Library, and Peterborough Regional College library, but not on the web, so far (unless i'm wrong). (82.152.193.220 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Please feel free to add this information yourself then. 81.76.124.26 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article redlink on the development corporation to try and stimulate creation fo the article (see WP:REDLINK for why the assertion that "we don't put redlinks in articles" in a recent edit summary does not seem to be born out by this style guideline). The article is generally without redlinks so one for this, and one for Queensgate doesn't seem unreasonable. There's also been some to-ing and fro-ing over Parkway, where I'm more inclined to leave the link out as the article as it stands isn't really relevant to the construction of (so-called) parkways in Peterborough. Either more info needs to be added to that article on UK (Peterborough) usage, or there's no point linking to it. David Underdown 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Key Ferry Cruises

I'm not sure this is appropriate content. It seems a bit like advertising? Any thoughts anyone..? 84.71.131.180 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

GA (2nd nom)Failed:Fixes needed

Per the criteria at WP:WIAGA, I have had to fail this article's GA nomination. The following fixes are needed at the indicated sections of the article:

• Lead section:
  • The lead does not fully summarize the article. The article spends consderable space discussing History, Economy, Culture, etc. A sentance of two on each of these sections in the lead is really needed to help this article. See WP:LEAD for more information.

*Local Government:

• • "Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is one of the country's top performing NHS acute trusts" according to whom? Reference needed.

*Economy:

• • "In 2005 economic growth on average for the UK was 5.5%, whilst in Peterborough it was 6.9%, the highest in the UK." Really, who did these calculations? Reference?

*Education:

• • Entirely unreferenced. There are lots of facts and figures quoted here. From where are these gotten?

*Culture:

• • Entirely unreferenced. Who says these "points of interest" are interesting? I don't doubt they are, but where is the reference for them?

*Sport:

• • Entirely unreferenced. Again, ditto with above...

*Media:

• • Entirely unreferenced.
  • Also, this section contains external links in the body of the text. Should not be done. If relevent, move to External Links section, and replace with either plain text or wikilinks as appropriate. See WP:EL for more information.

*Places of Interest:

• • For organization purposes, why is this separate from Culture? Couldn't the two be next to each other, or the one a subset of the other? Maybe Culture as a 2='s heading and and Places of Interest, Sport, and Media as 3='s headings? Or at least have PoI next to Culture, since they seem closely related.

**Again, each of these PoI has information that should be referenced to at least one source.

• • Also has external links in main text.

*References:

• • Several references lack full bibliographic information. For example, the article "The town the Poles took over" from Mail on Sunday has an author listed at the article, "Sue Reid", but they are not named here. Check the rest of the refs to see if they have named authors that are forgotten.

There, I know it is a lot, but my goal here is to give you concrete fixes to bring this up to GA status. This is very close to a REALLY great article. If the above fixes are done, please renominate at WP:GAC, or with an article of this breadth of coverage, also consider a nomination for featured status is the above fixes are made, and it passes GA. Good luck, and if you have any questions, please drop a note at my talk page. Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Minster Precincts

Certainly in postal terms the correct name is Minster Precincts with an "s" as referenced by the link I included in my edit summary, http://www.peterborough-cathedral.org.uk/Office%20of%20Verger.htm (which can also be confirmed by using the Royal Mail address finder) - why do you think it's correct without the "s"? If it was written as, "outside the Cathedral precinct", using precinct merely in its architectural sense, I could see your point, but if you're going to use the specifc form, we should get it right David Underdown 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Please expand the lead and provide citations for the following lines and I will pass this article.

"From 2006 to 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place"

"The King's School, Peterborough is one of seven schools established, or in some cases re-endowed and renamed, by King Henry VIII in 1541 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries to pray for his soul."

"It is currently ranked in the top 5% of colleges in the UK."

"The Key Theatre seats 379 and has a unique atmosphere, providing both intimacy and an excellent view for all patrons. "

"The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter, Saint Paul and Saint Andrew, originally founded as a monastery in AD 655, was re-built in its present form between 1118 and 1238 and has been the seat of the Bishop of Peterborough since the Diocese was created in 1541."

"The reason for this is that at some point in history the monks of the abbey shut their doors to the general public which meant that they had to build their own church to worship in "

"Longthorpe Tower contains the finest and most complete set of domestic paintings of the period in northern Europe."

"Peterborough is twinned with the following towns:"

Epbr123 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What particular aspect of the info on the King's School do you see as needing citing? That there are seven such schools (I believe they are Peterborough - this is from King's Peterborough's own website, but does list all 7 of the schools, Ely, Canterbury, Chester, Worcester, Gloucester (this link mentions that there were 7, but does not name them) and Rochester) that King's Peterborough itself was founded in 1541, or what? This reference http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/95/95744.html notes that Henry VIII refounded several schools at the Reformation, but does not name them. This is an external (published) history of King's Peterborough http://www.brianjford.com/w-rothg.htm (albeit by a former teacher there) - but it does not mention the other King's Schools. With a quick google I'm finding it hard to find any truly independent reference. On the other hand, it is hardly controversial and the history of these 7 schools is well known within England.

Again what aspect of the information on the Cathedral is it that you particularly feel needs citing?

I suspect the information on St JOhn's is not enitrely correct, and it might actually be better to delete that sentence, Ely also ahs the Parish church not far from the Catehdral, and this was foten the case, not so much because the monks shut the public out, but because as the town developed the lcoals wanted to assert their independence to some degree. David Underdown 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a source that King Henry VIII renamed the school to pray for his soul. If the brianjford source mentions it, that's fine.

I feel the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter paragraph needs citations for the dates.

You can alter the St John's section as you see fit if you feel its not accurate.

Epbr123 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources I've found mention the chantry aspect of the King's School, so again, it's probably best to strike that too - inded chantries were largely abolished by Henry VIII in 1545, so it seems somewhat unlikely. For the Cathedral dates this The Cathedral Church of Peterborough, by W.D. Sweeting at Project Gutenberg should cover it - certainly the initial founding and creation of the Diocese are mentioned in the first page of body text and 1118 and 1238 are given elsewhere in the first chapter - the format used doesn't seem to preserve the original page numbering unfortunately. This source also has some interesting information on the history of peterborough more generally,a nd governance prior to the creation of the borough. David Underdown 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the prior reviewer (see above) on this article, and a request was made at my talk page seeking my further input. The above sentances quoted by this reviewer do need references, and it looks like the lead was never expanded from my earlier review, so I would strongly recommend that the lead be expanded some. Basically, about each section in the text deserves a sentance or two in the lead to explain it. The lead explains NOTHING about the history, yet the article devotes about 3 pages of text to it. Also, the economy & transport sections might warrent a sentance or two and the education/culture/attrractions probably needs some basic introduction in the lead. The lead should fully summarize the article; this one leaves a LOT of room for expansion. See WP:LEAD for more information on this. In summary, I agree with everything this reviewer has noted as needs fixing, with special emphasis on the lead. Since this is a "hold" and not a "fail" I suspect that once the fixes are made, the reviewer intends to pass it, though I would not presume to speak for them.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. I noticed that the Famous Peterborians section is entirely unreferenced. This may need some help too.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Work still to do

The town's industries and attractions need to be mentioned in the lead. I still can't see a reference for the "£1 billion re-development of the city centre". References for each of the Famous Peterborians will also have to be found. Epbr123 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ref. 32 refers to the re-development. I'm happy to remove the whole section Famous Peterborians pending award of GA status. 163.167.129.124 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does require a 'famous residents' section. Epbr123 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can cut it down to the two who are cited then. You are really making us jump through hoops with this! 163.167.129.124 11:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done most of the work for you. Just George Alcock to do. Epbr123 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Would something like:

"The history of human settlement in the area dates back to the Bronze Age as can be seen at the Flag Fen archaeological site to the north-east of the current city centre. The Romans also left their mark there. The Saxon period saw the establishment of an abbey, which later became Peterborough Cathedral. The population grew rapidly following the arrival of the railways in the 19th century, and Peterborough became something of an industrial centre, particularly noted for its brick manufacture. The population has again undergone rapid expansion since Peterborough was designated a New town following the Second World War. This continues today with the council's current development masterplan running to 2012 being particularly focused on a £1 billion regeneration of the City Centre and immediately surrounding areas. In common with much of the UK, industrial employment has fallen, with newer jobs tending to be in financial services and distribution."

Do the job for the lead? Working all the attractions in would tend to make it rather long, this at least mentions the cathedral and Flag Fen (and railways in general). May be worth mentioning Perkins amongst industries too. David Underdown 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• That look's great. Epbr123 13:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'd also need to do a bit of revision to linking further down the article, so as not to link to the same article repeatedly. Any other comments? David Underdown 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll pass the article once the text is added to the lead and either a reference is found for 'The Key Theatre' line or its POV language is reduced. It also fails the 'stability' GA criteria until the protection from editing is removed. I'd recommend nominating the article for FA status straight after GA is approved. The reviewers there will tell you how to perfect the article. Epbr123 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The unnecessary protection has now been removed, and I've added the para to the lead. I'll see if I can find anything suitable for the Key. David Underdown 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Googling suggests it's taken pretty much verbatim from the theatre's website, i can't find any press reviews or anything that mention it. Out it comes. David Underdown 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The contents list is also a bit long. You may have to eventually remove the subheadings from the Transport and Attractions sections but I'll let the FA reviewers decide this. Epbr123 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Overwrought key blurb trimmed - I've re-ordered the para a bit to as it repeated itslef to a smll degree. David Underdown 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pass! Good work. Epbr123 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my request for protection

There's no edit war on Peterborough, just a minor disagreement over the format of one particular reference, now resolved amicably. Why on earth did you rush off aand ask for protection without contacting us first? Either raise you concerns on the article talk page, or directly on our talk pages. Please request unprotection as we are on the verge of getting the article promoted to Good Article. The anon and myself were working perfectly happily together, as you can confirm by contacting him. Protection should be a last resort, not slapped on at the drop of a hat. David Underdown 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. 163.167.129.124 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is copied from my talk page, but in case you aren't watching that, I'm going to put it here as well:

All I had to go off of was the fact that the anon would make an edit and then David would revert it. They gave a reason for the edit, you discredited it and reverted it. It's been back and forth for a while today. That constitutes an edit war. If you're willing to work on it, work on it through the talk pages and then edit the article. And, clearly, an admin agreed with me because they protected the page. --pIrish 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you think you've resolved your differences, you can request unprotection just as easily as I can. In fact, it may very well be more impactful since a user involved is showing the intiative to improve the article. Since the page is now unprotected, I will assume that you will stop the nonsense reverting since you claim it's been resolved? --pIrish 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headings

I would like to see these restored to Places of interest, together with For more information on this topic, see... links. 81.77.72.72 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think these are neccesary. They do little to aid navigation, and in my opinion harm the layout of the article and flow of the text. The purpose of subheadings is to:

• Provide a quick way to jump from the table of contents to specific areas of interest
• Break down large chunks of text into sections easier to read

However, when they are overused the opposite effects are achieved:

• The ToC becomes so long that it gets difficult to use
• The flow of the text is too fragmented and difficult to follow: three of those sections contained a mere two sentences (with a paragraph break between them!), while two more contained just three sentences. Two sentences don't need their own paragraph, let alone an entire subsection.

In the case of the places of interest, places significant enough to warrant a mention in this article should be significant enough to have an article of their own. And since this article is supposed to be an overview of everything important about the town, it should not go too in depth about any one aspect, merely point readers to those articles that do go in depth.

I asure you I am not deliberately trying to be awkward, merely trying to make this article conform to the standard layouts determined by WP:MOS for all articles, and WP:UK geo for UK cities. Those are only guidelines, and I'm open to arguments that they should be overuled in certain cases. However, it is up to those who want to break the guidelines to provide a case for doing so. Joe D (t) 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Just realised that this article is using a hard coded table instead of a "standard" infobox {{infobox UK place}} looks to be the usual and looks to cover pretty well everything we currently have, and some other stuff too. Is there any particular reason not to change? David Underdown 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reason not to is that Peterborough is a unitary authority as well as a city. It therefore has a council, which is covered by this infobox. There are vague plans for a new infobox for districts, boroughs and unitaries, so it might be easiest just to leave things as they are until they are complete? Joe D (t) 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now read the template discussion, so i see what you mean. I'm not particularly bothered either way, it was jsut a passing thought. David Underdown 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Designated a New Town in 1967, not 'following second world war'

We now have a citation showing Peterborough being designated a New Town in 1967 in the London Gazette so can we please keep it at that and stop reverting it to 'following the second world war' in the lead at the top. 1967 was some 22 years later.

Saying 'following the second world war' is historically innaccurate as Peterborough was not designated at the same time as the 1st wave of new towns such as Harlow, Stevenage etc which WERE designated 'following the second world war' (around 1947), but at a much later date.

I disagree. 1967 is some time after WW2, but the whole New Town movement came out of the post-war rebuilding process so it is worth linking the events together. Also the first reference is in the lead of the article which is designed to give a broad overview of the subject, without getting bogged down in details, the specific date is given further on in the article. Please stop edit warring. 84.67.198.254 10:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The third generation of new towns of which Peterborough was part had nothing to do with the 'post-war' rebuilding process but was designed to alleviate housing shortages and economic overheating in Greater London during the 1960s, therefore this reference is not really appropriate. This would also mislead the reader into thinking rapid growth happened post-world war II, when in fact rapid expansion only started post 1967.

84.67.198.254 - you seem determined to have 'second world war' somewhere in the lead so how about this version?

Walton

I Think there Should be Something about Walton, Their School, Which is to Be knocked down, Is Famous for Their Music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.67.254 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Norman Foster link

I believe the link should be titled simply Norman Foster rather than the full Lord Foster of Thames Bank as the former is the most common usage of his name. At the outer I can go with Lord Foster. It is not unencyclopaedic to remove titles in simple links such as this case. For comparison I refer to the articles for some of his other major works: British Museum Reading Room, 30 St Mary Axe, Reichstag building, Torre de Collserola and HSBC Main Building, Hong Kong. All of these use either of the examples I've suggested as preferable. None I have found calls him by his full title.

I hope we can agree on this. Witty Lama 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Foster of Thames Bank is correct. While it is correct to omit the territorial designation, in this case, of Reddish in the county of Greater Manchester, of Thames Bank should be included as it is part of the actual title. Please see here for an example. In any case, as a Knight Bachelor, he would otherwise be entitled to the style Sir Norman Foster, which is what this article used before today. Please revert your last edit; this article is a current featured article candidate and should be free of content disputes. 84.66.5.52 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I profess no great knowledge of the nomenclature patterns of British titles, and I realise that there is a great deal of traditional rules regarding their proper usage. However, the Manual of style agrees with my point above in that honourific titles shouldn't be used in the inline text (especially not in a link) but rather in the person's proper article. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. I therefore think things should stay as they are. Please tell me if you agree in the light of this. Witty Lama 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if you "profess no great knowledge of the nomenclature patterns of British titles" you leave them alone. Again, please revert your last change and try to seek consensus. Lord Foster of Thames Bank is perfectly appropriate in the context of this article, it is not an honourific prefix in the sense that you describe and I think that you will find the Manual of Style agrees. 84.66.5.52 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you say that Sir Norman Foster is not only a good middle between the titular and common name, but it also has the value of precedent if that is what the article has said untill now. Why don't we just go back to that? Is that acceptable? Furthermore, please don't tell me to mind my own business and to seek consensus - this is Wikipedia, this is everyone's business and secondly seeking consensus is precisely what we're doing here. All I'm saying is that to have the full title as you suggest is more detail than it need be considering this is a simple link to the man's biography page. His full titles should be listed there no contest, but not here. Furthermore, as I stated, none of the other major buildings of his design (that I could find) use the title as you are suggesting here. I say we stick with what is standard across the related articles rather than create a new standard here. Witty Lama 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as I keep saying is should read Lord Foster of Thames Bank, a peerage outranks a knighthood, and this is not his full title which is Sir Norman Robert Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank, OM, RDI. You did not start by seeking consensus, but with threatening 3RR. Anyway, I refer you back to the Manual of Style which you yourself quoted. I am not interested in the other articles, but by rights someone should go around and change it in all of them. Please just revert yourself here. 84.66.5.52 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "threaten" 3RR - I was pointing out in the edit summary that it was approaching and that we'd better take it to a talk page rather than revert each other. Could you point to where in the MoS it gives guidance in this kind of situation? It talks about the lead sentences of Bio pages and how there should be written the full titles, but in the text of another article? The closest thing I can find is "Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title...should not be included in the text inline.." Further, can you point to an example of the kind of usage you are advocating anywhere else on-wiki? I know you said "I am not interested in the other articles" but you have to agree that consistency and clarity is very important - especially when it comes to people's names. If there are no other examples of the type of usage you suggest (either for Mr. Foster or for others) then I don't think it would be reasonable to start a whole new naming convention just for Peterborough.

Also, can you please stop implying that I'm not seeking consensus - clearly I am. That I reverted your initial change is not against consensus as you had not discussed this with anyone else either (AFAIK). I am simply defending the status quo. In fact your dogmatism does you no credit if consensus is genuinely what you seek. Witty Lama 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As for consistency, of the buildings you list:

• • British Museum Reading Room, states Norman Foster,
  • 30 St Mary Axe, states Lord Foster,
  • Reichstag building, states Norman Foster,
  • Torre de Collserola, states Lord Norman Foster. This is factually incorrect. The title is attached to the surname not the christian name, and
  • HSBC Main Building, Hong Kong, states Sir Norman Foster.

As far as I am aware only the first two were completed since his elevation to the peerage. So again, please revert your last edit. 84.66.5.52 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The are consistent inasmuch as they deem it appropriate to either call him by first+last name or simply Lord or Sir. There simply is no precedent to calling someone by such a long title when the article Peterburough only gives such fleeting reference to him - I simply see no need to place the elaborate title there. In his bio-article yes. here no. For comparison, not a single article points to Baron Bragg (preferring to go with his commonly known name Melvyn) and only three (quite minor articles) point towards Baroness Thatcher. Why you would insist that this one page refer to this one person by the full title, and dogmatically so, yet not push for change on a wider forum (i.e. at MoS) surprises me. There simply is no precedent (that I can find) for what you're trying to do. Witty Lama 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not dogmatic, I simply wish to be correct. To state "The are consistent inasmuch as they deem it appropriate to either call him by first+last name or simply Lord or Sir" is meaningless. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word in a dictionary. I have answered every one of your points, please revert your last edit to this article. 84.66.5.52 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of the cases where it would be simpler just to avoid the "long name" - it's a wikilink, if anyone wants more information it's one click to see it. Part of the problem is, we want to be concise while packing in as much information as possible. On a FA this is especially important. So, from my point of view (which is neutral) the shorter version works. -- Tawker 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The link actually points to Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank. Lord Foster of Thames Bank is absolutely correct in the context of a 2007 building in an English city and reads well. I would still like this edit reverted. 84.66.5.52 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see you disagree and that's fine, but please address my concerns above rather than simply repeating that it is the correct nomenclature (I don't doubt you) and that you prefer it that way. I piped the link to avoid having to go via a redirect, it's easier on the servers that way (when it all stacks up). Witty Lama 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The link was already piped before you touched it, please check the edit history. I have already addressed "your concerns above." Please revert your edit, you are incorrect by your own admission. 84.66.5.52 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This must be getting to the stage of being one of the silliest edit wars ever! :-P This is such a minor point in the article that it doesn't even make a single change to the content - the link remains. Ok then, I'll summarise my questions - who calls him Lord Foster of Thames Bank?? There is only one inbound link to that name and that is from Members of the House of Lords itself! It is quite simply, a name that no one uses and makes the article less clear as a result. Witty Lama 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that original research? Your only input to this article has been to "edit war" this point. If it is so minor, why don't you concede the point as I have addressed all your so-called concerns? 84.66.5.52 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, why don't we list this for comment on some bulletin board - there is no way that we will come to agreement here. And frankly, your increasing incivility does not make me inclined to continue discussion. Witty Lama 20:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to remain civil, I apologise if my irritation was showing. Let me know where you list it and I will contribute further there. If I do not hear from you though, I will revert it myself as I feel I have already more than made the case for it's inclusion above. 84.66.5.52 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Immediately above is a discussion on the appropriate name that should be given to the wikilink to the bio-page of the architect Norman Foster. One participant believes it should be simply Norman Foster, the other believes it should be Lord Foster of Thames Bank.

Lord Foster of Thames Bank is both correct and consistent with the rest of this article. 163.167.129.124 08:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Climate & Accent

Surely these should be listed as seperate sections of the article and not placed directly in with geography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Towerblocktom (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. These topics relate very closely to local geography and do not warrant sections of their own. 90.242.41.51 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you should discuss or give a reason first before you just undo edits? I've listed them as sub-sections.

I gave a reason above. Perhaps you might like to follow your own advice though..? 90.240.67.249 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They should be sub-sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub-sections are a compromise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The rest of this article is broken down into sub sections eg culture into arts, sport and media. It is logical that geography is also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Towerblocktom (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pixel sizes in thumbnails

I recently made an edit to this article, removing pixel sizes from thumbnails, which was reverted by User:163.167.129.124 who also called me "extremely rude" in the edit summary which I believe goes against Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

As stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images:

"Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers)."

Any reason why this article deserves special treatment when following (or not) the guidelines?

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for my remark. It was my mistake and not aimed at you. However, your edit messed up the formatting of the article. You also removed necessary capital letters (to Minster Precincts), inappropriately added full stops to four of the seven images and added a horrible picture of a train, with three lines of text underneath it.

The Manual of Style, which you quote, incidently states Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: On a lead image that captures the essence of the article. 163.167.129.124 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)