Jump to content

Talk:Cambridge

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.171.231.104 (talk) at 20:20, 9 September 2013 (→‎Revisit move discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeCambridge was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Wikipedia CD selection

Secular Humanists

The reference to the Humanist society really ought to be taken out of the 'Religion' section (principally because humanism isn't a religion) and relocated somewhere in 'Culture'. There's no obvious sub-section of 'Culture' for it at the moment though. Does anybody have any suggestions as to where it should go? Blakk and ekka 12:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MPs

The MP for Cambridge City is Julian Huppert. Andrew Lansley is MP for South Cambridgeshire (and City residents don't vote in the county parliamentary elections). Since this page is for the City, Andrew Lansley should not be mentioned here. He is correctly on the South Cambridgeshire page. ---- Richard Parkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.91.35 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of places in the article refer to the Cambridge urban area, including parts of the South Cambridgeshire district. More significantly, Cambridge#Westminster says "One area of the city, Queen Edith's ward,[26] lies in the South Cambridgeshire constituency, ..." and gives a reference which looks convincing; do you dispute that? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the Ordnance survey maps and the above comment is correct: I withdraw my original comment. 82.69.91.35 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Richard Parkins[reply]

Arbury Park would be another example - it’s contiguous with the rest of Cambridge but (AFAIK) currently outside all of the Cambridge political/administrative boundaries. Ewx (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight?

Thousands of years of history, one of the world's most famous university cities and the second line of the lead (and comprising a substantial proportion of the relatively short intro) is "Cambridge is at the heart of the high-technology centre known as Silicon Fen – a play on Silicon Valley and the fens surrounding the city". Has someone from the council development office written this? danno 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be bold and try and re-write it? I think you've got a point. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– This topic, a town with a mere 125,000 inhabitants, is clearly not the primary topic for "Cambridge". Even though this article is currently at the base name, University of Cambridge, commonly referred to as "Cambridge", still gets more page views (76k for the university v.s. 50k for the town), and Cambridge, Massachusetts gets almost as many (35k). The proposed title follows the pattern used to title the articles about many other towns in Cambridgeshire (see Category:Civil_parishes_in_Cambridgeshire). Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If population has anything to do with it, Cambridge, Massachusetts has a population of only 105,162 versus 125,700 for Cambridge. But population is irrelevant, otherwise Bethlehem, a village with a population of only 25,266, wouldn’t be a primary topic; clearly notability is derived from something other than population. Your point on number of inhabitants is irrelevant to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.164.211 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Your page view stats suggest far more people are interested in this city than the US one. But there's no chance of confusion with the US city as they are always disambiguated by state. As for the university it will only be referred to as "Cambridge" where the context is clear ("I graduated from Cambridge in 1987"). By the same criteria the football team is as ambiguous ("Liverpool played Cambridge in the FA Cup"). But we don't have to deal with that, or everything else with "Cambridge" in its name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant context for primary topic determination is searching. Are you suggesting users searching for the university do not just enter "cambridge" and click "go"? That they will also enter " university" in the box before clicking go? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this page is moved then it should be to Cambridge, England not Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. "Cambridgeshire" is overly precise, appears odd due to the apparent tautology, and against the guidelines on this matter. Furthermore, this Cambridge is referred to as "Cambridge, England" much more frequently than it as as "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire". All that adds up to "England" being the appropriate term for disambiguation. That is, if disambiguation is required.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Cambridge was the original city of this name, existing many centuries before America was even discovered by Europeans. If new cities are subsequently named after other cities, then the onus is to distinguish them, not rename the original, e.g. New York. Cambridge 2. Cambridge is better known internationally, in my experience, whereas Cambridge, Massachusetts is a district of Boston, barely known at all. Also, it is incorrect to refer to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, as the city has been granted a royal charter in its own right. Cambridge, England would be a more correct term. 85.210.164.211 (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, in the case of Boston, none of these things is true, except that Boston, Massachusetts was named after Boston, Lincolnshire.
In the case of Cambridge, all of these are true. The population is (slightly) larger than Cambridge, Massachusetts; the city has a significant regional and national status (not just related to the University); Cambridge was established first, well over a thousand years earlier; Cambridge, Massachusetts was explicitly named in honour of Cambridge; Cambridge is at least as well-known internationally; the Cambridge Wikipedia article receives more hits (56623 versus 35176); and the status quo is that the Cambridge is currently the primary article. 85.210.170.87 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that's not what you said before. Including those important qualifiers is a far cry from "If new cities are subsequently named after other cities, then the onus is to distinguish them, not rename the original" Powers T 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did also say 'Cambridge is better known internationally' and it’s been pointed out above fwiw that its population is greater, but you've chosen to ignore that. It is not necessary to reiterate every argument I have against this proposal, particularly as there are overwhelmingly many.
The issues around this have already been discussed extensively and repeatedly here, here, here, here, here, here (and again here), here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (and yet again here), here (and again here), here, here (and again here), here and even here and here (twice!).
But you know that, because you’ve been active in some of these previous campaigns and made the same point on 25 October 2010. 85.210.173.153 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most UK Russell Group Universities are known by the name of the city they are located in by that name alone, but only in the context of it being a University. By nature of their history and status, the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are slightly different in the outward perception of them, but the terms "in Cambridge" and "at Cambridge" have distinct and discreet meanings. To disambiguate "Cambridge" to "Cambridge, England" or "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire" is not the usual way of thinking, but disambiguating "Cambridge" to "University of Cambridge" is a commonplace occurrence. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Cambridge, England. Although the disambiguation page gets only a fraction of the pageviews of Cambridge (a strong indication that few readers are led astray), I think the other two main uses are competitive enough to justify putting the disambiguation page at the base name. Powers T 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if this move can even be proposed with citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it suggests thatWP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs editing (or reverting) to be clearer. This to me reinforces the impression that more input and common sense often goes into the RMs than the guidelines that they are supposedly built one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. David Biddulph (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the primary topic is either the University, or there is no primary topic. It is not the university town that the university is located in. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The case for change has not been made. As noted, the university is called "Cambridge" rather than "Cambridge University" or "University of Cambridge" only when it is evident from the context that it is the university that is being referred to. I doubt any readers are confused by the status quo here, but, if they are, they will see a blue link to the university in the first line of the second paragraph of this article. Surely that will suffice. -- Alarics (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons completely in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we are to move, "Cambridge, England" makes more sense. PatGallacher (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Cambridge, England as nom. The main point here is that the town is the not the primary topic based on usage, and so should not be at the base name - where exactly it is moved is much less important. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a wikipolicy or limit to the number of times a user can try to move a page?--Traveler100 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A user looking for the city will look for Cambridge. A user looking for the university will seek Cambridge University or University of Cambridge. No-one is helped by the proposed change. Sussexonian (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCEPTDAB. If I type "Cambridge", I expect to find something about the town and the university (hence this article), not just the university. mgeo talk 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The formal name of the university is as it says on its page, and Cambridge, Massachusetts follows the naming convention for towns in the US. Neither of those are misnamed, even if they do get more pageviews than Cambridge. From a user-oriented point of view, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire would be a bit archaic and not entirely obvious to international searchers. (Or even UK searchers...) Moving the DAB page to Cambridge might be sensible, but given there's a link already I don't think it's necessary. There's no compelling reason to change that I can see. Kate (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Powers T. Hot Stop 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only benefit from the proposed change will be an end to these discussions. I do not think this will help end users, who are finding exactly what they're looking for, as the page stats seem to demonstrate. GyroMagician (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An end to them? Probably not, just a hiatus until B2C gets round to re-proposing a move. We can hope for a couple of years, maybe. pablo 15:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is obvious the university is located in the city, a reader would not expect Cambridge to direct to the university. The US city has the state in the title and the reader would not expect Cambridge to direct there, rather Cambridge, Massachusetts, or Cambridge, MA. Zarcadia (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reason as Sussexonian's — if it is necessary to distinguish it from the university, I suggest having a note next to the disambiguation message, e.g. For the university named after the city, see University of Cambridge. cmɢʟee☎✉ 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly because the nomination is simply wrong. The University may commonly be called just "Cambridge" in a discussion about universities or academia, but in any other situation it just refers to the town. If you were to say "I'm going to Cambridge tomorrow" to someone they would automatically assume you were visiting the town unless there were some other context to the conversation. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - At the risk of repeating the contents of other debates linked above I think that it's important not to erode WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the majority (if not all) English Wikipedia topics could arguably be subject to some sort of disambiguation. This might be satisfyingly pedantic but would make the actual use of the site considerably more difficult - it would in every case force users to drive through a sort of informational suburb before thay got to where they wanted to go.
In the specific case of Cambridge a look at Category:High-importance WikiProject Cities articles, which includes Cambridge, shows that the huge majority of the cities listed with it are unqualified geographically - they're the primary topic associated with their name and are of world-wide notoriety notability.
To those suggesting Cambridge, England as an alternative surely Cambridge, United Kingdom would be more correct? Blakk and ekka 10:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • England seems like the right level of precision for the town, and I support moving the disambig page and not having a primary. I don't understand the suggestion above the "United Kingdom" would be "more correct". The town is much more often called "Cambridge, England" than anything else, it appears to me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts were that it would distinguish it from the other Cambridge, England. WP:UKPLACE states that Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom use [[placename]] and I'd think that this was eminently possible in the case of Cambridge.
My preference generally would be against an 'England' dab if only because (and I'm not in any way accusing you personally of this) of the tendency for people outside of the country to assume that all places in the UK are in England (Queen of England syndrome, if you like). Blakk and ekka 09:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rowing in its own subsection

Considering the prominence of rowing on in Cambridge University and coverage of the Boat Race, I think rowing deserves a separate section under Cambridge#Sport. The only other watersport described is punting, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a sport. Even if so, it's probably good enough to list it under Other sports. Any thoughts? cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 20:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't directly relate to the town though: it's more to do with the University. Nor does it take place here. They don't even train here for it, they train at Ely. Rowing and punting both take place here. Punting is if anything more interesting as people row on many rivers in the UK but few have punts.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, thanks! (Though I'm still tempted to split Watersports into Punting and Rowing...) cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit move discussion

It should be clear to anyone (anyone outside the UK, that is) that Cambridge, Massachusetts (perchance some of you have heard of Harvard University?) and the University of Cambridge are just as famous as this town in England, that there is no clear primary topic here, and therefore this should be moved back to Cambridge, England and Cambridge (disambiguation) should be moved here. Am I wrong, or just crazy? It just seems like the previous move discussion was unfairly influenced by the fact that most people who peruse this page (naturally) are British, and therefore may not know much about the US city. But it's a perfectly notable town in its own right, I assure you. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heard of Harvard, but thought it was in Boston... - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 19:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, as before William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being wrong and just crazy, there's no clear primary topic. Same with Cambridge. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed to death and the answer is still no.Py0alb (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very constructive input. Thank you all so much for contributing. --SchutteGod 76.171.231.104 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambridge&oldid=572241216"