Talk:Cambridgeshire

message: The latest edit to this page ()has removed the names of several famous people from the area, referring to them as 'misappropriated'. In what sense were they 'misappropriated' and why, exactly, have they been removed? Maybe we should discuss this briefly and consider whether or not to reinstate them. - Chris Jefferies 23:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that from strictly means born there and resident of means - err - resident there. Seems clear to me. As, for example, Rory McGrath is from Redruth in Cornwall, his mention here should thus be removed.JohnB57 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: famous people

message: The pronunciation of 'Cambridgeshire' in IPA is incorrect. No native speaker of Cambridgeshire English would pronounce the <r> at the end of this county name. Dbritain (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is being followed - there is one article that covers all aspects of Cambridgeshire - as an administrative, ceremonial and traditional county. These are all separate entities with different areas and relationships, which is why multiple infoboxes are needed. MonMan 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suspected sockpuppet  is a suspected sockpuppet of . --Mais oui! 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're always going to have different infoboxes for things with different relationships. E.g. the Rutland article has three infoboxes at the bottom, because Rutland exists in three 'namespaces'. All three are consolidated into one article (which is good) and the various relationships with other entities are listed separately and clearly (which is also good). It would be impossible to explain it all in one infobox anyway. Owain 13:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Combining them into one infobox would be horribly messy. Being as there is a separate infobox for Rutland as a 'district', listing its relationships when taken in that context, it naturally follows that there should be separate infoboxes for the other contexts. Owain 12:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It would make for a smaller page, yes; but you'd lose the associative information that separate infoboxes gives. To use the Rutland example again, do you intend to combine the "Districts of England - East Midlands" infobox into it as well? After all it is referring to the same place. To use a general example look at France — it has four infoboxes that all refer to the same place, but in different contexts. You could combine them all into one, but it would be horrendous, and you'd probably need different infoboxes for every country, because they aren't all members of the same organisations — in which case you'd lose the unifying effect of having the same infobox in different articles. Owain 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what the problem is here. We are describing an entity that can be classified in many different ways. For each classification scheme we have an infobox. The examples that Owain have given clearly show the merits of this approach. Why lose information, or squish it down into one box, and lose the different classifications? MonMan 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suspected sockpuppet  is a suspected sockpuppet of . --Mais oui! 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The infobox 

message: :Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cambridgeshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525140007/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151231223138/http://www.internationalbandy.com/viewNavMenu.do?menuID=124 to http://www.internationalbandy.com/viewNavMenu.do?menuID=124
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cambridgeshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119112911/http://www.worldbandy.com/template1.asp?pageID=18 to http://www.worldbandy.com/template1.asp?pageID=18
*Added  tag to http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/results.aspx?index=0&mainQuery=&searchType=all&form=basic&theme=&county=CAMBRIDGESHIRE&district=&placeName=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If anyone is in, please see here . Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes to the way UK counties are treated on WP

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Cambridgeshire are:
* Brington and Molesworth, draft exists at User:Crouch, Swale/Brington and Molesworth
* Holywell-cum-Needingworth
* South Trumpington
* Thriplow and Heathfield
* Upton and Coppingford
* Upwood and the Raveleys
* Waresley-cum-Tetworth
And these exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:
* Great Abington
* Great and Little Chishill
* Hamerton and Steeple Gidding
* Hampton Hargate and Vale
* Histon, move Histon and Impington here after creating Impington
* Houghton and Wyton
* Impington
* Little Abington
* Oakington and Westwick
* Orton Longueville
* Orton Waterville
* Pidley cum Fenton
A total of 19, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (1)#Cambridgeshire. Crouch, Swale (talk)  19:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parishes project 

message: Peterborough city council is no longer controlled by the Conservatives but by a coalition led by Peterborough First. Jabo4523 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics - Peterborough 

message: This has since been added as a current MOS:BOLDALTNAME, it is still used enough for the first sentence? The editor has been adding "County of" to multiple leads, so wondering. DankJae 22:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  County of Cambridge