Talk:Norwich

message: The percentage is very high for ethnicity 'white', that is misleading as Polish and other white EU nationals make a considerable % of Norwich residents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.77.207 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage of British 

message: I suggest amending the population figure for the travel to work area to  282,000 in line with the mid-2009 population figure stated by the office of national statitistics,   , this is significantly different from the figure currently quoted in the article and also considerably less than the 1991 figure quoted in the article. Unless there are better sources that contradict this figure.
Caractacusrex (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population figures for travel to work area 

message: I have reverted this edit or addition because I don't think it adds to the article in its present form. I have these points about it:-
# I'm unsure of what exactly is meant by "Community" as a heading. Surely it is much wider than just education and the NCT?
# If there is to be mention of education in Norwich, then it should be fuller and more accurate i.e. how many primaries, secondaries, academies. The growth of the latter in Norwich is an interesting subject which I think needs expansion. Middle schools have all disappeared now, as I understand.
# Spelling and capitalisation need to be right, plus there should be some wikilinks.
# UEA and NUCA have been covered in some detail in other sections of the article. Perhaps there needs to be a wholesale alteration and movement if there is to be a section on Education or Community.
Given the present size of the Norwich article, I think we need to give very careful thought to new sections being added, in order to avoid duplication and making it too unwieldy and/or turgid. My views, of course, and I'd welcome suggestions.
Roaringboy 11:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Community" Section added 29/01/2010

message: I hope that I'm not alone in NOT wishing to see this every time I look at the article!
Perhaps we should really do something about adding the references and sources they call for. I may be wrong, but as far as I can make out, they seem mainly required in the history pages, mostly the earlier ones.
If I surmise right, then I'm happy to make a start on this problem. Before I do so, I'd welcome the comments and suggestions of other editors.
Roaringboy 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long overdue. The article has become an accumulation of miscellaneous facts about the city, some notable, others not. Some self-promotion may also have crept in. I think some pruning is definitely required by someone willing to "sub-edit". There have been suggestions to split into separate articles, and I think this should also be considered, as it's very long. – Agendum (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Multiple Issues tag. The article is clearly in pretty strong shape today, and appears to be well-deserving of its class B rating.  Keep improving!  PKT(alk) 14:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This Article has Multiple Issues" 

message: The article states that it is produced in Norwich, having been resurected from under Nestle. Although the packaging and their website quotes "Caley's of Norwich" it is actually made in Hampshire using an existing chocolate manufacturer (under license, if you like). The story can be read here:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED17%20Jul%202010%2008%3A08%3A21%3A243  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisR (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caley's Chocolate 

message: I feel that it might be better to split education out into a separate section, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (which I accept was written specifically for U.S. cities but is still a useful guide) and many other English city articles e.g. York and Newcastle upon Tyne. Education presently seems to be incorporated in Culture, which seems imperfect to say the least. There is quite a lot to say about Education since Norwich is home to a number of notable education institutions, such as the University of East Anglia, City College Norwich, Norwich University College of the Arts, Norwich School and Norwich High School for Girls.
I also feel that it would be better to have a Geography section, which could incorporate the present Architecture and Climate sections and also move the article closer to best practice.
I would welcome any thoughts that anyone else might have on either of these suggestions. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Education section 

message: Referring to the Penguin Classics edition of the Alecto translation I see on folio 116V:Norfolk (which contains part of Norwich Hundred):
The phrase "in the occupation" is interesting.  The 98 messuages clearly still exist at the date of compilation, for the scribe uses the present tense and is recording that which can potentially be taxed.  I wondered at first if this meant that the property had been seized as lodging or barracks, but I have been advised that it may mean that the messuages had been enclosed by the curtain wall of the castle. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domesday Book references 

message: In the Medieval section there is a paragraph on the bodies found in a well in 2004.  It is my opinion that the matter is not as cut and dried as the current text makes out.  However, this view is original research, so I cannot make the edits myself.  I list below a couple of sources for others to make a determination as to the notability of the counterveiling position.
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/British-Jews-to-bury-medieval-massacre-victims-306943
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/103175/norwich-bury-bones-%E2%80%94-jewish-or-not  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan West (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well Bodies 

message: The article states: 
'The University of East Anglia on the outskirts of Norwich is, contrary to popular belief, not one of the so-called plate glass universities. The UEA (founded 1963), along with Sussex University, were both founded before the Robbins Report ...'
This seems to assume that only 'Robbins universities' count as plate glass. However, the term is generally applied to all universities in the U.K. founded from scratch (i.e. not based on some existing institution) in the 1960s. The definition assumed here is also at odds with that in the Wikipedia article on Plate Glass University, though of course that isn't decisive. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_glass_university Norvo (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes down to sourcing. The (counter-)claim is unsourced so can be struck but equally there is no cite that it is known as a "plate glass". The article on Plate glass universities is equally flawed and does not show that the term is in common use, let alone that the UEA is one of them.  The answer is to see what the sources say. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since neither article gives any source for the claim that UEA is or is not a plate glass university, how about simply giving the date of foundation unless a reliable source for "plate-glassiness" or otherwise is found? Norvo (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds the best solution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEA not a plate glass university? 

message: Hi everyone, I created a page for Norwich City Council -- previously it simply redirected to Norwich. Feel free to improve it. I also moved the non-vital information about the city council's coat-of-arms there too as it's only incidental to the city's governance (and isn't really in line with Wikipedia:Summary style). Cheers, Duffit5 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Norwich City Council]]

message: Is this section of bit of WP:UNDUE? Within this article some of the content is -in my opinion - borderline notable for inclusion. Some could be transposed to expand the entries in the list of notable residents but are uncommon symbology in monuments and tombs that important outside of the articles on the locations where they are present? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I did have some reservations about it being so prominent so I moved it to the bottom of the Culture section, but the content seems innocuous and referenced. Personally I think it's best to leave it be for now as the problem with unreferenced material is more significant than a few obscure facts. Duffit talk 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esoteric association 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Norwich. 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/20081207121634/http://www.norwich.gov.uk:80/site_files/pages/City_Council__Unitary_Council__The_business_case.html to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/site_files/pages/City_Council__Unitary_Council__The_business_case.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929201206/http://new.en24.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&itemid=NOED13%20Oct%202006%2010:00:29:760&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=search to http://new.en24.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&itemid=NOED13%20Oct%202006%2010:00:29:760&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=search
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012023148/http://www.calvertsquare.co.uk:80/about.asp to http://www.calvertsquare.co.uk/about.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121025173841/http://www.modernartoxford.org.uk/Press/80 to http://www.modernartoxford.org.uk/Press/80
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120629140122/http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BN08/detail.asp?id=984 to http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BN08/detail.asp?id=984
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 10:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "period" history articles go up to the 20th century. As we are about to enter 2016 in the 21st century, I wonder if perhaps there are some things of historic record or interest which have occurred in the present century? Many changes or developments have been covered in the "Economy" section, but there must surely be more. 
I'd welcome any ideas on how to bring this up to date with a new 21st century section; or whether this is indeed needed.
I'm mindful of the proposal to split the history section out as discussed in 13 above, but which was not done. Is this an opportunity to do so now?
Roaringboy (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st century 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Norwich. 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/20110207144404/http://allsortedrecords.com/ to http://allsortedrecords.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406070519/http://www.ccn.ac.uk/news/new-building-boost-creative-arts-city-college-norwich to http://www.ccn.ac.uk/news/new-building-boost-creative-arts-city-college-norwich
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016080407/http://www.norwich-churches.org/St%20Mary%20the%20Less/home.shtm to http://www.norwich-churches.org/St%20Mary%20the%20Less/home.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222003821/http://www.edp24.co.uk/norfolk-life/norfolk-history/1_adam_and_eve_1_213829 to http://www.edp24.co.uk/norfolk-life/norfolk-history/1_adam_and_eve_1_213829
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326015145/http://www.friendsofeatonpark.co.uk/Sandys-Winsch.html to http://www.friendsofeatonpark.co.uk/Sandys-Winsch.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404131852/http://www.norwich.gov.uk:80/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1233 to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1233
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716202235/http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk:80/leisure/1226.asp to http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/leisure/1226.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have suggested that Town Close School should be merged to here as it is a non-notable primary, as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Any comments appreciated. CalzGuy (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. At the moment all the school's article does is attract vandalism. Zortwort (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: School merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Norwich. 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/20091101022117/http://www.jarrold.co.uk/index.html to http://www.jarrold.co.uk/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727215221/http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/default.asp?Document=400.740.51x2 to http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/default.asp?Document=400.740.51x2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716110301/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1407&pid=1014 to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1407&pid=1014
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716110317/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1408&pid=1014 to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1408&pid=1014
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=3679
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1509022 to http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1509022
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307153452/http://www.gndp.org.uk/content/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/2012_05_17_-Economic-assessment-2012.pdf to http://www.gndp.org.uk/content/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/2012_05_17_-Economic-assessment-2012.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218061718/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Business/WhyNorwich/pages/PopulationAndEmploymentFigures.aspx to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Business/WhyNorwich/pages/PopulationAndEmploymentFigures.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307153956/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Business/WhyNorwich/Documents/EconomicBarometer.pdf to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Business/WhyNorwich/Documents/EconomicBarometer.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.en24.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&itemid=NOED13%20Oct%202006%2010%3A00%3A29%3A760&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=search
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121155413/http://www.cathedral.org.uk/whats-on/shakespeare-in-the-cloisters-2013-tour.aspx to http://www.cathedral.org.uk/whats-on/shakespeare-in-the-cloisters-2013-tour.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004231854/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1204 to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1204
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022200243/http://www.freewebs.com/meetinthestreetenglish/latestnews.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/meetinthestreetenglish/latestnews.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830024606/http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and_transport/Public_transport_and_community_transport/Park_and_ride/index.htm to http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and_transport/Public_transport_and_community_transport/Park_and_ride/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202172939/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Transport/Cycling/Documents/CyclingMapFront.pdf to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Transport/Cycling/Documents/CyclingMapFront.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604014041/http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0697.html to http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0697.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203004921/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Twinning/documents/Twinningleaflet.pdf to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Twinning/documents/Twinningleaflet.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024221422/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Twinning/pages/Twinning.aspx to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/Twinning/pages/Twinning.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929161429/http://www.livcomawards.com/media-2007/finalists.htm to http://www.livcomawards.com/media-2007/finalists.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/06/27/3088324/jewish-bones-found-in-medieval-well-in-england
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) 19:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Norwich. 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/20120111080052/http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce-documents/draftfinal-reports-and-consultation-papers/2009/norfolk-sr-final-dec09.pdf to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce-documents/draftfinal-reports-and-consultation-papers/2009/norfolk-sr-final-dec09.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=NCC074317&ssSourceNodeId=&ssTargetNodeId=3018
*Added  tag to http://www.nrone.co.uk/nrone
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218235617/http://cnam.co.uk/ to http://www.cnam.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103170944/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=409663&SubjectId=36 to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=409663&SubjectId=36
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) 02:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Currently this article has one use of AD and one use of CE. From the creation of this article in 2002 until 29 March of this year, only  AD was used. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is clear that only one style in an article gets used and "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." On 29 March, one of the two ADs was changed and no reason or comment was given, let alone a substantial one. For nearly 20 years this article used only AD. I merely edited the article to make it consistent with MoS. Masterhatch (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "CE/BCE are commoner these days also on Wikipedia" is probably not true, but who knows. We should of course follow the WP:ERA rules. Don't know where that dubious quote came from. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Agreed - this the way to do it, ideally also checking to see if it is one of the extremely rare cases where there has actually been a discussion like this on talk. A consensus there will over-rule anything else, per ERA. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD vs CE 

message: I have today undone the reversion to the "image_skyline" Norwichcollage2019.png from the newer Norwich New Collage 2021.jpg. The main reason for doing so is that the captions are for the newer image and do not refer to the old png file. The reason that the editor gave for
reverting to the older collage is that he thinks it is of far better quality than the new. The newer collage images are somewhat gloomy, and although it's a matter of aesthetics and preference, I don't think that I would choose the view of City Hall with Winchester Tower looming alongside, or
the Castle with a crane dominating it.
I think that a) the new collage should be replaced with some different photos or b) the collage should be reverted to the 2019 version with the correct caption. My preference is for b), unless a better set of photos can be found for a).
Comments, please.
Roaringboy  Roaringboy 10:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Two images of the cathedral- a tree is obscuring the detail of the entrance. Norwich is more than ancient buildings so old and new makes sense. A crane over the castle is about renewal. A photo of the RC would be better from down on Grapes Hill so its in context. No image of the market? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to be the creator of the newer 2021 collage so any inquiries into my choices and suggestions is fine. I updated the collage on two simple reasons:
*1) The older one was really too close to each building and the view of Norwich Cathedral was not very clear as the building is much bigger and the reason for that photo of its longer self is to show the full length of the cathedral from the city centre part.
*2) The photo of City Hall was not the greatest in the other collage with the clock tower being quite high up and the RC cathedral was taken from one angle. At least in the aerial photo you can see all the major buildings clearer.
So if my suggestions are allowed, I would say use clearer photos then closeups or angles for showing important buildings because that one photo of Norwich Cathedral was really bad. I can provide a photo of the two cathedrals if someone wants another go at the collage. These photos show much better positions of the cathedral then close ups which don't show the full buildings as best they can. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Top of entry collage

message: I think the old photos used on the other language Wikipedia pages for Norwich  are better and the new photos uploaded by Dragonofbaitley are grey and mediocre-looking. The old photos were bright and close-up which meant you didn't have to open the image, while the new ones are zoomed out and largely taken in poor weather. 
Thoughts? 
The collage made by Deu is far superior 
--Menacinghat (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The six-image collage strikes me as dingy, compared with the five-image collage. Maproom (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos for Norwich page are grey and mediocre  

message: In the population graph, the red "growth" line contradicts the blue "population" line, most obviously for earlier dates.TobyJ (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population graph needs revision