Talk:Soke of Peterborough

message: This Cambridgeshire article?  Won't that annoy those who think Peterborough should really be in Northants?  PaulHammond 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does! :) There was a discussion a while back about geo stubs and at one point I think there was a suggestion to use the Government Office regions rather than ceremonial counties. In the cases where there is dispute I think it would be wise to use a template such as :Template:England-geo-stub, which is what I am about to do here. Owain 14:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Peterborough?

message: This article is nowhere near GA status. First, there is quite a lack of coverage. Demographics? Cities, towns, villages, etc. within? Economic role? Natural features? And so on. Second, the article does not adhere to WP:LAYOUT, WP:LEAD, and possibly other areas in the Manual of Style. Third, while reasonable references exist at the bottom, there are almost no inline citations within the body of the text. This article ought to have had multiple "citation needed" tags and, hence, not been brought for review. This article needs a complete rewrite/rework especially with regards to the Quarter Sessions section which needs an explanation of what a quarter session is among other things. Also, is the Coat of Arms picture really the creator's own work?! Surely that copyright tag is wrong and should be something (I'm not sure what applies to heraldry images...) else. That's all I can think of at the moment, there is more perhaps. --Meowist 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with the tag on the coat of arms image: I drew it with Coreldraw myself. Lozleader 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my bad. In that case, it's pretty well done.--Meowist 06:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: < By 1835 this had risen to 576, or about one per cent of the population.[23] >
This can't be right - the population would only have been a few thousand - 10% makes more sense! 86.181.117.134 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise fraction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Soke of Peterborough. 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/20080516040153/http://www.peterborough-diocese.org.uk/background.htm to http://www.peterborough-diocese.org.uk/background.htm
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) 05:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A remaining use of the Soke is in the Church of England Diocese of Peterborough which, since the creation of the Dio of Leicester in 1926, consists of Northants, Rutland and the Soke. 
An unregistered user has repeatedly tried to remove a paragraph about this (which included a citation (archived)). The first time with no edit summary; the second time with "the c of e no longer use that description", then "provide a reference then" (there was one already) and most recently, "please take to talk".
A quick look at Diocese of Peterborough website finds several mentions of the Soke of Peterborough. For example, this divides the area of the See into "Northamptonshire and Rutland parishes" and "Soke of Peterborough parishes". Because the boundaries of Diocese of Peterborough reflects the Soke's, the Bishop of Peterborough is commissioned as Assistant Bishop in the Ely Diocese so he can exercise pastoral care in those parishes that are in the City  of Peterborough but were not in the historic Soke and so, are not in the Peterborough Diocese."Bishop Donald becomes Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Ely" on the Peterborough Diocese website --Nedrutland 18:32, 31 May, 2018‎ (UTC)
:  I've reverted. Given the IP templated you, I imagine it's just a user not logged in, who should know better than to make disruptive edits and then play silly buggers with WP:3RR. --Inops (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The offending paragraph is in the present tense. The reference is a ten year old Wayback Machine archived (i.e. not current) web page. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 193.61.14.20 (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The "offending paragraph" is reliably sourced, it's the Church of England commenting on its own internal strucutre. Without anything as specific and more recent contradicting it, the source being archived has no bearing on its reliability. --Inops (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the same web page contradicts it. 193.61.14.20 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The live version of the URL 404s, and the closest live thing doesn't directly mention the Soke (rather "includes the northern part of Peterborough"), but talks about the division of the modern city between the dioceses. As mentioned above by Nedrutland the Bishop of Peterborough was granted "Assistant Bishop" status in the Diocese of Ely in recognition of this. --Inops (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it doesn't directly mention the Soke. 193.61.14.20 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the paragraph to omit "describe", as the article linked by OP shows the boundary between the dioceses is the same as the Soke, in that it follows the Nene. You really should take things like this to talk and explain yourself, rather than reverting. --Inops (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't lecture me. My initial edit was just reverted without so much as an edit summary. When I restored it, explaining: "the c of e no longer use that description", it was reverted with: "It still is though". When I restored it again, stating: "provide a reference then", it was reverted again with: "it has one". 193.61.14.20 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown, this could have been fixed (which was trivial compared to removing the whole paragraph) with a simple explanation and a reference. You're also omitting this section of the talk page in your recalling of the events. --Inops (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, yes, which I restored with: "rv. please take to talk" and you reverted with: "revert explained removal of content by an IP, who hasn't '[taken] to talk' as he suggests". Your recent edit, which is satisfactory by the way, completely changes the meaning of the sentence/ claim being made. 193.61.14.20 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Your initial edit which had no edit summary was not "just reverted"; it was reviewed and partly accepted; however that part of your initial edit  that struck out a settled and cited para with no stated reason was reverted. The evidence is there. Also the page on the diocese website does mention the Soke; "The ancient Soke of Peterborough lay to the north of the river ..." Nedrutland (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Diocese