Talk:Peterborough/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[City of Peterborough]] should merge to here

message: 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)
thread_title:  Welland? 

message: She's another point of distinction.  --GwydionM 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Mary Queen of Scots. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Infobox/economy changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Or direct from the ONS here. Cordless Larry 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity data

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Demographics

message: 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)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cheers David. I take your point about preview. Chris/163.167.129.124 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please feel free to add this information yourself then. 81.76.124.26 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Development of [[Greater Peterborough]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Key Ferry Cruises 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA (2nd nom)Failed:Fixes needed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minster Precincts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The article does require a 'famous residents' section. Epbr123 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've done most of the work for you. Just George Alcock to do. Epbr123 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work still to do

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seconded. 163.167.129.124 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding my request for protection 

message: Just realised that this article is using a hard coded table instead of a "standard" infobox  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Walton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment