Talk:Peterborough/Archive 3

Recent citation requests

What precisely needs to be cited regarding the civil war? Peterborough was hardly unique in being divided, the same could be said about virtually anywhere in England at the time. What would be a better short-hand definition of Roundheads in your view? In general the name was applied to supporters of Parliament, and Long Parliament refers to this period specifically. David Underdown 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple claims need multiple citations. I'm not too fussed about page numbers, but WP:CITE encourages them and this is supposed to be a FA. And it's dang hard to find anything in that EB, so page numbers are very useful for verification. The article doesn't specify it means at that period, it seems to be saying that's the definition, meaning before the Long P there were no Roundheads, which is incorrect. Yes, this is pedantic. That's what FAC should be. And the clumsy reversion was just arrogance. --Dweller 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Roundheads was the name given to supporters of Parliament during the English Civil War (1642–1651). The Long Parliament lasted from 1640 to 1649 and was briefly restored in 1660. So no, there were no Roundheads before the Long Parliament. Chrisieboy 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I stand (sit) corrected. However, someone joining the Parliamentarian cause in 1650 would be... yadda yadda, it's silly point-scoring, but you get my drift. Why not (as you, and our article, do) just define it as a supporter of Parliament? --Dweller 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Slightly confused by some of the most recent requests, edit summary says it's home of the harrier needs citing, but the position of the cn tag makes it look more like it's the fact that peterborough is surrounded by Lincolshire, Cambs etc.. This BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/319944.stm contains a ref to "Home of the Harrier", so that can go in if that's what was meant, citing the surrounding authorities ought to be possible, simplest way would probably be to say look at the relevant OS maps. All the climate info comes from the one source, so we're again down to whether every single sentence of a para should carry its own reference to the source, when WP:CITE suggests that this is overkill. I've also used this source to cite the fact that the land is very flat, and some is below sea-level, whether this is adequate for the word notorious, I'm not sure, but when you live there it's certainly somehting that non-residents harp on about. David Underdown 14:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The "notorious" issue seems to have come up again, Wiktionary:notorious seemsto make this a peferctly good descriptive word, what are the Fens known for, other than their flatness (and wetness)? Similarly, the OED gives:

• 1. a. In a notorious manner; as a matter of common knowledge; recognizedly, admittedly.
• b. With depreciative or unfavourable connotations.

either of which could be said to apply. David Underdown (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Excellent work to those who helped secure this entry at WP:FA - it's a truly fine article.

Peterborough doesn't seem to fall within a localised WikiProject and so has probably missed the WP:UKCITIES guidelines on layout which are UK wide recommendations based on those at WP:CITIES. If there are no objections, I could apply the guidelines which would only mean a cosmetic rejig and retitling of some sections. Hope they are well recieved? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure has at times been surprisingly contentious in this article (check the good article and FA candidacies). I'd recommend not proceeding too quickly to give people a chance to look over the guidelines first and come up with any comments. Personally, I don't see any real problems, although the Administration section of this article seems to cover slightly wider ground than the nearest equivalent, Governance, in the guidelines, and it's not immediately obvious to me where the remainder would fit under the proposed structure. David Underdown 08:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised the WP:FA reviewers didn't pickup on the structure. Non-UK reviewers typically try to apply WP:CITIES to settlement articles. It would be a shame if Peterborough was the only English, or British settlement with FA status not to conform with WP:UKCITIES (see Dundee, Sheffield, Shaw and Crompton - whilst GA settlements include Stretford, Manchester, Chew Stoke and many more).

To me the only four changes would be changing Administration to Governance, moving Geography to the third section, and rename Demographics to Demography (which is the correct use of the term). The use of "Famous" for notable people is considered as a point of view/peakcock term and would also be renamed. I can't see any points of contention, but can certainly hold on. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned in passing during the GA process, and possibly during the first, failed FA candidacy. On the other hand, all the sections are there, just not necessarily named in the same way. David Underdown 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments (1) Administration is a broader term than Governance and, in the case of this article, includes health service and (in particular) public utilities sections, which don't fit the narrower term. It is not immediately apparent, as David mentions, where the other content would go. (2) Demographics should be changed to Demography, as this is the correct use of the term (although Demographics is used throughout Wikipedia). (3) Famous could be renamed Notable, possibly the first sentence of that section could then be changed to famous or another adjective to avoid repetition? (4) Although I agree that Geography flows more logically at 3; I strongly feel that with the affiliations section, the climate chart and the listy nature of urban areas and surrounding villages it sits better at the end of the article. Cheers, Chrisieboy 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure if you meant you agree or disagree with the proposals sorry! If my senses serve me right, I think you're broadly in favour of the changes right?... To demonstrate how I envisage the article under these proposals, I've created a version here, in my sandbox. I think it looks great! Hope you agree, -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not agree with the proposed changes and I prefer the format of the article as it stands for the reasons given above. Cheers, Chrisieboy 09:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why that's so. Your points seem to support the change. For example, Famous is a peacock term, using Demographics means we'd use Geographics, Histographics and Economics as titles which is very poor grammar. You've also asserted Geography is more logically placed at 3. A consensus exists to have a standard layout, and I very much agree with that position. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's called reading what you want into something. I fail to see how this amounts to "four small cosmetic changes." Many of the things you have now introduced have been the subject of lengthy discussion here before. The "consensus" exists as a guideline and should not be used in the way you are doing. Sorry, Chrisieboy 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, infobox aside (I should've explained I'd converted the infobox to the modern version that all the other major city-districts use), it really is just four small changes to the headings so that readers find material where they'd expect to find it - I've barely touched the prose. Can you please explain what it is I've introduced that you objectionable? Granted I have altered that Peterborough is not a unitary authority, it is a unitary authority area (a unitary authority is a council - a group of people, not a division of land!), but I can find no other length discussion about that. Other than this, I sincerely believe this furthers the article and brings it into the WP:UKGEO family. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

London Gazette refs

Construction of urls referring to individual issues of the London Gazette has recently undergone a fundamental change, breaking the links that were in this article. I've elected to fix them using {{LondonGazette}} as this should make it easier to keep them right in future - as this probably won't be the last time they get changed. I know that there has been some resistance to the use of templates for this sort of thing in the past, but in this case the output is substantially the same as the wording that was in the article previously (the one difference is to do with the way the publication date is presented, which I'm going to suggest some changes to on the template talk so it should end up even more similar to the previous look shortly). Please discuss here before reverting, and do remember that the old urls are broken. David Underdown 11:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been queried on my talkpage, and user:163.167.129.124 has proposed that the links are changed back to using the url (albeit the updated one. Can I just point out that the resulting text prior to my change was:

“ Under the New Towns Act 1965 (1965 cap.59) cf. The Peterborough Development Corporation (Transfer of Property and Dissolution) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1410), see the London Gazette (Issue 44377) published 1967-08-01, which states that the designation was made on 1967-07-21 ”

“ Issued under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 1974-06-25, see the London Gazette (Issue 46334) published 1974-06-28 ”

post my change:

“ Under the New Towns Act 1965 (1965 cap.59) cf. The Peterborough Development Corporation (Transfer of Property and Dissolution) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1410), see the London Gazette: no. 44377, 1 August 1967, page 8515, which states that the designation was made on 1967-07-21 ”

“ Issued under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 1974-06-25, see the London Gazette: no. 46334, 28 June 1974, page 7419 ”

so the main change is that the new version also includes the page number, which would be useful to anyone consulting paper editions of Gazettes, a slight change to the way the issue number is presented, and some variation in how publication date is presented - which is in fact now more in line with how publication data is presented for all other references, not less so. Using the template makes ongoing maintenance of these urls far easier, as the url construciton needs to be fixed in only place, the template, rather than individually on every page which references the Gazette. David Underdown 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom regions

Is there any justification for Template:United Kingdom regions at the end, given that no other city or local authority has it and Peterborogh is not mentioned? --Rumping (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is nobody offering a reason to keep it, so let's try without it --Rumping (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. We have the City (of Peterborough), the County (of Cambridgeshire), (Districts of) the East of England and the top-level UK (home nations and English regions) templates, which together provide a natural progression. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points: (a) nowhere else has this progression; (b) Peterborough is a link from the first three, but not from the fourth. So the fouth does not belong here.--Rumping (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I removed it before even spotting this discussion here. If a link to the entry doesn't appear in the template, it should not be included. That's the nature of navigation templates. I'm also concerned about some ownership issues with this article and some of the templates. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

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) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography? Topography?

Why are electoral wards included in the topography section? Wards pertain to Governance. Simillarly, Linguistics seem oddly placed in a Geography section. I also am concerned about some use of language in the article "Notoriously", "Famous" - fine as part of a quotation, but these are loaded terms. We should let the facts speak for themselves, as part of neutral point of view writing.

Simillarly, WP:CITIES and WP:UKGEO recommend Geography be a primary, "higher" section in place articles. It too seems odd that it's the final section if it is so notorious. Can I suggest a rethink and copyedit? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some other issues I've found - Is Peterborough part of East Anglia or not? This is unclear. I'm concerned about some statements in Ethnicity too - "Since then, race relations have improved significantly", have they? "Peterborough, with traditionally low levels of unemployment," - I'm not comfortable with the term "traditionally" here. It is also unsourced.... "is a popular destination for workers and has seen significant growth through the migration of workers over decades" - this seems a little flowery and subjective to me.

There's lots of grammatical redundancy too: "This site also shows evidence", "The Roman Fen Causeway is also visible at Flag Fen", "A new network of high-speed roads, known as parkways, was also constructed around the city at this time", "Apart from some minor repairs", "The museum has a collection of some 227,000 objects"... there are many more.

Has this article ever been through the formal Peer Review process? These issues of language suggest this article could potentially be delisted from FA status. It would be nice to avoid this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We wrote on the notorious issue almost simultaneously, see my comment above where the issue had previously been raised. I don't think we necessarily have to resort to bland language to be neutral, and the OED definitions show that it can be used in a neutral sense. David Underdown (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does the confusion over East Anglia arise in the article? I suspect that historically with the Soke being more associated with Northants, and only becoming administratively part of Huntingdonshire and then Cambridgshire relatively recently it may not have alays been regarded as such. I'm not sure how well East Anglia is actually defined as a concept, although the only rigorous definition offered in East Anglia, for the purposes of European statistics is stated to unambiguously include Peterborough. all the language you refer to was present when the article was granted FA status, and there has been little substantive change since that status was granted, though probably some of those somes could be trimmed. I take your point about wards not really belonging under topography. David Underdown (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think this is a FA class article, but certainly a few minor points have been overlooked. The FA process can be a lottery sometimes, meaning some issues are drilled to death, when others are ignored. It is normally convention that GA candidates have been through the formal Peer Review process to ensure the Manual of Style is adhered too.

"Notoriously" is problematic. It is in breach of the NPOV guide on facts as has been said. It also implies that this is common knowledge, well, it is and it isn't. I doubt rural Sylhettis are familliar with Peterborough's topography! Indeed, I wasn't, and I live in the North West! Is there a source that says the local topography is notoriously flat? If not, this could be a potential breach of Original Research and Attributation too.

I was concerned with East Anglia's use under Ethnicity. It says somethings like "East Anglia is an important region for such and such"... well, does that include Peterborough?

I still advocate the application of WP:UKCITIES here. I also provided a proper converted infobox (not a pink table) in my sandbox some time ago (but this was never commented on after a single objection). Certainly a strong copyedit is needed here before a more brutal user pops along and delists this article outright. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see taht notorious is such a big problem, the same idea is mentioned in the third para of East Anglia, though somewhat curiously it isn't directly addressed in The Fens, though the naming of various sub areas as something Level is a bit of a giveaway. I don't know if you're familiar with the West Lancs mosses (say between Southport and Ormskirk), the Fens have much in common with that sort of landscape, and for much the same reason.

On FA status, as I udnerstand things it would have to go through WP:FARC and WP:FAR before it could actually be delisted. David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not famillar with them no (it's a deadlink too sorry!). Are you sure you really advocate the inclusion of notoriously in the lead? I assure you it does nothing for the article or context. Indeed if some parts are below sea level and others are not, it really isn't all that notoriously flat anyway! Do you think you (or anyone else) could get a source?

East Anglia is an unsourced article, and has several conflicting uncited assertions in it as to what exactly is/was East Anglia. We certainly cannot rely on this as it stands as any kind of evidence for here. That one person says P/boro is in EA may not be a viewpoint shared by others, I'm sure.

You are right about the delisting process, but the potential for listing is there, and doesn't take an awfully long time to finish too.

Again, however, I've applied some MOS compliant changes but had User:Chrisieboy revert these without explanation. Could I ask that he provide some commentary? This seems to be an ongoing problem on this article now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if East Anglia really is defined as a NUTS3 area, that at least should be fairly easy to source, and would certainly make sense in the context being discussed under ethnicity. David Underdown (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

actually it's NUTS2, UKH1, see http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/maps_searchpage_en.cfm I can't work out how to make it a persistent link, but the search isn't too bad. I'm not sure how best to go about clarifying this in the article. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think it's a NUTS2, and cursory search suggests P/boro is part of that territory yes. If the converted Template:Infobox settlement had been used, we would have known :P. This seems to be in conflict with some historical definations of East Anglia mind, though I would urge users to use contemporary and official defintions myself. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, going forwards, is there a source for this word "notorious"? If not it's gonna have to go per a whole host of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (not my own). Furthermore, is there anyone willing to provide sources for some of the "flowery" unsourced text elsewhere on P/boro? Or copyedit out the significant amount of gramatical redundancy? I could do alot of these, but in a climate of having fairly basic MOS edits reverted, I'm disinclined. I'm not comfortable having this article up with the rest of the WP:UKGEO FA family in its current condition as it's kinda letting the rest down. I think there's a sound rationale to possibly delist this article in the near future if an improvement drive didn't generate a higher quality article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a definitive source for notorious, but I'm prepared to bet that jsut about any general source on the fens, one of the first things to be mentioned would be flatness, all of which adds up to the fact that it is common knowledge, even if you weren't actually aware of it (and I, in the NW of England was certainly taught it in GCSE geography). Now the Fens are basically drained, it is the main physical feature, look at an OS map, move east from Peterborough and just about the only contour lines you'll see are the 0m line (and the spot heights are mostly 1m, 2m, or if they happen to be on a levee, you might get 5m - and on the contrary, there are quite a few -1m!), until you're at Downham Market, or edging a bit more SE, you'll hit the Isle of Ely. Still, I suppose we shouldn't get too wed to a single word, but just to remark in passing that's it's flat doesn't really do the landscape justice. I've got various other things I'm trying to sort out (and won't have opportunity to edit at the weekend ). Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask for more eyes from WP:UKGEO, and if that fails, well maybe the best way to get more input would be to list it at WP:FARC and see what happens from there. David Underdown (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that it's a loaded redundancy. Sure The Fens are flat, but that "The Pennines are notoriously hilly" or "Space is notoriously cold" or even "The Pyramids are notoriously ancient", just doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It's not professional or concise, in my point of view. That said, it is just one word amongst many issues that diminish this article's potential.

I know of a couple of users at UKGEO who may be able to pass comment in their capacity of copyeditors and FA writers. I think more input, as you say, will help out here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jza84 asked me to take a quick look at this article as I have some experience with UK places at FA. I think it is a good article & a lot of work has gone into it. The article is generally well cited, however there are a couple of bits in history (eg Fairs etc 1189-1876, sugar beet factory dates etc) which are cited at the end of the paragraph but it is not clear if they support particular facts. It may just be a case of using the same refs several times. In Health I expected to see a link to Edith Cavell Hospital (but it might need expanding!) In education a cite is needed for "39.4% of pupils attained five grades A to C, including English and Mathematics, in the General Certificate of Secondary Education." In demographics it might be worth doing summary tables (see Somerset current FA candidate, Bath, Somerset current GAC for examples). In places of Interest I'm not sure about the symbols - I like them but have not see them elsewhere - warning EH symbol may soon be deleted - you could support more these with cites to Images of England. There are a couple of examples eg "nine feet (2.75 m) below sea level" where the {{convert}} would be a more elegant way of doing units per WP:MOS. These comments are meant constructively & please let me know if I haven't made any of them clear, or you need any help with doing them.— Rod ^talk 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is generally a good article, but I do think that it falls just a little short of what is expected of an FA; I think it might struggle at WP:FAR, so it would be easier to avoid having to find out by fixing the more obvious issues. From a fairly quick look I've identified just a few of them. The links need to be checked; one of them, #29 has gone dead, and several have been moved, so their urls ought to be cleaned up. I noticed some discussion about the word notoriously further up the page, but there are quite a few other peacock terms like "the very best of live entertainment", "a proud history of cup giant-killings", "an impressive 3.78% increase between April and September 2006.", and "a rather pretty green bridge". The writing also needs to be looked at by someone with a fresh eye, as there are quite a few places it doesn't really make sense, is awkward, or is grammatically incorrect like "... having undertaken a lengthy purchase from Barry Fry ...", "Throughout the city there are a diverse range ...", and "A more recent issue is that an unknown figure of eastern Europeans ...". The organisation of the article looks strange in placess too. For instance, why is this sentence tagged onto the end of the Topography section: "Peterborough is divided into 24 electoral wards.[137] 15 wards comprise the Peterborough constituency for elections to the House of Commons, with the remaining nine falling in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency.[138]" ? There are numerous MOS breaches, and of course MOS compliance is mandatory for all FAs. Is there some reason why this article persists with the old infobox instead of using the new one? I could go on, but in summary I think that this is a good article that is in some danger of being pulled over to WP:FAR without some work being done on it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jhz84, I agree with David on the use of the word notorious. That aside, pick up a book on the Fens (I presume you don't have any to hand, but there's a ref. in the main body if you care to look). I have added a footnote (and ref.) to support the use of East Anglia, although this too is not contentious. Do we need one for England, or can we take that as a given? I doubt rural Sylhettis are familliar with English geography! I've also had a look at the grammatical redundancy you mention and also is quite properly used as an adverb and not as a conjunction and provides cohesion. When some is used before a number, the number is an approximate or rounded one. I'm fairly certain the museum doesn't have a collection of exactly 227,000 objects.

Rod, I have added a ref. for British Sugar and wikilinked to ECH. Thankyou for pointing that article out to me, I've expanded it a bit now. A ref. for GCSE results has also been provided by another editor. I only added that sentence a few days ago, but had somehow not got round to it. If the EH symbol is deleted, I shall remove the others, but, like you, I do rather like them.

Malleus Fatuorum, I have been through all URLs and found only one (94), other than (29, now 32), that had been moved. Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. As you say there are several, but not which ones, would you mind pointing any others out..? You will see, I have taken on board most of your points regarding grammar and vocabulary and I have added refs. for a couple of others. For instance, I think proud history of cup giant-killings is okay; they are proud of their history and, as David mentions, I don't think we necessarily have to resort to bland language to be neutral. I do take your point about Topography and have recast the sentence on electoral wards to follow Urban areas and Surrounding villages.

I am bound to say that I do not think that FAR or FARC are at all appropriate and I am particularly surprised at that suggestion in light of User:Jhz84s earlier congratulations. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re checking the URLs: this tool is quite useful and saves having to check each one personally. Nev1 (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of image

Why is there a image of Lord Burgley (sorry if my spelling is incorrect), he's not mentioned (as far as I can see) in the famous people section, so why is he there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.16.33 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 20 February 2008

Lord Burghley and his descendents, the Marquesses of Exeter, are hereditary Lords Paramount of Peterborough; it is mentioned earlier in the article.

I don't quite understand your edit summary moving part of it as it doesn't quite match up - i.e. deceased people under living personalities. There is not a separate section for living personalities. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

I'm no authority on Peterborough, but this paragraph looks highly suspicious to me:

"The Librarian and philosopher Benjamin Freeman was the 15th Librarian in the city, to be shot and stabbed by notorious murderer Robert Mee. Robert Mee shot and stabbed Benjamin Freeman on the 12th march 2005 in Mayors walk, Peterborough. Robert Mee is serving a 2 year sentance for biggamee on his partner Alex Jones."

Kammer06 (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unverified, and contains material about one and possibly more supposedly living persons which, if untrue, could be considered libellous. So, it should be removed without delay, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed it and added an appropriate warning to User talk:91.125.212.10 (who added it on March 3). You will see that the warning fits the situation exactly as I described it. I think we should be alert to these kinds of edits and follow wikipedia policy by removing them whenever we see examples of this kind of thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Medeshamstede, Saxwulf...

About my recent changes of 'Medeshampstede' to 'Medeshamstede', and of 'Saxulf' to 'Saxwulf': 'Medeshamstede' is the correct form, see Ekwall, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th edn., Oxford University Press, 1960, p. 364; and 'Saxulf' is merely a Latinised, scribal form of the name, see for example Bede's Ecclesiastical History. Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment however Medeshamstede is a redirect to Medeshampstede, and moreover Medeshamstede is not listed as one of the alternative spellings there (although it has to be said that the sourcing in that article isn't brilliant). Can there really be said to be a single "correct" form of names at this time? I see that Peterborough museum does use a form without a "p" http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-10555. Saxwulf does seem rather more likely. David Underdown (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ingram, the cited reference (7), gives it as Saxulf. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can also find Saxolf as http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/records.asp?cat=154-fmcharter_1&cid=1-1-10-1 shows which also gives Medeshamstede without the p incidentally (this search may time out after a bit) David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that about Medeshampstede, I see it as very unfortunate, and I've posted a message to that effect on the relevant Talk page; but obviously, two wrongs don't make a right. As I see it, the 'p' has crept in by association with modern place-names such as 'Hampstead', 'Northampton', etc., whereas it's not found in good primary sources. You're right to question the reliability of contemporary orthography, but place-name interpretation often hangs on precisely such details. Scholars use 'Medeshamstede', and it is clearly explained by Ekwall, as cited above by me. About Saxwulf, the form 'Saxulf' is derived from 12th century, Anglo-Norman writings at Peterborough, describing events of 500 years before; whereas 'wulf' was a common Old English personal name element, and is clearly to be preferred. In fact his name might better be given as 'Sexwulf', since this is the form preferred by Bede; but 'Saxwulf' is acceptable. Nortonius (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts) At that time, I don't think spelling had really become standardized: after all, Shakespeare spellt his name in a number of different ways later still. If the matter concerns people, I suggest that some judicious use of footnotes to give alternative spellings (with citations) might be used. It is how I am planning to deal with similar issues on a number of articles. Some judgement and reasoned argument paying attention to historical records may well be required to make the best choice of (primary) name to use in the text, however. Preferably along the lines seen already in this section.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Investigations have shown the correct spelling to be Medeshamstede. The page Medeshampstede has been moved to Medeshamstede, and links updated accordingly. A citation showing reference to the early use of this spelling has been added to the article. Note - the article could use some work. --  Chzz  ►  20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See also

Per WP:See also, only related articles that are not already included in the main article should be listed. Everything listed in this article was included, so I believe that the list is unnecessary, particularly as you had to scroll right past all the refs to find it. David Underdown (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That states the links in the See also section should be worked into the text where possible, and usually removed from the See also list unless that would make them hard to find. I feel the list is helpful in this instance and its presence improves the article. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello to both - I think I would tend to agree with Chrisieboy on this. In a longer article, I think a "See also" list is useful, as without it the items listed would be "hard to find". I agree that it's a bit awkward to have to "scroll right past all the refs to find it", but this arrangement could be reversed: compare William II of England. Just my two penn'orth. Nortonius (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at the MOS a bit more, See also should be before Refs. It still seems superfluous to me - some fo the see also things, liek the constituency are already highlighted in the infobox, and the main article link for Local Government gives it greater prominence than a see also listing also. The religion section would be a pretty obvious place to look for the article on the diocese (and the name isn't exactly hard to guess in any case. David Underdown (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Peterborough Abbey

I might say this, mightn't I, given how much attention I've been paying to the Medeshamstede article lately, but shouldn't Peterborough Abbey have its own article too? This abbey emerged from the almost complete obscurity that Medeshamstede had fallen into by the 10th century, to become one of the most important and wealthiest abbeys of medieval England; and Peterborough Cathedral is a very different animal, despite occupying the same building, and having preserved what it could of the abbey's archive. Also, there are articles for other abbeys of similar status and lower (e.g. Bury St. Edmunds Abbey, Croyland Abbey), so it would be in good company. I mention this particularly because, in editing the article for Medeshamstede, I've had the choice of either linking any mention of Peterborough Abbey internally to the article for Peterborough Cathedral, or leaving it unlinked. I'm a bit tied up with Medeshamstede right now, though I could have a go at Peterborough Abbey too; but I'd only be much use up to the later 12th century. Any thoughts? I'm cross posting this to the talk page for Peterborough Cathedral. Nortonius (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Main reply at talk:Peterborough Cathedral, though it's just occurred to me that Crowland mentions it's current status as a Parish Church, and Bury is a bit different, the Abbey church did not survive. another example of a single article approach is St Albans Cathedral, still known by the locals as the Abbey, which isn't the case in Peterborough. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to this on the talk page indicated. With the benefit of hindsight, it was surely my mistake to cross-post my original question - so to avoid having two parallel discussions, anyone else please post further comments at talk:Peterborough Cathedral. Cheers - and sorry! Nortonius (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Filming

I have removed the following paragraph which was recently added:

Peterborough has also been a location for notable programmes and films. In 1995, minor scenes of the 007 film GoldenEye were filmed at the Nene Valley Railway, where Pierce Brosnan remained until filming completed. In 1983, the 13th 007 film Octopussy was also filmed at the railway. TV drama Casualty was filmed at the railway in 2003, a music video called BreakThru for the band Queen was filmed there also. Between 1977 and 1979 many sequences for the BBC's wartime drama Secret Army were filmed here, principally at Wansford station, notably in the episodes: The Hostage, A Matter of Life and Death and The Last Run. A scene from the film The Da Vinci Code was filmed at Burghley House near Stamford, with some other scenes being filmed in the city centre. Lee Marvin found himself camping in Ferry Meadows during filming of The Dirty Dozen 2

If others feel it should be reinstated (perhaps in its own section?), it really needs sourcing first. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It probably is worth including in some shape or form - I htink one fo the later Bond films had some scenes shot on the former British Sugar site as well, shoudl probably be able to find something about that in teh ET, and it may well mention the previou filming too. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Added filming locations

GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:59 BST, 6 Jul 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Article size

This article is now 101 kilobytes long, including extensive references. Please think carefully before adding content, as if anything else goes in we may need to consider removing something, which I am (personally) loath to do. The guidelines state > 100 KB [of readable prose] almost certainly should be divided. I think this would be a shame for such a substantial and coherent article and I don't think we have enough material here for a very comprehensive History of Peterborough article. Any suggestions? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI there's only ~53kb of readable prose, so according to WP:Article size the article as it stands is at an acceptable size. It would take a considerable amount to be added before size becomes an issue. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for pointing that out. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms and language use.

I have some remaining concerns about the use of certain terms like: "Peterborough enjoys a wide range of events including the annual East of England Show.." 'Enjoys' either needs verification, citation or removal. Also, "Present-day Peterborough is merely the latest in a series of settlements..." Why 'merely'? Beeellecee (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Enjoy (verb) to have the use or benefit of something. For instance, Peterborough has the benefit of a wide range of events.
2. Merely (adv.) only, just, and nothing more. For instance, present-day Peterborough is only the latest in a series of settlements.

Sounds fine to me; check your dictionary! Chrisieboy (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Famous Peterborians

John Clare was born in Helpston - near Peterborough, not in Peterborough. Henry Royce was born in Alwalton, not Peterborough. This seems to be inflating the importance of Peterborough. Beeellecee (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, Helpston is in the City of Peterborough! Chrisieboy (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

John Clare was born in Helpston. This is a fact available from the John Clare Society web site and any number of other sources. The Wikipedia entry for Helpston says, "Helpston (also, formerly, "Helpstone") is an English village formerly in Northamptonshire — subsequently (1965–1974) in Huntingdon and Peterborough, then in Cambridgeshire — and administered since 1988 by the City of Peterborough unitary authority."

While John Clare was alive (1793-1864) Helpston was not 'in' Peterborough. Boundary changes may have seen Helpston come within the Peterborough administrative area at a later date but this is not sufficient to proclaim John Clare as a 'famous Peterborian'. Indeed, there are no records (as far as I am aware) to even suggest that John Clare spent any significant time in Peterborough as a city. Beeellecee (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article covers both Peterborough proper, and the modern city - he was born with those boundaries, so it's perfectly reasonable to include him in the list, though maybe we could note that he was born in Helpston, Peterborough Centrla Libarry is named after him, and manuscripts are held by the museum. David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. However, it was in the Soke of Peterborough (geographically in Northants.) during his lifetime and his connection with the city is undisputed; see John Clare - Peterborough's Peasant Poet. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think (if you'll permit) that the way the article reads currently is a bit misleading here - I think it's fine to include information on parts of a place as it now is, because that's the current reality, but it should be noted somehow that J. Clare was born in Helpston, now part of Peterborough. Omitting mention of Helpston is to elide the facts, and I think that's a bit lazy, IMHO. Um, mentioning the Soke here seems a bit leftfield... Doesn't it equate with the double hundred of Nassaborough? That would seem a bit too much of a stretch, though I haven't checked Peterborough's modern boundaries...

While I'm here, I just wanted to offer a little extra info on a tiny edit I did last night - and, trivial though this is, it prompted me to stick my oar in as I just did. I deleted "Gildenburgh", but messed up the summary. You might've twigged, but "12th POV" in the summary should've read "12th century POV". As I recall, "Gildenburgh", "Gildeneburch", only occurs in the ASC and Hugh Candidus, in describing "what a fantastic place Peterborough Abbey is" - given the claims being made there about the abbey's wealth, and its importance as a pilgrimage centre, really "Gildenburgh" is straight from a 12th century tourism leaflet - and would require further explanation if included in the present article. It's not even relevant to an etymology of "Peterborough". So, I was cheeky enough to delete it... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It does have some currency in modern Peterborough though, for example there is a choir called the Gildenburgh Choir, and there are probably a few other similar usages. The original boundaries of the Soke coincide fairly closely with the modern city boundaries (north of the Nene) as I understand it, the areas of the modern city south of the Nene were not included in the Soke (they are still in a different diocese!). David Underdown (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David. I would like to see it restored (in some form). Chrisieboy (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

...and, I'm not disagreeing with anyone about that! Just, it was a bit of a distraction as presented - it was the sort of thing that provokes a little head scratching. I think it would be great to restore it, adding a sentence or two explaining its significance, in relation to Peterborough's history! Hence my mention of where "Gildenburgh" comes from, and "further explanation"... ;o) p.s. It should be easy to compare the boundaries of the modern city and Nassaborough double hundred, anyway, then it should be just a matter of confirming the make up of the Soke - i.e., was it identical with Nassaborough. The boundaries of Nassaborough were the same as those of the former, north eastern limb of Northants., limited in the west by the western boundaries of Wothorpe, Wittering and Thornhaugh parishes. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just come across this debate about Peterborough's claim on John Clare, so had a look through his history and its my opinion that some serious "word-smithing" has been going on, probably as far back as 1893, when Peterborough was the venue for an exhibition marking the centenary of Clare's birth. I found reference to him meeting the Bishop of Peterborough in 1820, though not in Peterborough. Peterborough was the venue for another exhibition in 1963 marking the centenary of his death. Being born in Helpston, working in and around Stamford, enlisting in the militia in Oundle and spending the last 23 years of his life in the Northampton General Lunatic Assylum does not really constitute being a famous Peterborian. Are there any other facts that subtantiate Peterborough's claim that are not in the public domain (other than some fortuitous shifting of geographical boundaries)? Flettonian (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s.! The EPNS volume for Northants. equates Nassaborough with the Soke, so yes it should be very easy to compare that with modern Peterborough boundaries. And - I still think it's fine to include mention of John Clare, so long as it's taken into account that his connection with Peterborough is mainly due to "some fortuitous shifting of geographical boundaries" - i.e., just mention Helpston in that regard...? Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here. Helpston was in the Soke of Peterborough, Northants. It is now in the City of Peterborough, Cambs. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This may seem a little paradoxical, but I think he needs including because the article is about modern Peterborough: it includes Helpston, and it's therefore relevant. Maybe the discussion is really about the section's title, "Famous Peterborians". It's fun - and perhaps even useful to a point - to include this bit of local jargon in the article, but I think this issue would disappear if the section were re-titled in a manner that is as inclusive as is the modern city. I think that's what "all the fuss is about" - lol! And, the Soke isn't the same as the city... Nortonius (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nortonius in that 'Famous Peterborians' might be re-titled to something more...inclusive? Present-day Peterborians in my experience tend to believe firmly in the idea that to be a 'Peterborian' you need to be born within the bounds of the physical city, not the vague outline of a Soke (which has little meaning for most people nowadays). There is also the question of whether John Clare, himself, would have described himself as a 'Peterborian'? In the 19th Century geographical 'distance' would be amplified due to poor roads, weaker transport links and a greater sense of local and immediate community. I contend that John Clare would have identified as being a Helpstonian, not a Peterborian. At the very least there should be clear mention of Helpston. Were it not for John Clare would Peterborough be so keen to lay claim to Helpston? Of course not! Chrisieboy - the link you gave to support the argument that John Clare has an 'undisputed' link with Peterborough John Clare - Peterborough's Peasant Poet is not really adequate - this is the Peterborough City Council website who have a vested interest in re-colonising the history of surrounding areas? I could be wrong but maybe that strengthens the idea that employing John Clare as an honorary Peterborian is more convenient than it is factual. Beeellecee (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Legally, the city extends to the boundaries of the unitary authority, which includes Helpston, and at te time Clare was actually born it was equally part fo the Soke, which was the local administrative authority, and was to some degree independent of the County of Northamptonshire. I've reworded the opening of the section to clarify precisely what we're talking about. David Underdown (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Um - forgive me for wearing my pedantic hat again for a moment, & maybe the discussion's moved on - but for future reference I think it's important to distinguish between something like the Soke, and a "local authority"... Very different animals... Nortonius (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, poor choice of words, I was trying to address the point of loyalty to place, perhps Clare would have identified first and foremost with Helpston, rather than with Peterborough, but in general county loyalties were fairly strong too, and whilst the area was then in Northampton, the Soke does seem to have had quite a strong identity of its own - and there were aspects of administration involved, such as teh Soke having separate courts from the rest of Northants. David Underdown (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To David - I think the edit you made is an improvement. However, I would also join Nortonius in gently questioning the use of Soke and "local authority". My history is not as strong as it should be but if I remember rightly the concept of Soke is rather loose and dates back to Norman times with no modern equivalent. As such, to invoke the Soke (excuse the rhyme)may not have legitimacy in this context? Beeellecee (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in here, but would a change in name of the section to the one recommended in WP:UKCITIES help resolve this issue? If the section's name were changed to "Notable Residents", then some explanation about the coverage being all areas currently covered by the city might suffice? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but this really does seem to be a small issue, easily fixed.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Soke arguably had its origins in the Eight Hundreds of Oundle, a private lordship in existence before Medeshamstede's 10th century re-incarnation as "Peterborough Abbey" - it clearly was part of the new abbey's foundation endowment given by Bishop Æthelwold, and must've been held by agreement with King Edgar... But anyway it originated as a private jurisdiction of the abbot. So, while I do think it's fair to think of the Soke as a local jurisdiction - and so, it's not much different in practice to a "local authority" - its origins and justification were completely different, which is something that should be kept in mind. It was more like a "peculier", e.g. Masham than what we understand by a "local authority" - tho, the WP article for "Royal Peculiar" doesn't cover what I mean... And DDStretch, I think that's what I've been trying to say, thank you!! lol!! Nortonius (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes a peculier is probably the best description - though twenty years after Clare's death it does seem to have become a full administrative county in its own right. Anyway, this is all something of a tangent to the main discussion. David Underdown (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it is all a bit tangential - but, I thought it was a point worth making, as the Soke had been mentioned in that way, and while the discussion had the attention of people who take particular interest in the Peterborough article! ;o) I think we've pretty much got there though - fingers crossed! lol!! Nortonius (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Key Theatre as a source of enlightenment

In the course of looking into the John Clare issue I did come across the following which I found breathtakingly hilarious. I quote "The Key Theatre... provides entertainment, enlightenment and education by reflecting the rich culture Peterborough has to offer." Out of interest I took a look at the Key Theatre website ([1]) only to be greeted by an advert for the Season's Highlights including The Extra factor, a man wearing rabbit ears, and the Full Monty. In light of this I would like to challenge the statement that the Key Theatre provides enlightenment and education. The statement as it stands reads like a tourist brochure and is not a true reflection of either the Key Theatre or the City of Peterborough. Flettonian (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

roflmao! Then - isn't it spam? If so just re-word it so the theatre's just mentioned...? Nortonius (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The current mention in the article is already considerably toned down from what was originally there! David Underdown (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Gildenburgh

Sorry Chrisieboy - once again, no offence - I honestly thought my little round of editing was self-explanatory, given what it said, the citations, and the summary - perhaps have another look at it...? One or two minor formatting tidies were left to do, but...? Nortonius (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't take personal offence ;-) but I did have another look after you removed the original reference to Gildenburgh and took on board your concerns, even though myself and another editor were not happy with its removal. Now claiming it is only a "local" term seems like original research. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the response! And - phew! lol! I know people aren't supposed to take offence, and it's pointless - but, you never know, and sometimes they just do! ;o) Sorry that you and others weren't happy about the original removal of "Gildenburgh" - I had noticed that the Peterborough article has achieved "featured article" status, and I didn't mean to mess with it - it's just that the way "Gildenburgh" was originally included was a bit of a head scratcher, as I explained before - I mean, it didn't seem to add anything, and it did raise questions that were left unanswered. But, you put me straight on its modern use, so thanks and sorry again for that.

But, about "Gildenburgh" being a "local term", and the viability of citing local historians, I'm a bit confused by what you mean - I didn't actually say it's a local term, though it does occur only in the Peterborough ASC and Hugh Candidus. I just said that they are "local histories", which is a bit of jargon maybe: it applies to both sources, in that the Peterborough ASC, though covering national history, is "local" to Peterborough, and is enormously coloured by its composition there; and Hugh Candidus is avowedly a "local historian" - it's his plan to write a history of Peterborough Abbey, so any history beyond its gates is generally mentioned only incidentally. See for example the assessment in Gransden, A., Historical Writing in England Vol. I c.550 - c.1307, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974, ch. 13. And, as far as I'm aware, the description "local historian" also fits H.F. Tebbs to a tee, as he seems only to have written on matters local to Peterborough.

Incidentally, I only altered the quotation from H.F. Tebbs in order to clarify what he actually says. When I described him as "a bit inadequate", I wasn't thinking of the quotation, or of the quality of his writing even, in particular, but rather, that as a "local historian" he will tend to take a rather "local" view of things in general: in other words, in this sort of situation it's better to consider the nature of Peterborough's 12th century local histories in terms of published works like that by Gransden, and then to see what Tebbs has to say. Sorry if that all sounds a bit academic, but I think it's fair! Especially as "Gildenburgh" is only found in those two local sources.

Consequently, I don't see where thoughts of OR come into it, really - it's all verifiable through reliable, published sources! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. By the way, that Fact tag that I added, but was then removed, was for the date of 43 AD for the establishment of a fortified garrison at Durobrivae, as I said in my summary - that date's not referenced, why was it wrong to put down a Fact tag for that...? It looks like it's crying out for a reference to me - I mean, it's not even given a modern, reliable reference in the Durobrivae article itself, that I can see...! Nortonius (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've adding some information on the Roman fort at Longthorpe; it has a possible foundation date of 44AD. I'm wondering whether this could be the source we're looking for. While this isn't at Durobrivae, it is very close (I think). Was the town actually garrisoned or is this a slight confusion with the fort? A garrison town may be a vicus, or a civilian settlement associated with a Roman fort. Nev1 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Nev1. Durobrivae (Water Newton) was a full-blown town, as I understand it, on a major Roman road. It lay across a river from Longthorpe, and about 5 km to the west. So, no confusion between Longthorpe and Durobrivae. I think what you added was a good call, by the way. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, in that case I too would like to see a source for the 43AD foundation date for Durobrivae. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem Nortonius, you can't claim that Tebbs is inadequate, it is a reliable, published source; I think the sentence, as it stands, accurately represents what he says (I put it in afterall) and I don't think we should to cast doubt on its veracity in the body of the text. In my view, the paragraph, as altered, was detrimental to the coherence of the article, going into too much specialist and technical detail on an incidental and, if I may say, rather tangential point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook, its purpose is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is sufficient that it is found and doesn't need further qualification in this context. Surely, in any case, "local histories" are pertinent to an article such as this and Candidus is certainly a good primary source..? With respect to the Durobrivae citation, we presently have 165 references, indeed the following (short sentence is followed by one) — where do we draw the line (AD 655)? You or I can find one, but we are only saying that it was founded around that date, which is not especially contentious (especially in light of Nev1's latest addition) and as you alluded to, the article got through FAC without having one. Having said all that, I'm happy to go with the consensus, but I would rather we do it without the need for tags. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Then all I can say to you, Chrisieboy, is that I'm extremely disappointed with your attitude. You don't seem to be taking what I'm saying on board in the slightest - you appear to be stonewalling what I've said, without actually trying to understand it. For example, accusing me of OR, yet responding in that incomprehensible manner when I raise the issue of an unreferenced date for Durobrivae. You do me an injustice, and WP - or, more importantly, its readers - a disservice. I shall not be contributing to the Peterborough article again, unless you choose to explain yourself further, as clearly it's a waste of time, as long as you are ring-fencing it in this way. Nortonius (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair and I'm sorry you feel that way. I wasn't "accusing" you of anything; I simply made a point, which you answered. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Chrisieboy - sorry, I don't mean to sound "unfair". But, I do think you might offer edits of the sort that I have made a little more "benefit of the doubt". I've tried to explain where I'm coming from with it as clearly as I can, so I confess that I'm struggling now to find ways of clarifying it any further; but, I can assure you that, from where I'm sitting, the things you have suggested to me seem to have been way off the mark. To put that another way, if I felt they were appropriate, I wouldn't still be discussing it. So, let me try again, if you'll bear with me.

An example of what I mean by giving "benefit of the doubt" might be based on your recent edit of duplicated book titles in refs for the Medeshamstede article. You were quite right to slim down those duplications, of course, and all editors will leave those sorts of "sharp corners" behind, myself included. But, the manner in which those duplications were removed left it unclear as to which of Mellows' editions of Hugh Candidus was being cited in refs later than the first. Rather than undoing your edit - or indeed speaking to you about it in terms of "how to edit" - I worked with it - perhaps compare "before and after" edits to see what I mean.

About my use of the word "inadequate", I suppose what I'm really trying to suggest is the idea of "reliability", which naturally is of central importance. Of course Tebbs is published, but is he reliable? But, as I've already indicated, I don't in fact doubt Tebbs' reliability on this issue. Having looked at what Gransden has to say about the Peterborough ASC and Hugh Candidus, for example, I think that one can see exactly what Tebbs means when he uses the word "introduced", in the quotation which has been added to the Peterborough article: what Tebbs is saying is that "Gildenburgh" was "introduced" to the histories as a "rhetorical term", not as a widely-used name for Peterborough Abbey - which latter meaning can be understood from the article, as it stands. So, it's not a question of a subjective selection of sources, which is how you seem to be seeing my approach, but rather, it's an attempt at a full comprehension of sources - which, after all, is a fairly basic test of "reliability".

About the Fact tag for the date for Durobrivae, I don't see how the number of refs already present in the Peterborough article is relevant: to put it another way, rather than deleting that Fact tag, I personally would try to give a ref for the date in the Durobrivae article, and then delete the Fact tag from the Peterborough article. It seems a fairly logical approach.

I hope that helps...? I would really appreciate it if you would look again at what I did with that paragraph, with particular regard to the significance of "Gildenburgh", and the sources, in the light of what I've just said: I honestly do believe that it is all valid, and well within all the WP parameters that you have cited. Nortonius (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Medeshamstede, the 1941 ed. was the only one actually quoted at the time of my edits. Remaining focussed on this article however, Gildenburgh clearly deserves a mention, but is this the place for a discussion of its etymology (or toponymy)? Although you have since conceded that the term has some currency, you simply removed mention it; I, on the other hand, took your comments on board when reintroducing it. Perhaps we could include your footnote, but leave the text? Chrisieboy (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Chrisieboy, but I really feel like giving up now - I've explained myself 'til I'm blue in the face now, and, though I hear your offer of a compromise, you're still not showing that you've actually considered what I've said - all you've really come back with is a sort of "tit for tat" balance of who's done what, where. So, do what you like, you obviously will anyway. Take it easy. Nortonius (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your point that Tebbs is saying "Gildenburgh" was "introduced" to the histories as a "rhetorical term", but I am not sure we need to go into that level of detail. In any case, he goes on to say, that "in the [twelfth eleventh] century, the town was called Gildenburgh" (p.117). Chrisieboy (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, allow me to quote from Hugh Candidus, where he is writing of Abbot Leofric of Peterborough, who ruled the abbey from 1052 to 1066:

In his day this place (i.e. Peterborough Abbey) was enriched beyond belief, with lands, gold, silver and divers adornments, so that it was no longer called simply Burch, but deservedly Gildenburgh, which is to say "the Golden City." (Mellows, 1941, p. 34; Mellows, 1949, p. 66)

I think that's pretty unequivocal; and you might compare that with pretty much the same information given in the Peterborough ASC, under the year 1052. Also, I'm afraid you've misunderstood what Tebbs says, on p. 117. When he speaks of the "next century", he is speaking of the one after that in which King Edgar (died 975) is supposed to have contributed to Peterborough's foundation endowment - i.e., Tebbs is referring to the 11th century, not the 12th. (ok, you've since made an amendment, so that aspect is now covered...)

My basic point is, that you can allow the reader to believe that the term "Gildenburgh" was "introduced" as a new name for Peterborough in the 12th century if you really want to, but it's simply incorrect; and, if you actually read the reliable, published sources, you will see that, in truth, Hugh Candidus does not even apply the name "Gildenburgh" to the town, but to the abbey. His history of the abbey is heavily laden with allusions to a glorifying view of the abbey as a "second Rome": this is the "city" indicated in the above quotation, it is in no sense a reference to the town of Peterborough. The Peterborough ASC is equally specific on this point, under the year 1052:

Abbot Leofric endowed the monastery … so that it became known as 'Golden Borough': when it increased greatly in land, in gold, and in silver.

So, since you bring it up, Tebbs is unreliable, in his statement at p. 117.

To that extent then, yes, I think it's essential to go into the minor detail that my recent edit involved. Frankly, this is why I objected to mention of "Gildenburgh" in the Peterborough article in the first place, but you overcame that objection by pointing out its current significance. But for that, I might now be asking why you don't also mention the name "Wretched Borough", since that also is found in the Peterborough ASC, right alongside "Gildenburgh" (see the entry for 1066); but, I'll leave aside the issue of NPOV for now, and I think that would indeed be going into too much detail.

Consequently, I really think it's time you started taking on board what I've been saying. And, I'm sorry if I'm sounding a little tired now, but perhaps you will now begin to appreciate exactly what I've been trying to explain to you, and how carefully I've been trying to do it. By which I mean, for goodness' sake give another editor some benefit of the doubt, to the extent that they might actually have some idea of what they're talking about, and of how to present it in a manner suitable for WP! It seems to me that this whole, lengthy discussion, revolving around the tiniest little edit by me (by which I continue to stand), could have been avoided, had you actually bothered to check what I was saying, rather than airily dismiss it and instead ply me with unnecessary advice on how to edit an article in WP. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been about 28 hours since I last heard from Chrisieboy, our previous exchanges having been separated by no more than about 13 hours. I have now exhaustively set out the reasons for my recent edit of the information regarding "Gildenburgh" in the Peterborough article, and I have yet to encounter any sensible reason for withdrawing it. Therefore, remaining confident of the form and content taken by this edit, I shall shortly attempt to restore it, with due regard to concerns expressed, e.g. on avoiding too much detail. I trust that any further alteration of this edit will be in accordance with expected standards of editing in WP, including respect for other editors, or will consist only of corrections of e.g. format, grammar, or typos. I shall also re-instate a Fact tag for the unreferenced date of 43 AD for the establishment of a fortified garrison at Durobrivae, the only explanation given so far for its recent removal being patently nonsensical. Either the date and the tag should be removed, or the date should be referenced, and the tag removed - a reference in the Durobrivae article would be adequate, I'm sure. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now done this, along with some tidying of the section, as outlined in my summary. Nortonius (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Having photographs of the cathedral, etc. is nice, but perhaps someone should add some more representative photographs of the town centre? The existing pictures make Peterborough look something like York, when in reality it looks more like Middlesbrough (and, no, that is not intended as an insult to either Peterborough or Middlesbrough - I mean the town centre mostly consists of lots of modern concrete buildings from the fifties/sixties and later).

Also, is it just me or does Peterborough have Britain's most difficult-to-find railway station? It isn't signposted from anywhere! It's almost as if they don't want people to know it's there. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of buying a DSLR camera, so I can add pictures to the gallery. The only thing that stops me is one particular user, somebody who I won't name because it's so bloody obvious, keeps removing the entries. I wonder if this comment will be removed by this person...

GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

East of England Showground

I was surprised to find no entry for the Showgrounds in Wikipedia nor in this article. Are they still there?Bebofpenge (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Showground is still there. It gets a couple of mentions in this article, but unfortunately, does not have an article of its own (yet). Chrisieboy (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)