Talk:Cambridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Photos

I was surprised by this comment from 81.6.229.151

21:15, 4 Dec 2003 . . 81.6.229.151 (picture deleted.....does not give the college justice. Put a better photo in next time!!)

I'd love to know in what sense the picture of King's College was unsuitable. It seems to me to have been better than the one added later, further down the page!

It's not worth arguing over, but I was puzzled! Chris Jefferies 23:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Jefferies that there was no reason to remove that photo. The view of King's College from the Backs is widely held as the iconic view of Cambridge, as evidenced by the photo and the logo on the home page of the City Council. If the particular photo is not considered pretty enough and someone can provide a better one of the same scene which is usable under copyright restrictions, then fine, let's use it instead. Meanwhile I will restore the old one (assuming the Wiki lets me get that far -- it's being excruciatingly slow at the moment). --Trainspotter 15:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well it has taken a while, but here is a new image. -- Solipsist 07:11, 31 October 2004 (UTC)

Cambridge city centre

On a less savoury note, a study done in 2004 named Cambridge city centre (postcode CB2 1)...

Cambridge city centre isn't just CB2, though; CB1-4 meet in a pie-like formation in the centre. Marnanel 00:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Midsummer Common is CB5, so it's CB1-5... - JVG 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Punting

No mention of punting here, which is a classic cambridge activity. Surely someone can pen a few words? "Working people as well as students (or "town and gown") both enjoy "punting" on the Cam, an activity where a flat-bottomed wooden boat (the punt) is propelled by pushing with a pole on the bottom of the river. There is a definite nack to this means of travel, and watching the many tourists attempting it is very entertaining. In recent years a highly profitable business has started up, with "punt touts" selling tickets for punt tours of the backs of the colleges, with a guide to push the boat and explain the sights. The touting can be very repetitive and persistent, and has led to complaints publicised in the local and national media. Prices are negotiable."

Hi - You are right. There is actually an article on punting that mentions the Cam, but there should be a link from here. What you have there look fine to me, so be bold and put it in the article. Any further tips on how to hack your way past the 'punt pimps' would be good too. -- Solipsist 10:43, 20 October 2004 (UTC)

Avoidance Maneuvers

When one is traveling through Cambridge, you are sure to run into one the many 'punting pimps.' These are the young men and women who try to solicit punting tours to visitors. There are several ways to rid yourself of these reoccurring disturbances, and they are as follows:

1. Be Rude. Very few people can handle a rude tourist, and if you tell one of these map toting, flat hat wearing fellows to "shove off!" You are not likely to get bothered by any him/her, or any of their comrades within earshot.
2. Be Fast. When you see one of the sharks lock you in their gaze, pick up the pace. They can't talk to you if they can't catch you.
3. Be Comical. If you have several minutes to burn pretend to be hard of hearing, and misquote them every time they open their mouth. You can even try to act like you don't speak English. Cambridge has visitors from all over the world, simply mutter some gibberish under your breath and point at them with a confused grin on your face. They'll get the picture very quickly.
4. Be Honest. Simply tell them 'no,' and keep moving.
5. Go Incognito. These people are highly trained in the art of spotting tourists. If you can at any point, do not carry all 25 of your cameras around your neck and point at every tourist attraction in the city. This is also a good skill to use when wanting to avoid pickpockets and the likes.
6. Be Firm. No matter how you choose to go about ridding yourself of these persistent panhandlers, be firm and confident in your decision.

Touting Banned

The touts have now (or are about to be) banned by a Cambridge bylaw. Excellent! --Ceramic 07:02, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

Alas they were not banned, and are still a nuisance -- Richard Parkins (Cambridge resident) 30 November 2011

Market Hill

The square in the picture of the market (originally captioned "Market Square") is actually called Market Hill. "Hill" in this context referring to a open space -- a peculiar local term derived from an Anglo-Saxon word (I think). Can anyone confirm the origin of the term?

Good call. The naming was my mistake. -- Solipsist 07:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a book on Hobson's Conduit which gives this derivation of the word "Hill" (as an open space) in Cambridge streetnames. Another theory is that they literally were hills - areas of the town that were not liable to flooding in Saxon times. If you look at the locations of the old Saxon Churches, you will see that they tend to congregate on a ridge of land following Trumpington Street, where these hillocks were supposedly located. -- Bluap 11:54, 7 December 2004 (UTC)

Cycling

I've got to ask - which woods and Roman Roads is it recommended to cycle on? And should this information be in Wikipedia - it's not a tourist guide... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluap (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 May 2005‎ (UTC)

Typo

At the end of the History section is a sentence beginning "The University use a pseudo-Latin adjective cantabrigiensis..." Was that supposed to be "The University uses" or "The Universities use"?

Probably "the University uses" - JVG, from Cambridge 11:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Stephen Turner 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How far from London

Someone's changed it from 50 to 60 miles. I can say with reasonable certainty that the distance sign at the top of the M11 (near Junction 14, on the north-west fringe of Cambridge) gives a distance of 59 miles, but that includes all the turns the motorway makes, including a notable swing around Cambridge to it's south to meet the A11. The distance is probably about 55 miles (88.5km) from centre to centre, but can someone please check the distance "as the crow flies" - JVG 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it depends where you think the centre of London is, but it's 49.8 miles from Christ's to Hyde Park Corner. I'll change it back. Stephen Turner 11:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure it is that important, but in any case distances in the UK are typically measured to the Eleanor Cross at Charing Cross (see Milestone). I can't give you the as-the-crow-flies distance (we have the coordinates for each location so someone should be able to calculate the geodesic), however using the shortest road route calculated by Multimap gives a distance of 59.3 miles. It looks fairly direct, so I doubt a crow would be able to shave more than a few percent less, so 60 miles seems a better rule of thumb than 50. -- Solipsist 12:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From the front of Christ's to TQ302804 is 49.4 miles. (You'll be telling me it should be Great St Mary's next...). Stephen Turner 12:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well come to think of it, that's where it does get more interesting. I used CB2 1AA which often gets taken as the centre of Cambridge, but actually appears to be on Regent Street. However, distances in Cambridge should indeed be measured from the west door of Great St Mary's Church (TL447585 apparently) on King's parade (as mentioned in the caption of the picture in the article) — I think the church is cited as a datum point in some University statutes. In 1725 William Warren from Trinity Hall errected the first milestones in Britain since the Romans left, starting at Great St Mary's and heading down Trumpington Road. There is a plaque on the side of the church and you can also find the first milestone opposite the end of Brooklands Avenue on Trumpington Road (for more see milestonesweb.com). ...well, you did ask :) -- Solipsist 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Then somewhere in Hertfordshire one of Dr Warren's milestones gives 37 m to London and 14 m to Cambridge, so yes 50 miles seems like the best bet, even for road distances. -- Solipsist 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably... 50 miles sounds about right. - JVG 14:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)::::

You should measure, e.g. with Google Earth, the distance from Gt St Mary's Church to Charing Cross-- those are the waypoints. It is generally considered fifty, since obviously one doesn't necessarily depart or arive at those points. SimonTrew (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Skyline of Cambridge

What about the Catholic Church? (Sorry I can't remember its proper name)It's one of the tallest buildings in the centre of Cambridge. Carter Bridge is also tall enough to merit lights on at night.

--Two Tone 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called Our Lady & the English Martyrs, or OLEM or just the Catholic Church for short. However I don't know what Carter Bridge is. Ben Finn 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Carter Bridge is the red cycle bridge by the station. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, only the chimney of Addenbrookes is taller than the Catholic church. - JVG 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the cranes building the new john Lewis, shops and car park have been dominating the sky line for quite some time now, not sure whether to add it or not.  Tiddly Tom  20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

I have removed the following text:

A study by the consultancy firm CACI in 2004 named the postcode area
CB2 1, part of Cambridge city centre, as the "smoking capital" of the UK, as the
average resident in this area apparently spent more money on cigarettes than
those of any other region in the country, over 2 thousand
pounds per annum. The area is home to several of the
university's colleges, including Clare,
King's, Corpus Christi
and Trinity.

Let's face it - this text isn't particularly encyclopedic (and could easily be the result of dodgy statistics) Bluap 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

probably right - I'm sure I've read the same statistic about half a dozen other places(Tyne and Wear, Glasgow). Mammal4 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

King George's field

Where in Cambridge is the King George's field? It's not one I have ever heard of. Perhaps it's one of the college playing fields? --VinceBowdren 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. The List_of_King_George_V_Playing_Fields_(Cambridgeshire) page will also need updating when we do find it.

According to the map o the second page of [1] it is the playing fields in the centre of Byron Square, Trumpingdon. Bluap 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is used for the Varsity cricket match. SimonTrew (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Residents

I was hoping I could somehow get "radio guy" in notable residents, does anyone know his name? If you're from near Cambridge you should know who I'm talking about. He's a guy that's always biking around near the fudge kitchen and near the market with a radio on full blast, he always goes in circles, never get anywhere and his batteries never run out. anyone know who i mean? :p

KJ

Yeah, I know who you mean, but unless, say, the CEN wrote a story about him, it would be hard to find verifiable sources or to add him without doing original research. --Grouse 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the CEN wrote a story about him, he still wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Bluap 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree - definitley not notable enough. Maybe he powers the stereo from a dynamo on the bike, and thats why he keepscycling in circles? Mammal4 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be a dab

I think Cambridge, Massachusetts is equally notable as Cambridge, England, and that this article should be a disambiguation page. Cambridge, MA has as many people as Cambridge, England, and it is the home of Harvard University and MIT, which are two of the top schools in the US and are well known to people in other countries. I know that this is the original Cambridge, but I don't think that an article's precedence should be judged on chronology. Rather, it should be based on notability, which is why I think this should be a disambiguation page. I'm not advocating this for every British city that has an equivalent city in the US - just when they seem to have equal notability, as is the case here (and with Worcester, see Talk:Worcester). --Schzmo 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the criterion for a separate disambiguation page is notability, but "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result." In most of the world, when people say "Cambridge" they mean the one in the UK. From my experiences in the U.S., in the northeast people might expect "Cambridge" to mean Cambridge, MA, but in the rest of the country an unqualified Cambridge is just as likely to mean the original Cambridge.--Grouse 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can't disagree with you. Maybe it is because Harvard and MIT do not bear the name of "Cambridge" so people in other parts of the world would not know exactly where they are located. But in any case, I think there should be a link to Cambridge, Massachusetts along with the disambiguation page. --Schzmo 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm with you on Worcester, I got to disagree here. Maybe it's because the name of the university in England is also "Cambridge", but this is definitely the most well-known Cambridge to me. I hear/see Harvard and MIT attributed to Boston (as in the metro area) just as much as Cambridge. Kirjtc2 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This one should definitely stay. The number of people in Cambridge, MA is not relevant, but how well known the place is. JPD (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CAMBRIDGE should be a DISAMBIG page!! Please don't let this opinion hurt your pride either. Cambridge University is more famous than this town and Cambridge Massachusetts is at least equally as famous... Whomever keeps on defending that queries for "Cambridge" should redirect here, you have a lot of hubris!!! Cambridge MASS (easily the most referred to Cambridge among Americans) and the university were named for this town, but they've both become at least as famous... Bring on a DISAMBIG page!!!

P.S. Same with queries for "Plymouth." It redirects to the British town, when an automaker, and an American Rock and town in Mass are at least as well-known.

Well to have the last word, I believe Cambridge, UK to be considerably more well known. Besides which both Cambridge, UK and Plymouth, UK were terms in useage first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.7.46 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.217.27 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Festivals and events

This section on festivals and events seemed a bit thin to me. Although Wikipedia is not an events guide, I thought perhaps this section didn't give a full idea of the events in the city. I was proposing to add:

• Lent bumps
• May bumps
• Town bumps
• The Big Weekend
• Comedy Marquee
• Pink Festival

with a short description as per the other events. I was using the rough criteria that they are large, public, well-attended annual events that have been running for a number of years.

Not sure about adding London to Cambridge Bike Ride and Chariots of Fire run, probably not.

So I'm inviting comments on this. Rich257 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to think that the last three mentioned are notable enough for inclusion. Personally I have never heard of the Pink Festival outside of previous efforts to include it here. --Grouse 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's debatable; certainly the bumps are significant events in Cambridge life, but they're mostly a university thing (and so deserve their existing mention in the university article more than they deserve one here). Rather than in the festivals section, rowing probably deserves a mention in the sport section - I believe (though don't have a referenceto hand) that participatory non-university rowing is unusually popular in Cambridge, even compared to similarly-sized cities with an equally suitable river. --VinceBowdren 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Really I think that the events section should be limited to events that Cambridge is particularly noted for, or that are unique to Cambridge. On that basis, the beer festival is already a bit dubious (CAMRA holds similar events all over the country). Apart from the bumps, I don't think any of the events listed above would make the grade. Surely the Comedy Marquee is considerably significant than the summer outdoor Shakespere festivals - and those are really just a long running commercial theatre.

The bumps are perhaps significant but probably ought to be mentioned in the sport section with a general expansion about rowing. We've already got quite a few articles on Bump (rowing) and related May Bumps, Lent Bumps and individual annual results articles. City rowing is indeed relatively popular. The Town Bumps follow the May Bumps by a week or two and have a similar number of teams competing. In fact it would be worth checking to see whether we haven't already had information on this that has been inadvertantly deleted. -- Solipsist 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A14 talking point

The article contains an opinion that sounds like a Cambridge Evening News talking point

"The A14 is considered by many local people to be dangerous, and unnecessarily congested. This is particularly true of the section between Huntingdon and Cambridge where the east-west traffic is merged with the A1 to M11 north-south traffic on just a 2-lane dual carriageway."

That section has a dense flow of traffic for a non-urban route, but you are taking a subjective viewpoint if you talk it up to include words like "dangerous". The A14 is still pretty much a full speed route unless blocked by an accident on one particular day - compare very congested roads like the M25 or motorways around Birmingham. In the context, the statement reads like a warning to avoid the A when travelling to Cambridge, and that isn't good advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.138.244 (talk • contribs)

It also uses weasel words. Feel free to change it to something better. Grouse 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Football

I think the section on sport should mention Parker's piece and the innovative Cambridge rules of football. Most cities would be really proud if they had this history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.74.224 (talk • contribs).

Good idea, although I don't know enough about it. Do you want to add something? Or anyone else? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've now noticed that it is already present in the section on "Beginnings of the University". Which is probably the wrong place — I'll move it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Residents

Is the section on Notable Residents allowed to include people who used to live in Cambridge but no longer do? Someone just included Nick Hornby, who I'm fairly sure lives near Arsenal. I removed it, because I always assumed residents was for current residents (though Syd Barrett can't be counted in that category any more).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Notable current residents." If we allowed past residents, it would be a very long list indeed. Best handle that through a list page or a category, such as Category:People from Cambridge. Grouse 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds sensible. But does anyone know if all the people remaining on the list live in Cambridge currently? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

university

are you going to talk about the two universities in Cambridge ? you have cambridge colleges making up a university and you have anglia ruskin university User:Jesselp 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable current residents

How can "the late Syd Barrett" possibly be a current resident? Is he buried in the city? And anyway does anyone care which notable people currently live in the city? Rich257 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My worry is that if the list were anything like comprehensive, it would be unmanageably long. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you concuring with the idea of deleting this section? Rich257 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am, yes. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - these lists of notable residents are a pet peeve of mine. They are often contain many not very notable people with tenuous links to the placeMammal4 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Have a read of this article, and then go and read the Cambridgeshire Tourist Guide, which is copyrighted (it says so at the bottom). Some of the text is exactly the same - who has copied whom, and what do we do about it if it is a breach of copyright on our behalf? -- Roleplayer 08:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They've acknowledged Wikipedia at the bottom of their article, but they still need to include a link to the licence, I believe. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, their copyright notice on the page might be a bit confusing as they don't have the copyright on that text? Rich257 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a separate copyright notice at the bottom of the right-hand column to make it clear. (I've also got a funny feeling that this is one of the sites that was spamming their link onto every article about every Cambridgeshire village a few months ago, but I could be wrong about that). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Via Devana

The Via Devana goes to Chester, not Lincoln, but does it go through Cambridge? [2] -- 博 09:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the City Council [3], Huntingdon Road is on the line of the Via Devana. However, an article from the Cambridge University Press [4], [5] states: "It [Huntingdon Road etc.] is often called the Via Devana, but this is again a name mistakenly given by antiquarians who believed it was part ofa road that led from Colchester to Chester." --Heron 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i could have been clearer: it isn't just the name i am questioning. If you look at that map (which i found on "Ermine Street"), C isn't even established as on the route. I propose we remove the claim. -- 博 06:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Districts

I have moved this section from the main page as I think it needs considerable revision before it can go in the article. Things that could be improved:

• Too vague or uninteresting, eg there are shops in the city centre, well kind of true if you ignore Grafton and Newmarket Road.
• It is 'unreferenced, especially considering statements like "large muslim community" and "Notorious among Cambridge residents as areas of high crime"
• What is the criteria for the areas? The city centre is divided into areas such as "Kite". Where is the whole of the west of Cambridge? Where's Romsey town? I though Cherry Hinton was south east rather than south. Grantchester isn't in Cambridge as far as I'm concerned, or if it is what about Milton, Girton, Trumpington
• A map showing the areas would make this much easier to interpret.

Rich257 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Districts

Like most European cities, Cambridge is roughly circular with the oldest buildings in the City Centre and various modern estates around the edge.

City Centre

Home to the majority of the Colleges, and a large amount of tourist attractions and shops. Most punt outlets run from locations within the City Centre.

Petersfield

Residential district divided by Mill Road, a cultural area well known for its shisha bars, internet cafes and Turkish, Arabic and East Asian supermarkets. Since the area has a large muslim communtiy the area is also home to the Abu Bakr Mosque. Many of the shops and bars remain open well into the night.

Grantchester & Newnham

Located across the river from the City Centre, Newnham is home to the famous Backs. Grantchester is further on from Newnham and has more of a village feel to it despite being within Cambridge. Many tourists travel upriver to Grantchester by punt and visit the orchard, a famous haunt of Rupert Brooke.

Arbury, East Chesterton & King's Hedges

Resisdential areas to the north side of the city, mainly consisting of council houses and flats constructed in the 1960's and 70's. Notorious among Cambridge residents as areas of high crime.

Cherry Hinton

Residential area to the south of the city. Home to the grounds of Cherry Hinton Hall, where the famous Cambridge Folk Festival is held every year. The rest of Cherry Hinton mainly consists of council housing, and is also home to a fairly large amount of crime.

• Thanks, Rich. What about Romsey, for that matter, or West Chesterton, or Castle ward? And it's all a bit POV at the moment. A section on the areas of the city is not a bad idea, but it would have to be comprehensive, and less anecdotal. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Many of these "districts" already have their own Wikipedia articles, for example: Cherry Hinton, Grantchester, Newnham, King's Hedges, Chesterton; there are probably others. These articles variously call the locations "districts", "towns", "villages", or "suburbs". They probably need to be reviewed and updated to be consistent. I don't see the point in repeating this information in the Cambridge article – a link to these articles is all that's required. -- MightyWarrior 09:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit about Arbury is hilarious, the crime rates may be high by snooty "detached from reality" cambridge standards, but in reality they are still low, unless not doffing your hat to passing ladies is a crime. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm adding a small start on districts back into the article because I've found a source regarding Kite, Fitroy etc. These areas are very confusing and I think it would be interesting if we could get the section expanded. I'm hoping with a citation this will be a more structured stub to work from. 83.244.153.18 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA

I don't know if this has been mentioned before butI think there should be some reference to the fact that Watson and Crick worked out the structure of DNA in Cambridge.

It is one of the biggest discoveries in history.

Tobyjay 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The electron was also discovered in the same building about 50 years earlier! But I'm more inclined to think it belongs in the University of Cambridge article. We can't really do justice to the extent of the university's achievements in this article, and don't want to try and duplicate everything which is in the university's article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Transport

Hi. After reading the section on transport, I see no mention of the guided bus or the congestion charge. I am not confided with my level of English to write it into the article, could anyone else? Thanks.  Tiddly Tom  20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uniracial vs Multiracial Cambridge

This is in danger of descending into an edit war, so let's discuss it first. In my opinion, the recent comments by user 212.159.16.241 were clearly showing a point of view; here's my 2pworth on what we should and should not include:

• No referring to a 'lack' (or the opposite, an excess) of any ethnic group.
• No cherry-picking items from the census. Obviously we can't include all the census data, but we have to have a representative overview of the main census data items.
• No comparisons to a national average (presumably the mean). Towns and cities across the UK vary enormously in their ethnic makeup for historical and geographical reasons, and a single average figure is not very meaningful.
• Valid comparisons might include:
  • e.g. if Cambridge is more multicultural than similar UK cities without a university, and we have a reference arguing that this is due to the university's influence, let's state that.
  • e.g. if Cambridge has a lower percentage of particular ethnic groups compared to similar cities in similar geographic locations (and again we have a suitable reference) then let's state that.

--VinceBowdren (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree, except I think stating the national average is helpful. Who knows whether 27.6% of manual workers is high or low? The notion of trying to compare with "similar cities" instead is, I suggest, a dead end. Every city has exceptional circumstances. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the point of view that Cambridge is very white and middle class, in the same way I have a point of view that rubies are red. I don't see what was wrong with what I put; the national average is surely representative. And at least I had a source, unlike the 'multicultural' section. If the uniracial section goes, so should the 'multicultural' one (as it has). What I don't understand is why you guys seem to being trying to hide cambridge's "dirty little secret". It's just a fact isn't it? But yes, let's continue to keep it amiable, I won't edit war. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge is actually 321st out of 376 local authorities in England and Wales for proportion of white people.^[6] Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there are lots of local authorities with about 3 people in them. Comparison to the national average is less misleading. You still haven't answered why y'all want to make out that Cambridge is some cosomopolitan "rainbow city" or something. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you picked out only a few census facts to point out how white and middle-class Cambridge is struck me as a breach of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and the critical tone of your comments objectionable. Imagine if somebody wrote of Newham borough 'there is, especially, a lack of white british people' - it would rightly be taken as offensive. As for the white middle-classness; well, yes. The historical norm for british places is to be white-dominated; and a city like Cambridge (small, provincial, university-dominated) being mostly white and middle-class is exactly what you'd expect and doesn't really need such emphasis (nor is it anybody's dirty little secret). --VinceBowdren (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "points of view". Or should we also mention the point of view that Cambridge is full of black people (is anyone that deluded?)?? And your idea of comparing it to "similar cities" is laughable - by definition they'd just be similar! It's true though, that I didn't mention other aspects, for instance that Cambridge has a higher proportion (4.75 times) of Chinese people. Perhaps adding that sort of thing add some balance would mean the section could return? And yes, I picked out the relevant census data, of course. Did you expect me to mention how people travel to work when looking at Cambridge's racial makeup? The reason my comments were critical is because I was criticising an incorrect aspect of the article! And saying (rightly) that Cambridge is not very cosmopolitan is not wrong, and certainly not worse than pretending it's some kind of wonderful mix of all different races and classes living in harmony. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft for population §

OK everyone, here's a draft for the § on ethnic make-up of University/town, before it gets too crazy on the article page.

In the 2001 Census, 89.44% of Cambridge residents identified themselves as white, compared with a national average of 92.12%.<ref>Office For National Statistics 2001 Census (Ethnic group, Cambridge local authority)</ref> Within the University, 84% of undergraduates and 80% of post-graduates identify as white (including overseas students).<ref>[http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/ethnicity.html Univeristy of Cambridge Fact Sheet: Ethnicity], retrieved 17 January 2008</ref>

If there's a significant ethnicity other than white, that should get a separate ref, but bland comments like "not many black people" are true but pointless, given the national averages.

I've used the "including overseas students" figure here, because this article is about the town, and gives an idea of who you'll see in the street. Detailed comments about ethnic make-up of the University, admissions, schools outreach, etc, should be at the University of Cambridge article (which does need this added. Target has been going for decades).

Anon, pls don't ref things "ibid" - it's not good on WP where people might reorder your sentences. Use:

<ref name = "Census">FULL REF</ref>

the first time, then just

<ref name = "Census"/>

thereafter. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. I would add "(held during University term)" immediately after "2001 Census". Bluap (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, plus lk for white people. JackyR | Talk 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW where did you get 92.12% as the national average of white ppl? I make it 90.92% (from (42,747,136+624,115+1,308,110)/49,138,831 = 0.9092475... (from table ks06).--212.159.16.241 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

E.g., http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273.

I've reverted back to the agreed version. Please get consensus on changes here first. In particular, the reference from the University of Oxford only refers to first year undergraduates in 2002. Stephen Turner (Talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We should use gov't-calculated figures as much as possible, as our own calculations will suffer rounding errors (and from any omissions in a particular table). Annoyingly, I can't view table ks06 without a down-load, but it's no more recent than the gov't-calculated http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273. I will add the latter as a ref if there are no objections.

Anon, you added the following:

There are very few black people in Cambridge, however, and the proportion of ethnic minority students is somewhat lower than that of Oxford, and greatly lower than some London universities, such as King's and LSE.

Can you explain why you choose to highlight specifically black people (as opposed to, say, Chinese people, whom you identify above as being significantly more than the national average in Cambridge and therefore an interesting figure)? Because to the reader this looks like intentional UNbalance - particularly with that phrasing. JackyR | Talk 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that anon's percentages above (ie the 90.9%) are based on the figures for England, rather than the national figures for the UK. (For example, see [7].) Bluap (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When it says "within the university" which one does it mean? What about the other one?81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From memory, the 2001 Census was held during term-time for both Cambridge University and Anglian Polytechnic University (it's probably worth double-checking the date). This may (or may not) be important, but I think that the potential impact of students on the census figures is worth being explicit about the term-time status. Bluap (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the reference is a University of Cambridge factsheet, I would presume it's the more famous one rather than Anglia Ruskin or the two combined. - JVG (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well found, Bluap. So we can use absolute rather than rounded figures for calcs, and be explicit about Eng&Wal vs UK. And indeed which uni.

By the way, what's actually the point of this section? That might make things clearer. Originally there was stuff about different cultural/religious groups. 212.159.16.241 removed this three times [8][9][10], adding comments about ethnicity instead. My own feeling is that, to give a snapshot of a town it is valid to include info about economic groups, cultural groups, ethnicity and indeed place of birth, and to compare that to a) a national figure and possibly b) a local/county figure (Cambridge city is probably quite different in make-up from the villages around it). CU is worth mentioning as an obvious influence on this; we could find out if Anglia Ruskin University acts similarly or is primarily a "local area" university. But please let's DISCUSS this - anons, this includes you. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

London overspill

I put a tag here because I wondered if it was actually true. Were Arbury and Kings Hedges estates planned for 'London overspill', ie was Cambridge a designated 'expanded town' under the Town Development Act 1952? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.15.200 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the river called?

I was looking for a quick answer to this question. The name of the river that Cambridge is on, should appear in the first paragraph. --86.136.179.179 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its the Cam. As in, Cam-Bridge. Though apparently it used to be called the Granta William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (which may be inaccurate) is that it was called the Granta, and Cambridge known as (something like) Granta-bridge, then when the town became known as Cambridge, the river changed to the Cam as a back-formation. Regardless, it's known as the Cam now, although usually as the Granta upstream from the town. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is highlighted by the fact that people from Cambridge are referred to as Cantabrigians, which shows that 'Grantabridge' first became 'Cantabridge' on it's way to becoming 'Cambridge'. Pontificalibus (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On tthe OS maps it is labelled as both. That's in a sense definitive. Hard to know from the locals cos they tend to call it just the river. I always do a double-take when someone asks me to do cam when they mean a camera. SimonTrew (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Geography" section says that Cambridge was named after the river, whereas earlier in the article is says the reverse is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.145.212 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The reference in the "Geography" section, footnote 24, does not support the claim that 'Cambridge was named after the river.' That statement needs to be corrected.

Cambridge in Literature and Film: in Cambridge vs. in the University

Regarding the change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambridge&diff=next&oldid=262323309

I'm not sure that I agree that something should not be mentioned in the 'Cambridge' article, just because it is set in a college or other part of the university. Such a distinction isn't necessarily an easy one (I haven't read any of the books in question, but I find it hard to believe that there is no action whatsoever away from university buildings) - nor in my view a helpful one to someone reading this article wanting to find out about books featuring Cambridge. Therefore I'd suggest reverting this change, but I wondered what other people thought. The Stumo (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the edit, removing only those works that I believe to be set in the University, which is in many ways distinct from the city. Perhaps the best compromise would be a note to also see University of Cambridge#Literature and popular culture. Dancarney (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking for some time that this change would be useful. Otherwise we end up duplicating the whole of University of Cambridge#Literature and popular culture, which seems rather pointless. We should point to that article though. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A "See Also" link sounds like a sensible compromise. The Stumo (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge

I think they should add a part that there is a cambridge program in Doral Middle School. There IS a Cambridge program in DMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.207.32 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, add it then.

Demography - White

Not being PC here or anything, but just for factual correctness, is it right to identify just as "White"? I get annoyed with having to put "White - British" (I am English, not British, so I scrub it out). As I say I don't care for being all PC etc just is it accurate to put down "White" with no qualification? SimonTrew (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I expect that stat refers to the sum total of people identifying as white, whether White British, White Irish, or White Other (if I'm remembering the categories correctly), probably aggregating several categories together. Without seeing the source I can't be sure, but if that's what it says I guess we should take it at face value. If finer-grained stats are available we could feature those, but, as your comment suggests, the more precise the categories get the worse they probably reflect individuals' self-identification. The Terribly PC Gonzonoir (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The census, if I remember correctly, breaks racial categories into something like White, Black, South Asian, East Asian, Other, with sub-sections for each. So, White will mean White British + White Irish + White Other, Black will be Black African + Black Caribbean + Black Other, etc. (I may not be exact on the sub-sections). If you're English, whether you admit it or not, you must also be British and European! Dancarney (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevarrr!!! j/k. Personally I identify myself as English first but although I acknowledge that I'm British. But don't particular fuss the 'White British' as there was no way of distinguishing (at least in the census) between the English/Scots etc. 12.172.145.212 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures: suggestions wanted

Can I have suggestions for pictures please, now it is Spring? I will take some and add them to the site. The Guidhall seems the most obvious since it is within sight of my window, but anything vaguely within the city centre, I will just take a web pic (i.e. on my phone camera but that is good enough for a website) then stick it up here.

Suggestions:

• Corpus Clock
• Round Church
• Exterior of colleges-- Sydney Sussex, Magdalene, Emmanuel, King's, St Johns, Trinity, Queen's, and maybe some of the more modern ones like Churchill (ugh) and Darwin
• Greens and commons- Jesus, Parker's Piece, Midsummer Common, Christ's Pieces, S something common that I can never remember the name of.

Aim here is not to take the most beautiful photos (though I will try my best) but to take some that (a) can be held in common and (b) are of a useful size for reproduction on the Web, hence using a phone camera, it does that for you.

SimonTrew (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you mean Stourbridge Common? There are no photos on Commons of the Catholic Church or the City Ground. Dancarney (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Which catholic church the big flint-faced one on Regent St? I will be going that way tomorrow SimonTrew (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic church is the big Gothic one at the junction of Hills Rd, Regent Street, Lensfield Road and Gonville Place, opposite Cambridge Assessment. It's called Our Lady and the English Martyrs. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK yeah I will be walking that way in a few minutes. I thought that was the one you meant*— it's generally just called "The Catholic Church" but there must be other Catholic churches around the city! SimonTrew (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And yeah Stourbridge common. I googled I checked everywhere you know how it is when you just can't find something sometimes. SimonTrew (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of photographs and that perhaps your pictures might be better on Wikimedia Commons, or Geograph. Articles on Wikipedia can selectively include images from Commons or link to a category. There is already a link to Commons for Cambridge in the See also section. Rich257 (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah good points. I don't want to flood the article with piccies but it does some a little underdone right now. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK got some nice pics but can't upload them yet cos have no way of sticking the camera into the computer. Will do by the end of the weeekend. SimonTrew (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Records

Hmm I think this does deserve a little section to itself but doesn't belong under origins of the university. Where to put? SimonTrew (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sections

I've been looking at the Wikiproject Cities article template, which suggests that UK city articles include "Education" and "Landmarks" sections. We're currently missing both; I propose adding them to the article with the following breakdowns. I'm quite happy to do this myself, but wanted to see if others have thoughts on this:

• Education
  • Universities: Cambridge and ARU (there is a lot on CU already, which can be repositioned); Open University site
  • Overview FE provision: Hills Rd, Long Rd, CRC, Perse VI form, what else?
  • Major secondary schools: Abbey; Chesteron; Parkside/Coleridge, St Mary's; Perse; Leys; village colleges
  • Mention primary and early years provision
  • Adult education, language schools

• Landmarks
  • University buildings incl. Kings chapel, St Mary's, UL
  • War memorial

But probably needs to be mainly a "See also": Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Cambridgeshire#Cambridge; Category:Grade II listed buildings in Cambridgeshire.

What do you think? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I live in Cambridge but am a professional not one of those mucky student lot.

I think it may be redundant to do an "Education" section since the whole lot is bound up in education. It may be worth adding the distinction of "Town and Gown" which I believe is Cambridge though other sources have it as Oxford I think. The Town and Gown pub in Cambridge was a gay pub named after the expression, i.e. Town is people living here and Gown is people studying here. Ir is now the Punter, on the corner of Northampton St and Madingley Road.

As for landmarks, Kings College, Cambridge has its own article; the war memorial is worth menitoning I think. The chap points to the station to encourage his fellow men to go to war. In Clive James' Unreliable Memoirs he is pointing to town but it is not so. They wanted to move it a few years ago but it hugely unpopular, if you cant spend an hour a year to repsect the dead well you are not a human being. I don!t care whether you are Hindu Maoist Jew Mormon RC or whatever but these people fought for our freedom, if it blocks traffic for an hour, sod them. Needless to say I attend and will do so this year if you want pictures (though primarily I shall wish to pay my respects) SimonTrew (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

An Education section would be very welcome. It would be important to keep things brief regarding CU, pointing readers to the separate articles for further details. Most decent articles on a settlement will include details on the Educational establishments at all level, so yes, both Unis plus the OU, colleges, schools, should be detailed, or at least point to a separate article if the section becomes too unwieldy. SimonTrew, if you can find reliable sources as to why the war memorial is of some note the go for it. Dancarney (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK; I'll have a pop at it tonight. The university's of course important, but I think an article about the city should mention the numerous educational institutions that aren't university-affiliated. CU is amply covered on WP already, so I'll avoid duplicating material in the new section. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge Gateway notablity

User:EricITOworld has been adding information regarding the Cambridge Gateway project into a transport developments section. I believe that this scheme is so minor as to not be sufficiently notable for inclusion, and it doesn't warrant the infobox added either. Essentially it's a scheme to redesign the junction of Hills Road and Brooklands Ave when the guided bus is finished. Pretty mundane stuff, so I've removed it (twice). From looking at their user page I believe that User:EricITOworld has a conflict of interest regarding this. Dancarney (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I remembered having added it here before, but when I didn't see it assumed I had imagined it rather than check the history - so blame lies with me. The reason for my adding it is that I'm trying to complete the table of transport developments in the East of England with links to an article on each scheme and an infobox. The reason for this being that it can be very difficult to find the information on such developments and wikipedia is a good location for the public to find said information. On the subject of notability, you may be right as £3 million is not much where such schemes are concerned (though factoring in the Hills Road scheme it will cost a little more). However due to the large number of people that would use the railway station and the gateway area I would argue it is notable - regardless of cost. EricITOworld (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• A large number of people use the cut-through from the station car park to Devonshire Rd, but that's not worth mentioning. I don't think that it is a notable scheme as it is essentially the redesign of a single junction. If it were a more widespread redevelopment of the city's infrastructure then that would be worth including.

• To be fair this is much more that the design of a junction, it involves a new bus/cycle route to Brooklands Avenue which will I guess half the number of buses up and down station road. It will provide a new route off the guided busway to access other parts of the town etc and will also be very handy for cyclists. There is a lot more to add about transport in the city including the history of the transport system, the early proposals for congestion charging and the current £500m TIF bid.[11]. See my comment below about splitting out a Transport in Cambridge article. (Fyi, I work in the same company as Eric). PeterEastern (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looking more into the scheme it also says it will include redevelopment of Station Street, especially the bus stop area, as well as having some interaction with the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway route which passes through the area. EricITOworld (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• In a similar vein is the Cambridge Cycle Town developments - £3.6 million in cycle route development in Cambridge that I feel belongs in the Cambridge article as well. EricITOworld (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Added. Dancarney (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

proposed split for the Transport section

There is a discussion above about the notability of various transport schemes. I have to agree with Dancarney that some of these scheme are probably not notable in the Cambridge article itself, however would it be sensible to create a Transport in Cambridge article which can include additional detail? Similar articles include Transport in Bristol, Transport in Manchester, Transport in Brighton and Hove, Transport in Luton etc for precedent. PeterEastern (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems like the most sensible option, keeping a summary only on the main Cambridge page. Dancarney (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I have added a 'split section' tag to the transport section and we will now give it till tomorrow morning beofre doing the actual split (assuming that there are no objections). PeterEastern (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Think this is a sound idea. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Business and Cambridge Science Park

The article mentions both the Science Park, and lists companies spun off from the University in the Business section. However it does not mention the first company on the Science Park, Laser-Scan Laboratories, which then became Laser-Scan Ltd, and is now 1Spatial Ltd, on the Cambridge Business Park. If the article is going to mention the likes of Abcam, CSR, ARM and Jagex, etc, should it not also mention the first company. The entire section is poor in quality or detail, and should be removed. These companies can be mentioned on either a Cambridge Science Park or Cambridge Business page. Koos (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move.

The arguments in favor of leaving it at Cambridge are (1) it is the primary topic, (2) the proposed title Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is not normally used while Cambridge, Mass is perfectly normal usage, (3) it is the origin of the name, (4) by usage on wikipedia, more articles link into the English city than into other uses of the name, (5) American style naming conventions are being pushed on other countries. In favor of changing it: (6) not the primary topic since Cambridge, Mass has two great universities, (7) page hits for Cambridge, Mass and Cambridge are pretty much the same, (8) the title is not a prize and we shouldn't try to read the minds of those typing in a search term, (9) Even if we ignore Cambridge, Mass, there is Cambridge University to consider (it is often referred to as Cambridge).

Let's review these arguments. Argument 5 is flat out wrong. There is no attempt to push American style names on other countries. Rather, the City, State format is a means for disambiguation, which is often necessary. If anyone feels that there are better ways to disambiguate, then that should be argued elsewhere. Arguments 3 is similarly weak because origins and usage could be unrelated. Next, let's look at primary topic (1 and 6, the other points are used to support or argue against these). Unfortunately, this is, at best, murky. Page hits (7) are not much use in this situation because, for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass (or clicking on Cambridge, Mass when it shows up in the search result list). The usage on wikipedia (4) provides weak support to the notion that the English city is primary. This weak support, in conjunction with the fact that Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is almost never going to be in the mind of the wikipedia user (2), even when presented that name in the context sensitive search list, persuades me that the current situation, where Cambridge points to the English city, is probably the best. When disambiguation leads to more confusion, it is best avoided. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous challenged close

The result of the move request was: Move to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire; Cambridge (disambiguation) → Cambridge. To determine consensus in these discussions we must consider the views of the Wikipedia community at large, as reflected in consensus-developed policy and guidelines, as well as the quality of the arguments of those participating in this discussion. This is done by evaluating the arguments in terms of how well they are based on policy and guidelines. This discussion is no exception. In this case the argument in favor of the move is simple: page view counts for other uses are almost as high or higher than this use (we don't know what the real count for this use since it is at the ambiguous name and so the counts are inflated by some amount), so there clearly is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no reply to this argument. Almost every single oppose "argument" is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, including those that declare this use is "primary" without giving any consideration whatsoever to other uses of the same name. These "arguments" simply cannot be given the same weight, if any weight at all. The only apparently sensible oppose argument is based on a misunderstanding; this is the one that discounts page view counts for Cambridge, Massachusetts (etc.) because, essentially, its name is not "Cambridge". This is just an artifact of the convention to disambiguate almost all U.S. city names even when disambiguation is not necessary. Cambridge is near Boston - the ", Massachusetts" is not part of either city's name. All cities named Cambridge are competing uses for the name Cambridge, and must be given due consideration when determining primary topic. I should add that a few oppose votes seemed to implicitly rely on WP:IAR ("there is no need for this"), but WP:IAR was not explicitly cited, much less was a good reason to invoke it provided. In summary, there clearly is no primary topic here, nor any good reason was provided to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so in order to follow consensus of the Wikipedia community at large, the dab page must be at Cambridge, and so this page must be moved. No alternative to the suggested destination was given, so Cambridge, Cambridgeshire it is. Born2cycle (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note, I propose that someone other that Born2cycle closes this discussion as they are highly involved in lobbying similar discussions on place moves and consequently their closure here has been challenged by several parties (see below and WP:ANI#Incorrectly closed move request at Cambridge). The page move should be reverted and the discussion closed by an independent party. Fæ (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Cambridge → Cambridge, Cambridgeshire — Several places, all important in their own right, share a name with this Cambridge. As such, Cambridge (disambiguation) should be moved here, and this article moved elsewhere, per UK naming conventions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cambridge (disambiguation) → Cambridge

Cambridge in Cambridgeshire is the primary topic, and as such should be located at Cambridge. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What a convincing argument. You had me at Cambridge. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, last month, Cambridge, Massachusetts garnered 88% as many page views as this ambiguous title. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So, less than for the original city. As far as I understand it, US cities are almost always referred to in a [city name], [state] format, whereas this is fairly uncommon for settlements in the UK. Because of that, a reader would look for Cambridge, Massachusetts, much as they would look for Worcester, Massachusetts. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire seems a bit tautological. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Or Cambridge, Idaho or Cambridge, Maine for that matter. More importantly, aside from the primary topic debate, putting every instance of a placename under a disambiguation makes no allowance for the etymology of the name, which frequently references the local geography of the original. In this case Cambridge was named after the crossing of the River Cam and the article takes the reader straight to the etymological root.Blakkandekka (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, being the original place does not make something a primary topic, nor does the lacklustre naming conventions of British place articles. American and Canadian cities will also forego the province or state name when it isn't necessary or when that city is the primary topic (ie Toronto, Nipigon, Thunder Bay, etc). 88% of the hit count of this topic is enough for Cambridge, Cambridgeshire to NOT be the primary topic based on hit counts alone. Yes, as the original Cambridge, the etymology behind its name is more accurate, as the other Cambridge's are more often than not named after this one. However, thats why dab pages can start with:

Cambridge is a common place name, often attributed to Cambridge, England. It may also refer to:

• Cambridge, Massachusetts
• Cambridge, Ontario
• etc...

So yes, this can remain the "primary topic", while still providing the dab page for readers to chose which topic they are after. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As you agree that Cambridge in Cambridgeshire (let's distinguish it from Cambridge, Gloucestershire, also in England) is the primary topic, let's use the guidance from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page

So, the status quo seems to be correct. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I never agreed that it was the primary topic, I only said it was the origin of the etymology of the name, and therefore it should be in the introductory line for the dab page. This is a common element of many dab pages, example. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So when you write So yes, this can remain the "primary topic", you're not agreeing that it's the primary topic?! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, hence the quotes. It would not be the primary topic in by occupying Cambridge, but it would be in that it would be the first item on the dab page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The time you are looking for is "first entry", Floyd. The English place would be the first entry; the disambiguation page would be the primary topic Purplebackpack89 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Support moves: OK, we got two pages with similar titles that are hit around the same number of times. Therefore, neither are the primary topic, and it should be disambiguated. Not to mention all the other things named Cambridge, like the University (which gets 28K hits)? No one topic has more than 30-35% of the share of all articles with the name "Cambridge", you need 50-60 for a primary topic. Purplebackpack89 05:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

oppose = leave it as it is William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Why? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While there are many cases where I'd support the disambiguation of UK place names that have spread around the world I don't think that Cambridge is one of them (Newport, for example, causes confusion even within the UK and should be disambiguated if only because of the similarity of Newport, South Wales and Newport, New South Wales).

While examples such as Lincoln have a list of geographical locations, famous people and well-known brand names on the dab, Cambridge has only other locations, a handful of not very well known companies and no people (unless you count the Duke of Cambridge, an extinct title). Of the two place names most likely to cause geographical confusion one, Cambridge, Ontario is a 1973 composite name for the administrative amalgamation of several towns and cities that not even the locals use willingly and the other Cambridge, Massachusetts is, I think, considered even by most Americans to be a suburb of either Boston or Greater Boston or an area somewhere within the Boston Metro Area where the more internationally well-known MIT and Harvard are located. Blakkandekka (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge England and Cambridge, Massachsetts are alike in almost every way...both get a similar number of hits, both have a population of a little over 100000, both are shire/county seats (Cambridge is the seat of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, which is the largest in the state), and both have world-class Universities. Since they're so much alike, and there are many other things named Cambridge (the U!), neither of them are the primary topic. Plain and simple Purplebackpack89 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Cambridge England and Cambridge, Massachsetts are alike in almost every way..." I appreciate the point you're trying to make but don't you think that you might be pushing the envelope a little here? Blakkandekka (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support there are three very likely pages to dab up, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Cambridge university, Cambridge, Mass. As indicated earlier, MA gets 88% of the views of this page. Since it is likely that many of the hits for Massachusetts ended up on this page first, it seems likely that the Mass page gets many more proper hits than this page. If 1/2 of the MA readers hit this page first before proceeding to Mass, then this page only has 56% of the hits it gets as proper hits. Which means the MA article actually gets 56% more hits than this page, after adjustment. And that's before correcting for the errors from people looking for the University, in which case, the number of people actually wanting this page drops even lower. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure why so much weight is given to the raw page hit numbers in these discussions. It's a well-written and useful tool but the results can be distorted or manipulated by too many external factors to be taken as gospel. Blakkandekka (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's the argument I've been stonewalled with at each and every article where I started this discussion. It's preposterous two argue that both pages need 50% for the disambiguation page to serve as the primary topic. No. Unless the article is the clear and oblivious choice (ie at least 50% of the combined traffic to all similar title), then it should be a dab page. The only exception is if there are only two, maybe three places under that title. In this instance, hat notes would be acceptable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A count of page views for Cambridge, Massachusetts is irrelevant. The ambiguous term is Cambridge, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. What we need to assess is the number of people who use the plain term "Cambridge" to refer to the suburb of Boston and not to the city in England. Not many, outside Boston, would be my guess. --Mhockey (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge is the ambiguous term for things named Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is the ambiguous title for this geographic place, just as Cambridge, Ontario is for the Ontario city, Cambridge, Massachusetts for the MA city, and Cambridge University for the school (which if ANYTHING, the school is the most widely recognized use of the term). It's not a raw comparison to decide a single primary topic, it's indicative of the fact that there is NO primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Excuse me? It's one of the only criteria that is expressly delineated for determining a primary topic. And it's very clear to me that enough people who think Cambridge aren't searching for Cambridge, England (the U!) to not have them sent automatically her Purplebackpack89 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not irrelevant, it's just that it may well be inaccurate and is a poor way of determining relevance, which is what we're essentially discussing here. There are many things that drive Internet traffic and it's impossible to judge the intentions of the user behind a visiting unique IP (or even that it's a real human user). The first metric on the list at WP:PT, 'WhatLinksHere', may well be a better way to judge the relevance of a topic. In this case the existing PT gets around five and a half thousand links (it's possible I counted them wrongly, is there a tool for doing this?), all of which would need editing in context should the topic be dabbed. Blakkandekka (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Mhockey, pointless rehashing arguments. Jeni ^(talk) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind you of NPOV and NOTAVOTE? If you're not here to discuss, you're not here! Also, Mhockey's line of reasoning is essentially invalid, as he blatantly disregards the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Purplebackpack89 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me! What did I say that is inconsistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If a user searching for Cambridge (not Cambridge, MA or anything else) is much more likely to be looking for the English city than the Boston suburb, then the English city should be the primary topic. And what is wrong with opposing on the basis of another editor's arguments? --Mhockey (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing... Except that those comments (Jeni's) are ignored because this isn't a vote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand policy in this matter. WP:VOTE says "Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it". By giving her reasoning as "per Mhockey", Jeni effectively said "my reasoning is much along the same lines as that of Mhockey". Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that made me laugh :-) Jeni ^(talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mild support. Even though I'm from the *proper* Cambridge ;) I think there's little value in guessing what's in searchers' minds when they type "Cambridge" into the little box, because I have no idea how we would assess that. Without access to mindreaders, then, it seems relevant to consider the # of hits Cambridge MA gets as a proportion of those this one does, because it establishes the two pages' relative popularity. (Though I am completely unsold on the maths that then guesses that half those who land here really wanted the other Cambridge. That's *also* speculation about reader intentions that I don't think we can ever unpick.) Meanwhile, residing at the prestigious title Cambridge is not some kind of prize for the "most important" Cambridge. If the pages are comparably popular, I think we best serve those readers who enter ambiguous search terms by avoiding trying to second-guess which page they want. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to modify my vote by noting that I was unaware of the other moves proposed by the person who proposed this one; I do think it would be better to have a central debate about the naming issue for British places, and wouldn't want any eventual move of this article to be treated as a precedent for moving other British place articles to longer titles. It's just that in this case there really does seem to be an almost equal level of interest in the Massachusetts Cambridge, so I feel that under the current names we may be serving the "wrong" article to a reasonably high proportion of searchers. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose How many pages do you want to move in England? Cambridge, Plymouth, Sydenham and I'm guessing others too. I'm surprised you haven't accused us of nationalism again like you (User:Floydian) have on Talk:Sydenham. I opposed Sydenham and I oppose this move for the same reason - this is the first and arguably the most known Cambridge in the world, thanks to its Uni. If this should be moved should we have London moved to London, England? Croydon moved to Croydon, London? and Birmingham moved to Birmingham, West Mids? To say that no Cambridge or any other place is more important than other places is ridiculous, as that would mean that a very small settlement in Jamaica: Cambridge, Jamaica is as the same importance as this Cambridge.Likelife (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the university should be the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To be a primary topic, you have to be more than the most important; you have to be more important than all the other things COMBINED, often substantially more important. Is Cambridge, England more important than Cambridge, Mass., Cambridge U., Cambridge, Jamaica, and all the other Cambridges put together? Is Plymouth, England more important than Plymouth Colony, Plymouth , Mass , Plymouth, Monserrat, Plymouth, Indiana and Plymouth the car combined? Decidedly not, in both cases Purplebackpack89 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not my point - my point is that other places are more important than others which you guys denie. To say that a settlement must be more important than all other places with the same name combined makes no sense because they are ALL SEPARATE articles! Therefore it should be most important compared to each INDIVIDUAL article - which in this case it is. Also I never opposed Plymouth renaming. User:Floydain said:'By that reasoning, the university should be the primary topic' - the University is not part of this debate because the official name of it is the University of Cambridge. You also want to move Dover to Dover, Kent which also makes no sense because Dover, Delaware is ALSO in Kent USA! Why don't you want to move Birmingham, London, Kettering, Croydon, Lewisham, Deptford, Greenwich, Manchester, Canterbury and Liverpool? There are loads places with the same name.Likelife (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)http://www.google.co.uk/

Likelife is making an important point; the Cambridgeshire city is the primary topic in this case. It would be possible to argue (and you're doing it) that a great many, perhaps even most, terms referenced on Wikipedia are ambiguous. This is especially so on the English language wiki given the great numbers of homonyms and synonyms in English and the geographical, economic and cultural expansion of the language driven by Britain the the 19th and the USA in the 20th centuries. There is therefore a danger of En. Wikipedia just descending into a labyrinth of disambiguation pages that must somehow be navigated before one gets to a topic of any actual interest. It's information-entropy that Wikipedia is better off without and something that the whole concept of a 'Primary Topic' was put in place to avoid. Blakkandekka (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But, Blak, the flip side of that is that you'd have to click through several article's hatnotes to get the article you want. That's even more labyrinthine! Is it right that to get to Cambridge, Massachusetts if you type "Cambridge", you have to go through both the English city and the disambiguation page? Especially considering that the Mass city and the English city are nearly identical in population and hits? It's not right at Also, Like, we generally don't have county names in American city article titlesPurplebackpack89 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But you'll have to admit that you would be going through 'somewhere' in order to get there. A primary topic ensures that, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is at least a 'there, there'. Your proposals of wholesale disambiguation would just turn landing pages into an informational suburb that users would be forced to drive through before getting to their destination. Don't forget that the search box, as currently implemented, is an automatic disambiguator that suggests relevant results as you type (and if your goal is just to reduce mouse clicks you'll have to offset any savings against the extra keyboard impressions that this and other placename discussions that you've initiated seem to be generating). Blakkandekka (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the move from Cambridge to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is completely pointless and the move serves no purpose Seric2 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We've given several reasons and used policies and guidelines to back our case. You have presented us with "I just don't like it." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...how about a reason based in policy? We've given a thoroughly couched reason as to why it should be moved, why can't you do the same for why it

Oppose the move. Firstly because Cambridge, England is the original (OK this maybe a POV). Secondly number of Wikipedia articles linking to Cambridge 4679, number linking to Cambridge, Massachusetts 3967.--Traveler100 (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC). Thirdly because Wiipedia is here to educate people, who maybe have not heard of places like Cambridge in Britain.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the move. American's might like to include states in their city names, like Cambridge, MA; New York, New York, etc -- but that just isn't the way in Britain: especially when it comes to county towns. Yorkshire Phoenix 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's poor reasoning. American cities are done that way only to disambiguate them. Some are not named as city, state. The lack of common form for that in Britain is not justification for being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States. The specific exceptions to [[Placename, State]] are per the AP Stylebook. --Mhockey (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

See Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Sacremento (redirect, but PT), Des Moines (redirect but PT), Boston, Indianapolis... Need I go on? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read what the naming conventions says: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named City provided they are the primary topic for that name. The examples you list (apart from Sacramento and Des Moines) are in the AP stylebook as not requiring the state. Sacramento, CA and Des Moines, IA are clear primary topics, but are located at the place, state location per the conventions.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words it is independent of the Primary Topic criterion? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. The point is naming conventions are different from primary topic guidance. Article titles are set out by a completely section of the manual of style (see Wikipedia:Article titles). In the case of US cities the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. For example, Des Moines, Iowa is correctly located per the naming conventions. Des Moines redirects there as the Iowa city is the clear primary topic for the term "Des Moines". However the redirect should not be reversed as this would be in violation of the naming conventions. US places are unusual in that they generally should be [[city, state]], places in other nations are typically just at [[city]] unless disambiguation is required.

In any case all of this is kind of irrelevant to what should be done with Cambridge.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Per etymology and WP:PT; the North American perspective is not a WP:WORLDVIEW — I cannot believe that the majority of people searching for Cambridge (without disambiguation) globally would be looking for anywhere else. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The city on the Fens is the primary topic (the site of the original bridge, if you like), and the others were named in connection with it. Hence it is appropriate that this article takes the primary title, with a hatnote to link to the disambiguation page. Secondly, it is an Americanism to press US-style naming conventions on non-American locations. Thirdly, it is of dubious use to readers who would normally assume this to be the location of the article on the city. Readers seeking the city of the same name near Boston would assume, correctly, it would be found at Cambridge, Massachusetts even if they got bored typing it. If it were thought that the article should be moved, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire would not be the appropriate title since the county was named in connection with the borough (as it was then), making it a tautology. Cambridge (England) would be preferable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no need at all for this. The city in the US is usually referred to as Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is also WPs naming convention for US cities, and it appears in the search box as such when users start typing it. So users are going to have no problems finding it, though just in case there's a DAB link. The one in Ontario is similarly linked though it's far less notable - or at least I assume so as until a short time ago I had not heard of it. It certainly doesn't have the same international importance as the US and UK cities. Ditto the twenty or so places named after this one according to the DAB page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And as should be the case for this Cambridge. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. In an attempt to remove British and North American cultural bias. More non English language Wikipedia sites have articles on the original Cambridge than on the Cambridge, Massachusetts. And on a quick test of a few languages, What links here numbers on foreign language sites are higher to the Cambridge (England) pages than the Cambridge, Massachusetts pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong opposefor all and any of the above 'oppose' comments above. This is part of a sudden action by a group of editors which concerns a number of highly notable British settlements which clearly have Wikipedia supremacy. I am further suggesting that due to comments made by the proposers and supporters on other talk pages, that the true reason for these move suggestions lies elsewhere and has little to do with maintaining the neutrality of our encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support the name is ambiguous. Just because this Cambridge is the oldest doesn't make it the primary topic. DC T•C 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  That comment DC, is not really supported by a rationale and does not explain the need for neutrality in our encyclopedia. It is interesting to note that the proposal and all the support votes come from American editors.--Kudpung (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  The pageview stats don't lie. And most of the opposes are from Brits. Basically all these discussions are turning into pissing contests.

It's not true (nor particularly relevant, I don't think) to say that all support !voters are Americans (I'm not). Let's discuss our opinions rather than our identities. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment : This discussion is premature due an ongoing policy discussion on policy that has not yet been resolved. --Kudpung (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  No it's not. DC T•C 00:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Please offer a rationale. Also, this discussion does not comply with Wikipedia policy.--Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• What? why? I can't find a single reason why it doesn't. I agree with DC that it's perfectly acceptable for this discussion to carry on Purplebackpack89 04:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a policy issues, but it seems like a common-sense issue. Is the intention here to stir up a hornets nest, or to form a sensible naming policy? If we're trying to form a policy (or check the current one is appropriate), one central discussion seems more productive. Following that (and depending on the outcome), take up the case on each page individually. I don't really understand the rationale for attempting multiple page moves simultaneously. Doesn't it make more sense to try one-at-a-time, and actually listen to the discussion on each page? GyroMagician (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the Brits to come up with a placename convention, like the United States has, so comments like the one below will be invalid. Do you think people in Cambridge Massachusetts refer to it as Cambridge, Massachusetts? No, they call it "Cambridge". All the same, when someone in England mails somebody, I'm fairly certain that the state or region name would be used. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that's being made is that it is very common for US places to use the [city], [state] format, whereas this is rare in England, and rarer still in Scotland. Indeed, WP:PLACE says "The standard form for municipalities and unincorporated communities in the United States is [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention")" and Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under placename. Where disambiguation is required, then the practice is to use the name of the county the place is in. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Floydian, this comment does seem to go to the very heart of your assorted move requests. You can want the Brits to do all kinds of things, but unfortunately they're not likely to respond. Should Wikipedia follow what you think should happen, or the local custom? GyroMagician (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Mail recommends on letters to write an address like this on letters:
Door Number & Road Name
Town/Suburb
City/County (in capitals)
Postcode (in numbers/capitals)
But the difference is, that when I watch American shows and the title bar comes up, their name, location and state is shown
e.g. persons name 'New York City, NY'
Even though everyone in North American knows what state NYC is in. We don't do this here - we just have name and location
e.g. Persons name 'Wellingborough' with very rarely the County name.Likelife (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Cambridge, Cambridgeshire absolutely not, never used in this country whereas Cambridge Mass is used. It was the first such named settlement and is of considerable historic interest.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose this and all the other nonsense (IMHO) renames which have cropped up from the same user. In all cases the UK town/city pre-dates all the other uses which are typically small (and invariably attractive places in other parts of the world e.g. Manchester, Massachusetts. Cambridge, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Manchester, Gloucester, Essex - all these were first and foremost British locations and that is still their primary use around the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a disambiguation hatnote in an article. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose this too, for much the same reason I'd oppose moving Birmingham or Manchester. --TS 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this some sort of a joke? If so, do we get to rename User:Floydian too? Ericoides (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I am opposed to this move. This article is the Primary Topic based on its history and world wide recognition, and clicking on Cambridge on all the other language pages return the same point. None of the other languages (that I have found yet) have Cambridge as a disambiguation page or linking to Cambridge anywhere else in the world, they all choose Cambridge in England. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. If you consider only two large cities, it would be hard to determine that a primary use exists. Add in all of the other uses and clearly there is can not be a primary use. Clearly being the home to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology makes the Massachusetts city eligible for at least equal importance with the UK city. To imply that the US city does not have world wide recognition is a rather poor argument. The main argument voice seems to be that this is the oldest. Well, that does not equate to being the primary use. We should do the least harm when sending readers to a specific page. The current setup directs too many readers to the wrong page forcing them to go to the dab page to find out where they should have been directed. Moving the dab page is the only sensible option. I think the root problem here is that too many editors think that by not having their article at the main name space is a bad thing. Dab pages are actually a good thing and should be used more. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. MIT & Harvard have international reputations, the city does not. Cambridge has been rated 'B-class, High-importance' in WikiProject Cities since 2007. Cambridge, Massachusetts is, accurately, rated 'B-class, High-importance' within WikiProject Boston, as it is a suburb of Boston.

I also can't agree that the unrestricted use of dabs is necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of ambiguity. Yet. Blakkandekka (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd say that Cambridge University is world renowned, not the city. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the best case that you might be able to make is that the two are synonymous. Absolutely nobody, internationally, refers to 'Harvard, Cambridge' and as for MIT the first letter of the acronym tends to geographically locate that fairly well. Everybody knows that it's the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Boston. Blakkandekka (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on real traffic this month.

Cambridge - 62262 [12]

Cambridge, Massachusetts - 54973 [13]

Cambridge (disambiguation) - 1071

Clearly the two largest uses are not all that different. The biggest difference here is one that we can not measure and that is readers looking for the Massachusetts city who wound up in England first. That gives extra hits to the British city. Bottom line is that the actual number of readers for both places is a dead heat. If anyone wants, they can gather the numbers for everything else on the that dab page. Clearly these numbers support the case that there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Another comment This is what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says:

Although a term (my italics) may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term (my italics) in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term (my italics).

If the term we are discussing is Cambridge, why are we discussing page hits for a different term (Cambridge, Massachusetts)? You cannot separate this issue from the difference in naming conventions in the two countries. --Mhockey (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The state is not part of the term, it is an independent modifier. Cambridge is the term. Not "the city of Cambridge"; just "Cambridge". You'll be hard pressed to gain traction on this concept. People is Massachusetts just call it Cambridge. People in England just call it Cambridge. People in Ontario just call it Cambridge. Students attending the university likely refer to it shorthandedly as "Cambridge". As in "I'm currently enrolled at Cambridge." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I see a problem. We are not discussion a term, we are discussing whether we should have an article or a disambiguation page at Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is one of many articles which are commonly know only as Cambridge. The fact that many of these are already disambiguated does not mean that the current page does not need disambiguation. That is why those numbers need to be considered. If Cambridge, Cambridgeshire does not have a clear superiority in actual page views, it makes it harder to prove that it is in fact the primary use of the word Cambridge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and request a rejection. As per the discussions at Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Peterborough, Talk:York (amongst others) and village pump which Floydian also created. Creating such proposals en masse is a misuse of the process, bringing more heat than light and counts as apparent lobbying. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• CommentThe page was moved even though it was 16 against and 6 support - you don't expect a government to get in power without the biggest support, yet this page was moved with a minority of support - why? Likelife (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This discussion was both incorrectly closed and the article moved by Born2cycle (talk · contribs). A discussion is underway at WP:ANI with regard to this matter. Fæ (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Bad move aside, This is neither a government nor a vote. Don't expect it to close siding with you just because you have more people saying "IDONTLIKEIT" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Floydian (talk · contribs), pointy en masse move proposals and engaging in WABBITSEASON behaviour in discussions makes your argument look weak and undermines your original objective. Please take some time out before pursuing any further proposals of this type. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the English Cambridge is the primary use, long established university city. No need to move. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the move be reviewed?

Given that Born2cycle (talk · contribs) has been involved in similar discussions relating to moving places in England, should we have the decision reviewed someone entirely uninvolved? MRSC (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone had the same idea as me: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrectly_closed_move_request_at_Cambridge. MRSC (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The move seems to be based on a misunderstanding. The closing editor says

The only apparently sensible oppose argument is based on a misunderstanding; this is the one that discounts page view counts for Cambridge, Massachusetts (etc.) because, essentially, its name is not "Cambridge". This is just an artifact of the convention to disambiguate almost all U.S. city names even when disambiguation is not necessary.

This is itself based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:NCGN#United_States. The US naming convention is not a "convention to disambiguate". Disambiguation is a side effect of the naming convention. This misunderstanding (which seems crucial in the closing editor's reasoning) is by itself a reason for reversing the move. --Mhockey (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle has been very outspoken on the issue of naming places. While he may not have participated in this discussion, he's deeply involved in the issue with strong opinions. It would be better if he refrain from closing move discussions about place names.   Will Beback  talk  09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on my talk page (here) it is apparent that Born2cycle is confused about the difference between a poll and a proposal discussion. I have re-opened the discussion above and request that another party moves the page back in advance of an independent party authoritatively closing the discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would address the reasoning I provided in my closing. All I see here are ad hominem attacks vaguely alluding to bias. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RMCI for the normal process and standards for closing a move. It's not about one editor's reasoning it's about consensus, and non-admin closures should only be done where there is clear consensus and no contentious debate. If you wanted to raise your reasons you should have done so in the discussion, so other editors could consider them as part of the debate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"non-admin closures should only be done where there is clear consensus and no contentious debate" Why? For the good reason of trying to help with the enormous backlog at WP:RM, I've had to ignore this rule to close quite a few contentious debates. To make up for it, I've tried to provide detailed reasoning in my closings (and I stand by each decision). I welcome the review, but this excuse to ignore the reasoning I provided smacks of sour grapes and wikilawyering. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say IAR is good for many things but not overturning consensus or ignoring well established procedures to do with consensus. If you really think WP:RMCI is wrong you should raise it at the relevant talk page and try and get the policy changed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, please follow a dispute resolution process if you are serious about accusing RegentsPark or anyone else of Wikilawyering. Considering your actions have forced an independent review, a move revert and an ANI discussion, if you are not prepared to complain properly your claims of sour grapes appear more ironic than factual here. Fæ (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was made before the move was reverted, and the wikilawyering comment was in reference to the complaining about the non-admin technicality; it had nothing to do with RegentsPark or his actions. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The move was reverted at 12:19 UTC, you made no edits relating to the move until 13:50 UTC so I'm unsure which comment was made before the move was reverted? I'd also point out the non-admin technicality isn't the real concern: The apparent conflict-of-interest is.

You may not have had anything to do with this debate previously, but you are heavily involved in the ones at Plymouth and Dover, which are both strongly related to this one and involve much the same arguments from much the same group of editors. Your edits at Talk:Plymouth show you have strong feelings about this matter, and you appear to me to say there that "its ok to ignore consensus, if its to do what I think is the right thing". You may personally feel there is no conflict with respect to this page, but the apparent conflict is a problem - for instance first reply on AN says: "This would be a problematic close even if they were an admin".--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, by "move was reverted" I meant "the decision to move was reverted", which occurred at 14:19, while the comment I made above occurred at 14:14. Yes, I know the move was actually reverted hours before that, but I wasn't talking about that because that was of no consequence until the review decision to uphold or reverse mine was made.

As to ignoring consensus, no, it's not okay to ignore consensus. But we seem to disagree about how consensus is determined --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, RegentsPark apparently agrees with me on how consensus is determined, for he obviously went through a similar process. He just came up with a different conclusion because, in my view, he made an error by presuming that "Page hits (7) are not much use in this situation" (because we don't know what searchers are typing). If page hits are not much use in this situation because we don't know what searchers are typing, then they are not much use in almost any primary topic determination.

If it's true that page hits are not much use in situations like this, then, frankly, I don't know how anyone can decide what (if any) topic is primary in many situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough (on both points), though I'm not saying simply add up the votes. RegentsPark's assessment is reasonable to a point too - the stats aren't that great a measure. The Lincoln debates provide evidence of that, how much of Abe's traffic goes through that redirect? If a similar redirect was made for the English Lincoln - how much of its traffic would it have? Would these numbers be in a similar ratio to the raw traffic for Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln, Lincolnshire? Anecdotal evidence would suggest not. The stats provide an indicator but are still limited.

In any case, I'd advise you avoid closing contentious RMs in future, when there are similar circumstances to here - that is where you are part of discussion on a strongly related RM.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you seem to think it is okay to accuse other editors of Wikilawering without saying who you are accusing or being prepared to follow a dispute resolution process. You appear to be unable to recognize that your move of this article was incorrect as you failed to follow the guidelines for non-admin closures despite admins pointing this out to you. I suggest that in the short term you avoid any further RM closures as your strongly held views contradict the guidelines. Your defensive justifications have done little to address the concerns of several experienced contributors. You have had plenty of good advice, I remain hopeful that you will take time to consider it and avoid being the source of future disruption. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No broken records necessary. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)