Talk:Peterborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Image:UK map icon.png This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.
Portal:United Kingdom
 United Kingdom Portal
This article has been rated "B" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.

On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs:



  • Cite sources!
  • History could be split to History of Peterborough using summary style.
  • Economy could include things like unemployment. Is tourism a significant industry? If so, how many visitors? What are the other significant industries/employers?
  • Prose is better than lists.
  • Media: the radio stations should have articles of their own, there should just be a summary of them on this article.
  • Districts: "district" is a precisely defined term in UK geography. These are "areas" or "suburbs". It should be in prose form, describing significant facts about the areas (or at least describing them e.g. "residential", "industrial", "council estate", etc), and can be combined with the villages section, separating them into two or more paragraphs.

Contents

[edit] Good article nomination

 Peterborough is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: 2007-03-15

163.167.129.124 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Greater Peterborough

The article is shaping up nicely, but still no info about either:

  • the Peterborough Development Corporation (the Government body that promoted investment, and development in Peterborough);
  • Tom Hancock, the man who developed the Greater Peterborough Master Plan in 1966, setting out how the city was to expand over the next 15 years; Tom was also responsible for pioneering the Parkway concept as crucial to the city's growth.

There is information about these in both Peterborough Central Library, and Peterborough Regional College library, but not on the web, so far (unless i'm wrong). (82.152.193.220 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I've restored the article redlink on the development corporation to try and stimulate creation fo the article (see WP:REDLINK for why the assertion that "we don't put redlinks in articles" in a recent edit summary does not seem to be born out by this style guideline). The article is generally without redlinks so one for this, and one for Queensgate doesn't seem unreasonable. There's also been some to-ing and fro-ing over Parkway, where I'm more inclined to leave the link out as the article as it stands isn't really relevant to the construction of (so-called) parkways in Peterborough. Either more info needs to be added to that article on UK (Peterborough) usage, or there's no point linking to it. David Underdown 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I would like to mention that Peterborough is also a town in Ontario, Canada. For more information go to www.cityofpeterborough.ca or email coenbruin@hotmail.com

[edit] City of Peterborough should merge to here

I just noticed that there is an article of this title which appears to be part of someone's project to make a format for articles about towns in our region. This article has a lot more text in it, but theirs has some funky info-boxes (and a navigation template which I have already added here). I think we should merge these articles to here (especially since, on the Peterborough disambig page, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK is the primary reference)PaulHammond 05:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is becoming clear these articles should merge as there is conflict between them. Both are starting with text like "Peterborough is a city....". This should not be so. Either Peterborough is a place in the City of Peterborough (2 articles) or Peterborough is a city... (1 article). Mrsteviec 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I've been bold and merged these two as not one person objected to PaulHammond's suggestion in January. 10 months is ample time to lodge objection. Mrsteviec 17:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which county is Peterborough in?

I note this discussion is all old now (last comment in 2003) Maybe should be archived? Just one comment: I was born in Peterborough and have always considered that Peterborough was in Cambridgeshire PaulHammond 05:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peterborough is not in any county. When a unitary authority is created, the county borders are adjusted to exclude it. ( 19:30, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is correct, although it's worth mentioning that hardly anyone now takes much notice of the official boundaries (postal addresses, sports teams, and many maps use older borders). Enchanter 19:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this is worth mentioning, as well as the historical situations. ( 19:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Enchanter is correct. It should be noted that the Boundary Commission consider the Peterborough unitary authority to be part of the Cambridgeshire region for their internal administrative purposes. -- The Anome 19:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See also http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961878_en_1.htm, particularly the 2nd page:

     Constitution of new county of Peterborough
         3.—(1)  Peterborough shall cease to form part of Cambridgeshire.

         (2)  A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Peterborough and shall be named the county of Peterborough.

         (3)  Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the county of Peterborough.

So it appears to have been part of Cambridgeshire. I'm not sure how geographical county is defined (someone was suggesting it was in the geographical county of Northamptonshire) ( 19:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Officially, Peterborough is not in any 'administrative' county. Peterborough has always been in the 'geographical' county of northaptonshire. When the boundary chances took place, the geographical county ceased to be the same as the administrative county (since P was administered as by Cambs). This did NOT mean P suddenly jumped out of Northants, or the Northants suddenly strunk. Government administration doesn't change geography.

If the French invaded the UK and took control of this country, renaming it "greater france", the area of Kent would suddenly cease to exist, because Kent is defined geographically, not politically. Whether or not sections of the border regions are administered by the local government authority called "surrey county council", those regions that lie within Kent are still part of Kent.

Council names such as "surrey county council", etc. are throw backs from the pre-local government boundary change days, where county councils actually did govern counties. The fact that "surrey" and "county" still appear in the name of this authority is irrelevent, and any argument attempting to use this fact is grasping with semantic straws.

Unless someone can logically counter this statement of fact (and I'd like to see them try) I strongly suggest that my original edit is replaced - this emphasized the differences between the former administritive "county", and the unchanging geographical county.

Regarding the http://www.hmso.gov.uk link - that is a notice of boundary changes to the 'administrative' area name - in this case the administrative county of cambridgeshire. As I have already explained, the original boundary changes meant that administrative "counties" became independent of geographical counties. Thus, the "boundaries" refered to in "The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996" is administrative only.

Is "geographical" county the same as traditional county? I have a suspicion that this concept is simply the administrative counties of an earlier era. However I wouldn't rule out the possibility that counties can be defined in a meaningful geographic way, e.g., following river boundaries etc., if there was widespread agreement on how they were defined. ( 20:06, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


The Wikipedia article you mention actually states:
"traditional counties" (also known as the "geographic counties")

To say they are "administrative counties of an earlier era" is rather like describing England as "part of the roman empire at a later date"! The concept of "administrative counties" has been around for 30 or so years, whereas geographical county boundaries have been scarecly changed in hundreds; some date back more than a millenium. At the time of the "boundary change" the government could have expressly stated that geographical counties boundaries as they were then were to be superceeded by the new administrative 'counties. However, it didn't - quite the reverse, in fact.

On the 1st April 1974, upon implementation of the LGA 1972, a Government statement said: "The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change."

'NOTE "They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties" '

I suggest you read a very good explanation of the matter at http://www.abcounties.co.uk/counties/confusion.htm

80.225.etc

Some administrative history: http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/subsites/libraries/libraryguides/guide.shtml. It seems reasonable to describe peterborough as part of the "traditional county of Northamptonshire" as well as listing the administrative changes. (


I also think this passage has huge relevance:
'"Whilst the Counties are no longer used directly as the basis for any major form of public administration they do, of course, remain significant cultural and geographical entities. They are also the ultimate source of definition for the boundaries of many modern local government areas. For example, the LGA 1972's "county" of "Norfolk" is defined in terms of the boundaries of the LGA 1888's "administrative county" of "Norfolk" which was defined in terms of the historic County of Norfolk. The boundaries of Norfolk are not set out in any Statute. Yet they exist and can be determined to high accuracy. If they didn't and/or couldn't then the modern local government area's boundaries could not be defined. "'
RE: "It seems reasonable to describe peterborough as part of the "traditional county of Northamptonshire" as well as listing the administrative changes." This is what I effectively initially did. However, to revert it to that would require "The Anome" to eat his words and stop throwing his admin weight around...

For the record... My edit was:

Peterborough is a unitary authority and city in the east of England. 
It was founded by the Romans in 43 AD and is geographically in the county of Northamptonshire, 
although included within the local government administritive area of Cambridgeshire

What the Anome wrote, after he edited my correct information out, was:

... was traditionally in the county of Cambridgeshire ...

which I hope you would agree is plain wrong.

And yet he had the arrogance to exclaim:

OK, I'm finding dealing with this user tedious. 
The Peterborough/Cambidgeshire edits are particularly silly 
-- a moment's research shows his edits are wrong

which is complete fiction of the worst kind.


RE: " It lies in the geographical county of Cambridgeshire but in the historic counties of Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire."

It doesn't lie in the "geographical county of Cambridgeshire" - the wikipedia article on "Traditional counties" states that "geographic" and "traditional" counties are synonymous. Look at it yourself!

Administratively, P doesn't lie in any "county". The ONLY county it is in, TODAY, is Northamptonshire.

There are three kinds of counties - administrative, geographic, and historic. Administratively, Peterborough is a unitary authority so doesn't lie in any county. But it lies in the geographic county of Cambridgeshire, and it lies in the three historic counties mentioned. --Wik 21:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall, here. Let me put this as clearly as possible:

1. We have established (by link posted by the anome) that administratively, peterborough is in no administrative county - it is a UAA. 2. We have also established that Peterborough is in the traditional (syn. "historic" and "geographic[al]") county of Northamptonshire.

Therefore:

1. saying "It lies in the geographical county of Cambridgeshire" is untrue. 2. saying it lies in "in the historic counties of Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire" is highly ambigious, since only "Peterborough UAA" does, and you have first stated: "Peterborough is a unitary authority and city"

Well, I disagree with what you have "established". Geographic and historic counties are not synonymous. And the city and unitary authority are coextensive. Only the original core (the "Soke of Peterborough") is in historic Northamptonshire. Other parts of today's city are in historic Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. --Wik 21:16, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The Wikipedia traditional county article states ""traditional counties" (also known as the "geographic counties")". I had established this with another comment-maker. However, the posting of the above link hereby formally establishes it for you!

Can't we all agree with something along the lines of "Peterborough" is now administered as a unitary authority. The centre of the city is in the historic county of Northamptonshire, with other parts of todays city in the historic counties of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire"?

Wik, you make a distinction between "historic counties" and "geographic counties" - I'm not clear what the distinction is between these terms (and the article isn't clear either).

Enchanter 22:21, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A geographic county has a lord lieutenant. It typically comprises an administrative county and one or more unitary authorities. For example, geographic Cambridgeshire comprises administrative Cambridgeshire plus the Peterborough unitary authority. Administrative Cambridgeshire in turn includes historic Cambridgeshire and most of historic Huntingdonshire. --Wik 22:35, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, to avoid more confusion, why not simply call these "Lord Lieutenencies", particuarly as the wiki article on "Historic counties" synonnymises them with "geographic"? In any case calling Lord Lieutenencies "Geographic counties" is rather a misnomer, since geographically, historic counties form the basis of both LLs and ACs, and without them, neither could be defined.
LLs may carry the word "county" but they are no more counties than Administrative counties. Thus calling them counties is unnecessarily confusing, particularly when simply "Lord Lieutenencies" is equally correct and far less ambiguous. 80.225

OK, we now have a compromise that I am happy with. -- The Anome 08:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is misleading to state that Peterborough is in Cambridgeshire; it is only in the 'Ceremonial county' (i.e. Lord Lieutenecy area) of Cambridgeshire, and this is explicitly stated in the info box on the right.

Constitution of new county of Peterborough
3.—(1) Peterborough shall cease to form part of Cambridgeshire.
(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Peterborough and shall be named the county of Peterborough.

[1]

I have thus removed this unqualified mention of Cambridgeshire. 80.255 17:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly P'boro has been part of Huntingdon and Peterborough, Northahmptonshire and of Cambs, for different purposes, as well as standing on it's own. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45 31 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Welland?

I've never been to the UK, but I keep Welland on my watchlist due to the multiple places in Canada called Welland. Can someone more local tell if the addition by 80.3.145.9 (talk • contribs) is correct? If so, should we change the link to Welland (Peterborough) following the trend of other district pages' names? Is it notable enough to get an entry on the Welland disambiguation page?

Thanks, Qviri (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Mary Queen of Scots.

She's another point of distinction. --GwydionM 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox/economy changes

An anon keeps changign the figures for population breakdown in the infobox. The existing figures aren't cited admittedly. I tried to get some proper figures from teh ONS website, www.statistics.gov.uk but it's not particularly user-friendly, waht figures I could find were clsoer to what's currently in the article, rather than what they were changed too. They really should be cited properly one way or the other of course. The latest edits also deleted some cited info from teh economy section without explanation, so I've reverted all changes. David Underdown 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed and referenced the ethnicity data, but for future reference, the best way to find stats on the ONS website is to go to [2], type the town name into Box 1, and select 'Local Authority' under 2. Click search, and you get a list of links. The top one, '2001 Census: Census Area Statistics' has most of the data needed here. Cordless Larry 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity data

As alluded to above, people seem to be making unreferenced changes to the ethnicity data in the infobox. This has happened a number of times over the last few months, but due to the diligence of other editors, these changes have been reverted. This is just a note to make people aware of the correct data, which is available here. A simpler version of the stats is here. It would be helpful if people could keep an eye on this to make sure unreferenced changes don't slip through the net. Cordless Larry 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Or direct from the ONS here. Cordless Larry 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Demographics

This is a dispute about the repeated removal of references to the Italian community in Peterborough by user:80.3.253.138. 163.167.129.124 12:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

I think we probably ought to talk about the use of the templates ehre, rather than arguing it back and forth in the edit summaries. OK, WP:CITE does say that they are neither ecnouraged nor discouraged, but I've only used them for references I've sourced myself - what do you see as the problem with them? Maybe it's jsut because of my line of work, but i prefer to see more context in the refs than the bald fact of wehre they came from, and when they were originally published, by stripping my tags away you are removing information I've gone to the trouble of finding, and which others may find useful, there's no obligation to put all the other references in the same form,or even to try and get the same level of information for them. David Underdown 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have spent some time sorting out the references properly and the two uses of templates are untidier and not in the same format as the other 25. It's not a major issue, but the only additional information included is superfluous, ie. the publisher of the ET and (latest) date retrieved. I will leave them on the diocese page as you have put them, but do you mind leaving them on the city page for now? Thanks, Chris/163.167.129.124 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind one way or the other about Johnston Press, but I'm not sure date retrieved is that superfluous. Websites get revamped from time to time and can break existing links (or a website may be temporarily unavailable), date retrieved to some extent reassures people that the link was valid at some point in the past, even if not right now this minute, and together with things like Google cache may help in establishing the current valid link if links do get broken. Generally it's better to capture more info rather than less. I will leave it for now however, any chance that in return you could make more use of preview, rather than doing lots of small edits (I don't always remember myself), but it does make the history of the article clearer? It's also easier/friendlier talking to a name not an IP, there's obviously no compulsion to register, and if you use a pseudonym your actually giving away less info than when an IP address is a available for everyone to see. David Underdown 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Further on date retrieved, see WP:CITE#Full citations states that date retrieved should "typically" be amongst the info presented in a full citation. David Underdown 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers David. I take your point about preview. Chris/163.167.129.124 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key Ferry Cruises

I'm not sure this is appropriate content. It seems a bit like advertising? Any thoughts anyone..? 84.71.131.180 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/Talk%7EPeterborough_38cd.html"