Talk:Cambridgeshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Cambridgeshire: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Summary history section, with sub-page History of Cambridgeshire
  • Physical geography section including geology, landscape, ecology and climate, with possible sub-page Geology of Cambridgeshire
  • Turn the list of settlements into a summary description of the main towns and cities, moving any lists to complete the List of places in Cambridgeshire
  • Tourism, industry & culture sections, with sub-pages if neccesary.
  • Populate Category:Natives of Cambridgeshire
  • Images gallery
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] This page is a mess

The map shows what seems to be the post-1888, pre-1974 administrative county of cambridgeshire along with the post 1965 administrative county of Peterborough and Huntingdongshire. The article gives the impression that peterborough is part of the current administrative county of cambridgeshire, and that Huntingdonshire is a part of the traditional County of Cambridgeshire. In short, it is a mess; the map says one thing, the text says another, and reality is something else! Unless anyone can suggest any better ideas, I shall split this article into Cambridgeshire (traditional) and Cambridgeshire (administrative), remove references to peterborough being either wholly within either (it is not), and try to find two maps which actually show the correct area for each article. This has been done sucessfully for Gloucestershire. 80.255 01:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suggest that a much better idea would be to discuss all the issues around Wikipedia's use of the word 'county' before making any further changes. I suggest we move this discussion to the Counties of England Talk page.
Please make no further changes to this article, other county articles, or articles referrring to counties until this debate is complete. Thank you. Chris Jefferies 11th December 2003

[edit] famous people

The latest edit to this page ([1])has removed the names of several famous people from the area, referring to them as 'misappropriated'. In what sense were they 'misappropriated' and why, exactly, have they been removed? Maybe we should discuss this briefly and consider whether or not to reinstate them. - Chris Jefferies 23:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The infobox

Why has the counties infobox been split into separate traditional and administrative infoboxes? This seems to me to make the article less readable, more confusing, and unecessarily long. Surely the relevant policy should be followed - ie one article for each county covering all aspects, administrative and historical in one place. I suggest we return to a single infobox covering all counties in one place. Chris Jefferies 10:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The policy is being followed - there is one article that covers all aspects of Cambridgeshire - as an administrative, ceremonial and traditional county. These are all separate entities with different areas and relationships, which is why multiple infoboxes are needed. MonMan 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppet MonMan (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of Owain (talk · contribs). --Mais oui! 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, in that sense the policy is being applied. But I still don't understand the need for doubling up the infoboxes. Wouldn't it be much clearer to have just one and to include links to all the county articles in it? Since there's only one article for each county, surely we need only one infobox? Chris Jefferies 21:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're always going to have different infoboxes for things with different relationships. E.g. the Rutland article has three infoboxes at the bottom, because Rutland exists in three 'namespaces'. All three are consolidated into one article (which is good) and the various relationships with other entities are listed separately and clearly (which is also good). It would be impossible to explain it all in one infobox anyway. Owain 13:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand the value of separate infoboxes for districts and counties, but I really do not believe there's any need for two boxes for the counties - either for Cambridgeshire or for Rutland. It seems untidy, needlessly repetitive, and as there should be only a single article for each county, why not link to them all from one infobox? Chris Jefferies 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Combining them into one infobox would be horribly messy. Being as there is a separate infobox for Rutland as a 'district', listing its relationships when taken in that context, it naturally follows that there should be separate infoboxes for the other contexts. Owain 12:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

But that is exactly what I don't understand - why would it be 'horribly messy'? Many of the county names appear in both boxes anyway, combining them would be so easy! Chris Jefferies 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It would make for a smaller page, yes; but you'd lose the associative information that separate infoboxes gives. To use the Rutland example again, do you intend to combine the "Districts of England - East Midlands" infobox into it as well? After all it is referring to the same place. To use a general example look at France — it has four infoboxes that all refer to the same place, but in different contexts. You could combine them all into one, but it would be horrendous, and you'd probably need different infoboxes for every country, because they aren't all members of the same organisations — in which case you'd lose the unifying effect of having the same infobox in different articles. Owain 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is here. We are describing an entity that can be classified in many different ways. For each classification scheme we have an infobox. The examples that Owain have given clearly show the merits of this approach. Why lose information, or squish it down into one box, and lose the different classifications? MonMan 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppet MonMan (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of Owain (talk · contribs). --Mais oui! 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)