Talk:Ipswich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ipswich is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review Ipswich has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ipswich article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Ipswich: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Ancient House

    Someone with more time than me should probably add some information about the Ancient House.

    [edit] Naming

    [edit] Requested Move December-January 2004/2005: Ipswich, Suffolk → Ipswich

    Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves

    • Ipswich, Suffolk is almost always the Ipswich people refer to. See also [1]. We disambiguate in the same way for other places - see, for example: London. jguk 20:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. There are numerous other Ipswich around the world, people searching would want to be able to choose which, not be railroaded. Disabmiguity page should be kept.--Gunter 21:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. It's also the name of a fairly well-known software company. Jonathunder 21:56, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
    • Support. Any other usage exists because of this one. Icundell 22:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Support +Ipswich (disambiguation) --Dtcdthingy 23:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Ipswich could be any number of towns, outside of the U.K. ADH (t&m) 23:53, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object: However, the move has already taken place without waiting for consensus. DCEdwards1966 04:55, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral: I expected to support, but Ipswich, Queensland has a slightly larger population than Ipswich, Suffolk - the ones in the US look much less significant. On the other hand Ipswich, Suffolk is of course the original and has 180 internal links, compared to 25 for the Ipswich, Queensland. -- Solipsist 09:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. The internal link count shows that this is by a substantial margin the most likely Ipswich to be sought. A disambiguation page should not, in general, be the first thing a user sees in such cases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: When a user searches for "Ipswich" the page they expect to see is probably dependent on where they are in the world. I have no doubt that someone in the UK would expect to see Ipswich, Suffolk. But, someone from the US, Canada or Australia would probably expect something different. DCEdwards1966 23:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support: Most common and well known use of "Ipswich"; others should be on a disambig. violet/riga (t) 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - all other uses are derived from this one, pretty much all of the links for Ipswich mean Ipswich in England. The precedent has already been set for places like Cambridge, Oxford, Exeter and Durham and many other towns in Britain. Jooler 11:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, Ipswitch software company is spelt differently too. adamsan 14:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - the Ipswich in Suffolk is "clearly predominant" (WP:D). Proteus (Talk) 11:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - For the reasons given above. G-Man 19:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - Ditto. Timrollpickering 23:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - As per above, as long as disambig page is linked at top of article. -- Guybrush 04:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    THIS VOTE IS CLOSED THE PAGE WAS MOVED

    [edit] Requested move Ipswich to Ipswich, England

    Ipswich → Ipswich, England, replacing the redirect. Then, Ipswich should redirect to the disambiguation page, as there are at least 3 major towns around the with the name, Ipswich. Mathieu McGuire 09:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

    Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
    • Support Just because Ipswich, England was the original doesnt make it more important than any other Ipswich. Wiki is supposed to be neutral therefor surely any word that could lead to multiple options should be on a disambig. page. It would be easier if there werent half a dozen or so ways to disambiguate I think! :) (Just for the record although its irrelevant, I live in Ipswich, Suffolk....)

    Jcuk 09:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 14:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose --Henrygb 00:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose -- If I had been around for the original vote, I would have opposed the original move, because of a 10:1 rule (Ipswich, England does not quite have 10 times the population as Ipswich, Massachusetts). However, seeing as this vote was already done, and not that very long ago, it would be a violation of common procedure to vote so soon to put it back the way it was. I say, wait a year then take it up again. --ℬastique▼talk 00:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, then it's a violation of decency and protocol. When taken in that context, Ipswich, England seems just silly. --ℬastique▼talk 19:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - SoM 02:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 09:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. James F. (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose We discussed this not long ago - no need to revisit - there's no indication anything's changed that would make the original decision obsolete, jguk 18:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Goes against naming conventions (at least Ipswich, Suffolk would be partially acceptable, but I prefer this setup). violet/riga (t) 15:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • To pre-empt a move with a cut and past move to "Ipswich, England" so loosing the history, was totally out of order. I have reverted it. Next time please read what is written on pages like Wikipedia:Requested moves before doing such things Philip Baird Shearer 14:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

    It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

    Did you know? that Ipswich in Queensland, Australia had an estimaated 132,000 in 2003. That's some 15,000 more than Ipswich, in England. Maybe you should take that in to consideration, especially since there THERE IS A RULE ABOUT THIS (Where can I find details about this rule?). Mathieumcguire 07:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    That only holds true if you look at the borough council's population -- if you look at the town's population (which overspills the local authority area) Ipswich, Suffolk had about 6,000 more people in 2001 than Ipswich, Queensland had in 2003. Ratarsed 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] rename

    Is the rename argument current or not? Otherwise it should be removed from the top of the article. If it is live - then I say oppose as well. After all Norwich is just Norwich! GraemeLeggett 10:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Requested move (21 Jun 2005)

    Talk:Ipswich--Ipswich to Ipswich, England - Because Ipswich directs straight to Ipswich in England but should redirect to Ipswich (disambiguation) because of the 10:1 population rule, though I cannot find any information on this. Note': Ipswich in Queensland has a population of 137,000, while Ipswich, England only has a population of 117,500. Mathieumcguire 09:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Oppose This move was last discussed in May and was voted was against the move 8:2. It is customary to wait more than month to have another vote Philip Baird Shearer 16:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Ipswich in Queensland is named after Ipswich in England, so far as I know. I don't know anything about a population rule. I thought it was whatever came first unless a big, important place was gazumped by a little place. Grace Note 10:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. You suggest a reason for the move which is a rule you can cite but can't show exua rule you can't show exists. GraemeLeggett 18:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Closed early due to previous votes. violet/riga (t) 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Photo positioning

    The photo of the marina makes the text around it wrap badly (on my version of IE - 6.0.28 anyway). Does anyone know how to improve this?

    [edit] Norwich rivalry

    It is true that there is a heartfelt rivalry between Ipswich and Norwich. I suspect that this is why the information about their relative positions in the football have been selectively vandalised. I propose a rollback to the 3rd October 2005 version.

    This page seems to alternate between claims of ITFC seldom beating NCFC or usually beating them. Both of these descriptions fly in the face of the facts (see for instance ITFC website). The history of results from the Football League, the FA Cup and the League Cup is:

    Matches played - 81; ITFC wins - 36; NCFC wins - 30; draws - 14

    Bluewave 10:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    Now you understand the nature of the rivalry - if you ask me they're all strange down there in Suffolk. GraemeLeggett 11:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    We certainly are. Bluewave 16:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Oldest extant building

    The article says that the Friends Meeting House is the oldest extant building. I thought that St Peter's church was the oldest and that there were other buildings older than the meeting house. Any source for this? Bluewave 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I would have thought most of the churches, or even Christchurch Mansion would have been older. Celardore 21:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The oldest inhabited building in the town is the mid-fifteenth century cottage adjacent to the church of St Mary Elms. The Unitarian Meeting House aka the Friends Meeting House is the oldest timber framed chapel in the region but it was not built until the end of the seventeenth century. —Theo (Talk) 21:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] To much info on ITFC?

    Is it me or is there to much information on the football club? Considering that this page is about Ipswich and not the football club which already has an extensive page to itself already. Just wondering about peoples opinions before I do anything. CD, 19 February 2006

    • The football club is pretty important to the people of Ipswich (not me personally though). The stadium is the first thing you see when you step out of the railway station. I don't care either way, but the club is a big part of the identity of Ipswich. Celardore 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      Concur with Celardore.—Theo (Talk) 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying it should be just a couple of lines, just that it should cover the main points of the club (like it is now on the page) and any extend history be on it's own page. CD 30 June 2006
    Agreed. I've cut back the section to significant information relative to the article. Celardore 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Politics section

    Is the reference to the County Council being conserative controlled relevant? -- The current wording implies that this is contary to what is expected?

    Ratarsed 11:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] A1156 road

    The A1156 road has inexplicably been removed from See also. This is an important road in the context of Ipswich and it is good practice to maximise relevant internal links. Before I restore this, I should like to hear any arguments against it. Bridgeplayer 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

    Would it not be better to introduce the link in context? The article in question is linked to from the A14 road article, which is a much more prominent road for Ipswich, which also doesn't get mentioned, or put in a "See also" section -- If you set the precedent with the A1156, you really need the A1214 (former A12 route), the A12 and A14 as well. This isn't an atlas, after all.
    My interpretation of Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices says that links in a "See also" section should have a related subject matter not already mentioned within the main article. At present, the Ipswich article doesn't touch on the transport infrastructure at all (not even a 'the railways came to Ipswich in xxxx'), and the A1156 article only mentions that it is in Ipswich, and doesn't assert any claims to its importance, either historical or important, to the town.
    Perhaps a more relevant way of bringing the internal links into play would be to start an article on the development of transport in Ipswich, which could also include a brief history of the trolley buses and the like -- I expect there is plenty of resources at Ipswich Transport Museum (Ironically, just off the A1156). -- Ratarsed 07:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    OK; I have produced the new 'Transport infrastructure' section. Since I know nothing about Ipswich, never having been there, it now needs to be expanded by someone with local knowledge. Bridgeplayer 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    I have expanded the roads section and moved it to the top, though it probably still needs a little attention...GrahamHardy 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Split

    I've reverted the recent split of Ipswich and Ipswich (borough). This split was unjustifiable, and led to contradictary statements like "Ipswich is the main settlement in the borough of Ipswich" yet saying "Ipswich is larger than the borough". Since the borough of Ipswich has had the same borders since 1952, this split also lacked historical perspective. Morwen - Talk 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    This does introduce some problems -- Ipswich (the urban area) is about 15% bigger than Ipswich (the borough) per Census figures; So which population should we list here? I think it would have been more constructive to move the sections that are specific to the council (such as the campaign for unitary authority status) onto the borough article, rather than merge them back in (in a similar manner to Bolton, Maidstone or even Bradford). Perhaps it would have been better to suggest a merge, rather than go ahead with it? It almost feels as if the importance of one is being discounted other the other -- Then again, I'm going to get emotive on the issue, as I live here. -- Ratarsed 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    The examples you give are the opposite way round: the district is larger than the pre-1974 borough and also bigger than the place identifiable as the town. For Ipswich, the borough boundaries weren't artificially shrunken: they'd just not expanded to keep pace with urbanisation, which is a different situation. This was a widespread problem in the post-war era, as extensions to county boroughs became increasingly difficult to procure. There are dozens and dozens of urban sub-areas identified by the census (which should not by the way be taken as a definitive definition of "town") which are larger than the borough boundaries, where we haven't done a split : Leicester, Kingston upon Hull, Reading to give some examples. Please don't engage in special pleading for Ipswich - it is no different from these three. Morwen - Talk 09:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    This still doesn't address the issue of demographics -- Giving the population of Ipswich as both "approximately 140,000 inhabitants" and "118,200" on the same page is inconsistant. I think it would be better to consistantly have separate articles for Boroughs and towns (e.g. Colchester and Colchester (borough)), and repeat this for the other places, thus templates can talk about districts on a par, and towns on a par.
    I also think that this would have been better discussed as a suggested merge, as there isn't really any precedent either way -- after all, we both picked three examples either way, quite easily... -- Ratarsed 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    You don't seem to have acknowledged here the fundamental difference between the examples you picked - where the district is larger than the town, because the districts were newly created in 1974 as a result of mergers, and the examples I've shown, where the borough boundaries are smaller than what is claimed to be the town; but those borough boundaries are not at all new (in Ipswich's case, it has had the same boundaries since 1952; so splitting based on 1974 is totally artificial)
    But since unfortunately other people are making other similar splits, I have posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions about this issue and invite comments. Morwen - Talk 23:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Traffic Signs?

    After reading here that Ipswich would be trialing a scheme where there'd be no road markings or signs. I was wondering if anyone else knows about it, or whether this is a spoof. --Grand Edgemaster Talk 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    It's the first I've heard of it. To date there's been no mention of this in the local paper (the EADT) and if it's true I would have expected something to be stated there. --Phil Holmes 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    The trial is Handford Road, and there's a reference at [2]. I took a look at it a while back, and could hardly tell the difference, other than a bit of resurfacing here and there (after they did total road reconstruction about a year or two beforehand). -- Ratarsed 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    In addition, Ravenswood is incorporating shared space in the design of some of the later phases (I've added a citation to the Shared space article to this effect, complete with link to planning application support this) -- specifically, Tayberry Place, Cranberry Square, Strawberry Fields and Blueberry Road. -- Ratarsed 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Current Police Investigation?

    Do people think the current police investigation into the deaths of 3 prostitutes (and 2 women currently reported as missing) deserves a mention in the article? Certainly it seems to be having an impact on the town at the moment [3]. I'm not sure wether to add a section or not. Moston nick 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    It already has its own article with a link from here, Ipswich suspected serial killer. PatGallacher 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    A better article is 2006 Suffolk murder investigation. — Matt Crypto 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    "murders of at least five women, five of whom have been identified as prostitutes..." I was under the impression that only three of them had been formally identified? Although police suspect the other two bodies to be two missing Ipswich prostitutes, I don't think it has been confirmed yet... [4]. MBerrill 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    OK, it has now been confirmed. MBerrill 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, but what about innocent until proven guilty. If someone you knew, accused and charged with muder, but not yet convicted, was on these pages; would you approve of their name appearing on the site along with the crimes that had been committed? User:Andy19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Famous Residents

    Since the identity of the individual is, as yet, unknown, I've removed the Ipswich killer from the list. --Pontsticill 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    The identity of Superman is, in theory, unknown but he is still known as Superman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.28.31.190 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
    But similarly, it is not yet known that the five murders were all perpetrated by a single individual (albeit likely), nor that that individual is actually a resident of the town -- speculation suggests it may be a lorry driver or similar. -- Ratarsed 19:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    And now an arrest has been made, it would appear that the main suspect is not an Ipswich Resident [5] --Ratarsed 09:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Third-largest town

    Which other towns in East Anglia are bigger? From the citation given I can see that Southend is bigger, but that's the only other town (Norwich being a city). Should the wording in the introduction be rephrased to 'third-largest settlement' rather than 'third-largest town', or am I missing something? Matthew 00:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    Southend is not in East Anglia, its in Essex. East Anglia consists of Suffolk and Norfolk and, in most people's opinion, Cambridgeshire. 80.0.110.112 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    The article refers not to East Anglia as such but to the East of England region used by the government for statistical purposes, which certainly does include Essex. So it seems Majabl is right that the others in the top three are Norwich and Southend, and that the phrase should be revised to "settlement" or similar to reflect Norwich's city status. If that hasn't already been done, I'll do it now.
    Incidentally, per East Anglia, Essex is sometimes included in the definition of the region. (I'd be the first to agree it is a debatable issue, but the point is that the debate does exist.) Barnabypage (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Famous Ipswich People

    This section is growing very fast of late, and appears to be quite tenuous in places; it also seems that the current criteria being used for inclusion favours sports people.

    Rather than have screen after screen of people (and let's face it, with over 100,000 people living here now, I expect there are those missing that are notable); maybe we should restrict this section somewhat; I propose limiting it to those that have a memorial in their name remembering them in the town for their connection (So, off the top of my head, Horatio Nelson, Sir Alf Ramsey, Sir Bobby Robson, Margaret Catchpole, Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, Giles, Thomas Gainsborough, and possibly John Constable). By all means include others in the article, but weave it into the text a bit more?

    If there's no objection, I shall trim the list tomorrow -- Ratarsed 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    I agree it's easy for these lists to get out of hand. We recently had a similar debate in Talk:Chiswick and came to the conclusion that blue plaques were a good starting point for such a list. Barnabypage 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    Thought the same thing. I was guilty of changing the Heading to "Famous Ipswich People", but in doing so did wonder whether it would be better to restrict this and have a link to the Category:People_from_Ipswich page. --Phil Holmes 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    I understand the theme, but surely as these people have their own Wikepedia 'page' that gives them some kind of status, and to have a central point, ie the Ipswich page where they were born or made their name is worthy of inclusion. TrueBlue 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    I've nothing against that, but some of them are remarkably tenuous -- for example, whilst Brian Cant is from Ipswich, he's not famous for that, nor is it particularly well known that he's from the town. Cardinal Wolsey had a significant impact and is more relevant. Don't forget of course that the Category:People from Ipswich exists to bring them all together in one place also. -- Ratarsed 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    My point exactly. I'd suggest a cross check against the category, to make sure they're there, plus a link to it, then trim the list. --Phil Holmes 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    Woops! I wasn't aware of the people from ipswich page. TrueBlue 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Split

    It seems silly to have information excluded from this article that is about areas of the town not in the borough. It seems more logical to split to have one article covering the borough (and things like it's bid for Unitary status), and another that can cover the urban area of Ipswich.

    2nd August 2007 - I think the article is now too long and should be split, perhaps moving history, geography and transport onto a separate page. Also the pictures need to be split up as they dominate the right hand side ofthe page TrueBlue 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps some daughter pages can be made with a summary on the Ipswich page to tidy up. The article is of moderate length and need not be split because of its size. Snowman 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Projects and initiatives

    Seems to me this list is becoming a bit like the "Famous Ipswich People" - just a dumping ground for any organisation that has a web site and an Ipswich presence. I think it should be deleted. Any alternative views? --Phil Holmes 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    My feeling would be to apply WP:EL across all the external links -- some would stay (eg. IMHO, Ipswich Borough Council, The Ipswich Society, ipswich.angle, Ipswich Arts Festival) whilst others would be turned into appropriate references (eg. IMHO, First Anglo-Saxon Town) and others would vanish (eg, IMHO, Ipswich Gigs, Community centres, Ipswich photos, Orwell Centre) and a couple may be articles in their own right, and in a see also section (if not already mentioned), such as Ipswich Town Football Club, etc.

    -- Ratarsed 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    There you go. I've cut the list right back. Think it's more defensible now.

    --Phil Holmes 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Popular culture

    Looks like the Popular culture section needs trimming/integrating into the rest of the article (or at least fixing up, eg. Rose Tyler mentioned the town in Doctor Who (but not in that notable a manner to warrant inclusion here?)) -- Ratarsed 13:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    Also, i believe the 2006 film, The Covenant, is set in Ipswich, Massachusetts, not this Ipswich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.175.9 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] "Samuel Ward" link incorrect?

    I was reading your excellent article and clicked on a link for "Samuel Ward" in the "History" section, but it leads to an eighteenth century Rhode Island statesman rather than the seventeenth century Ipswich Town Lecturer. In any case, thank you for all the very interesting information!

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.145.102 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    corrected Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Karen Pickering

    She is not a sport in her own right, and I suggest her mention in the sports section is moved to the famous people section. 82.69.6.197 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] coat of arms

    does any one have a picture of the coat of arms of Ipswich they should put it on here if you see London it has one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)