Talk:Peterborough

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peterborough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116235959/http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/codelist_en.cfm?list=nuts to http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/codelist_en.cfm?list=nuts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216235959/http://www.gpp-peterborough.org.uk/new_07/environcapital.html to http://www.gpp-peterborough.org.uk/new_07/environcapital.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle AD 963

Peterborough ms: see for example https://classesv2.yale.edu/access/content/user/haw6/Vikings/AS%20Chronicle%20Peterborough%20MS.html.

I think this information has been removed since the history section refers to it. It is, however, important, either here, or in the Peterborough Monastery article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC).

Worst Place to Live in England

I saw someone had added reference to the iLiveHere annual "worst place to live in England" as Peterborough has won for the third year running. I should have thought that was relevant information to include in the Wiki entry for the town; it is a very British kind of notoriety. The edit has been reversed, which I think is a shame. Should such information be excluded or included on Wikipedia? For example, if it had been listed as "best place to live in England" I suspect nobody would be objecting to that being included. This was the addition that was reversed:

Voted three times in a row "worst place to live in England".

SandJ-on-WP (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem a very reliable source - even the website admits that it was probably subject to "vote rigging" Bob talk 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

City of Peterborough

I have restored the article to it's pre-12 July state, pending discussion here. There is no distinction between the settlement and the district (or the city of Peterborough and the City of Peterborough) and no boundary. Parts of the present-day urban area are parished. The articles were previously merged in 2005. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction between the settlement and district, see this map, more that half of the district is rural land. This was already discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#District splits and follows WP:UKDISTRICTS, it doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria for being combined. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Crouch, Swale.

• The urban or built-up area, the city, is Peterborough, .
• The unitary authority area is City of Peterborough.

A similar arrangement arises at City of Carlisle and City of Milton Keynes, to pick at random two UAs with large rural component. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Already been their and discussed it. Just opening an excuse to remerge it. That's all I see from the anon DragonofBatley (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I know the area well and I strongly oppose this content fork for the reasons stated above. It was briefly mentioned at WikiProject UK geography (where even User:DragonofBatley expressed reservations), but no notice was left here. I would prefer to see a consensus of users that have actually contributed to the article. In terms of the criteria, there are a lack of other large settlements in the district; the majority of the district's population live in the urban area; and the current boundaries of the district are long-established and predate reforms in 1974, in that they broadly conform to those of the former Soke of Peterborough. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In reply to User:DragonofBatley, "the anon" is relying on WP:BRD, WP:CFORK and WP:COMMONNAME and is mindful of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. 17 years is "long established", two months is not. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Applying the tests, (1) the built-up area is significantly smaller than the district with significant rural land, (2) it has plenty of distinct settlements and has 10 separate BUAS[1] in addition to many other smaller settlements, (3) the 2011 census for the BUASD is 161,707 and 163,379 for the BUA compared with 183,631 for the district, (4) the boundaries are recent, in addition to Peterborough MB Old Fletton UD, Barnack, Peterborough and Thorney RDs and part of Norman Cross RD were merged in 1974 so even if they are similar to the Soke they aren't to the former district, (5) there are 29 civil parishes in the district and 2 unparished areas in addition to Peterborough namely Old Fletton and Stanground North. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the issues your raising and why your against it being as is. I suppose one could argue against an article for the likes of City of Milton Keynes and City of Lichfield. But they have their own articles and the first one was a new town around the same time Peterborough became one for mass housing. So these two have had the same boundaries since 1974 same as Peterborough. Milton Keynes covers a wider area, Lichfield covers a wider area and so does Peterborough. So again I ask. What's the issues of having one for the settlement (Peterborough) and it's district (City of Peterborough including Eye Green & Thorney which are civil parishes and have their own councils)? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Milton Keynes or Litchfield are relevant here but, if you are really interested in a discussion, you should engage with the points I have raised above and explain why we should have separate articles, instead of engaging in an edit war. I would appreciate it if you would revert your edits, pending the outcome of the discussion here. 95.149.88.147 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, It isn't me only. Two-three others have reverted you just as well on the district and city page. So singling me out isn't going to work to revert them. They can stay until a so-called consensus come about. Removing them doesn't make a decision come any quicker and why should they be deleted at the behest yourself?

Also, you ask why mention MK or Lichfield? That's because like Peterborough both are cities and have separate articles for the settlement and district. Peterborough has one for the city (Itself) and district (Including its hamlets and villages). Should Huntingdonshire be merged with Huntingdon? No because of St Ives, Godmanchester, Huntingdon, Ramsey, and St Neots being part of it. So Peterborough has the ability to have both. @Crouch, Swale: have done the checks and others. It passes the Wiki: Geo requirements. So Again, I see no reason for this debate or attempting to tamper with the article or carry out your request to revert my edits. Until a consensus is reached. It can stay as is. Both Peterborough and City District of Peterborough. I won't in other words accept your request to revert it. Removing it again will be seen as WP: Edit Warring so you've approached this correctly to debate but leave it now until a consensus is reached. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

On a related note something I was wondering about a few days ago after Huntingdonshire County Council article was created is if Huntingdonshire district should have a separate article to the former county like Cumberland (district)? My answer would probably be no as we don't generally make a distinction between current and historic boundaries but it may be worth discussing but with Peterborough it is standard to make a distinction between settlement and district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@95.149.88.147: the UAs of Carlisle, Lichfield and Milton Keynes are relevant here because, like the Peterborough UA (aka City of Peterborough), they have a rural component that is significantly larger than the primary settlement. Having a separate article allows NPOV treatment of settlements in the rural area and not part of the urban city. The point being made is that Peterborough does appear to be unique and so deserving of special treatment. For a counter example, see City of York which redirects to York. I don't know the area but it appears that the ratio of urban to rural is much higher. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

York also has large rural areas and should probably also be split, Cambridge is probably a better example at it seems to pass all of the tests. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)