Jump to content

Talk:Cambridge/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Duroliponte

I have removed the sentence citing the Anglo-Saxons as the first to mention a bridge at Cambridge. The preceding paragraph gives the Roman name for Cambridge as Duroliponte. Pons, pontis is the latin for bridge. Please do correct me if I am wrong. Susanna144 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not certain that Duroliponte is actually the roman name for Cambridge. From memory, the only mention of Duroliponte is in a list of towns that you pass through on a certain marching route. It's also unlikely that the Romans had a bridge at Cambridge - it's more likely that there was a ford. (For example, the current site of the bridge is slight off the roman road. This is typical when people built a bridge parallel to an existing ford.) The most likely time for the first bridge to be built is in the time of Offa. Bluap (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a good source for Duroliponte = Cambridge, the Council clearly think so, but the location of Duroliponte has clearly been contentious, with some older books placing it near Godmanchester. I can't find modern academic sources locating it in Cambridge.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Cambridge

There seems to be an edit war ongoing between anon IP's (generally pro) and Registered Users (generally anti) regarding adding a comment about the Duke of Cambridge to the article. I've just warned an IP of the 3rr as I reverted them a second time; can we discuss the matter here please? Do we add details regarding the title or not? If so, what? - JCJ (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) copied from a identical thread I made below How about an actual discussion of this addition rather than endless reverts? (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.) Compare with other city/duke pages:
Thus, I suggest either a) a see also link or b) no mention. Although, there are sources which could merit a short mention in the article (e.g. this). Either way this is worthy of discussion because of the persistent additions and reversions over the last few days Jebus989✰ 12:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a "see also" link. I will add that the chunk that keeps being reverted doesn't even get the Duke and Duchess's names right (it's simply William, not William Wales, while Catherine isn't a Princess). Additionally, the Duke Of Cambridge article claims that the title is named for the county in the intro, though the claim is unsourced. Of course, the county is named for the city, but it makes the relevance more tenuous. - JCJ (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On that note, Duke of York is mentioned on the Yorkshire article. The title Duke of Gloucester isn't mentioned on the Gloucestershire article. - JCJ (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary to add anything. Although Duke of Cambridge does not make this clear the name seems to refer to the county which would be consistent with all other examples where it is clear: see e.g. the list of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles. Even some which sound unambiguously like they're associated with cities, the Duke of Richmond for example, turn out to have a county (Richmondshire!) to go with the title. So the Duke of Cambridge is nothing to do with the city: at most the name is similar enough that it should be added to the DAB page, which I see has already been done.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The title isn't really anything to do with the city. It should be contained in the Cambridge (disambiguation) page. If the title is named after the city then all things named after the city would have to be in a "see also" section, such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat of a slippery slope argument. Nevertheless, seems like the consensus is for no mention Jebus989✰ 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
My point was that it's all or nothing. Better to go for nothing, I reckon. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Having a prominent link might, in the way of these things, suggest to visiting Wikipedians that Prince William has residency or regular ties with the city. I'm sure that the frequency of his visits will probably go up but the title is only ceremonial. Also a Dukedom 'controls' a Duchy, which I'm fairly sure can't be a city and must in this case refer to the county. The DAB is the best place for it. Blakk and ekka 08:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cambridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 07:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article isn't ready for a full GA review yet. The large number of {{citation needed}} tags is a red flag and, looking closer, there are many parts of the article that are unverifiable at the moment. These maintenance tags need to be addressed, and you need to make sure that the article as a whole is verifiable. Statistics, quotes and anything controversial, unexpected or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation to a reliable source. eg.

  • "Duroliponte means bridge over the duro or duroli, which appears to derive from the celtic word for water."
  • "...this is obviously a back-formation from the English name."
  • "According to legend, ... However, there is no written record of this notion."

Some other points to bear in mind are:

  • The article needs to adhere to WP:LEAD for GA. The lead should adequately summarise the main points of the article. At the moment, for example, the lead has nothing on the history, governance or culture of the city (apart from the university).
  • The article doesn't need to be exhaustive at GA, only "broad", but I would expect to see a bit more history of the place. For example, surely there's more about the Roman settlement, and the detail between Norman times and the 20th century is somewhat sketchy.
  • Make sure all sources used would meet WP:RS. For example, who's Ian Kitching and what makes him a reliable self-published source?
  • Beth Shalom is a disambiguation page
  • There are several dead links marked, make sure readers can access the sources to verify the information in the article
  • Watch overlinking like college and non-intuitive linking such as linking the word "churches" in the body of the article, to a category.

Please see the GA criteria for more on what is required, and I'd recommend perhaps a peer review before a further good article nomination. Let me know if you have any questions. --BelovedFreak 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these useful comments. I think I have covered most of them and will submit the article for peer-review as you suggested.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Secular Humanists

The reference to the Humanist society really ought to be taken out of the 'Religion' section (principally because humanism isn't a religion) and relocated somewhere in 'Culture'. There's no obvious sub-section of 'Culture' for it at the moment though. Does anybody have any suggestions as to where it should go? Blakk and ekka 12:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

MPs

The MP for Cambridge City is Julian Huppert. Andrew Lansley is MP for South Cambridgeshire (and City residents don't vote in the county parliamentary elections). Since this page is for the City, Andrew Lansley should not be mentioned here. He is correctly on the South Cambridgeshire page. ---- Richard Parkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.91.35 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of places in the article refer to the Cambridge urban area, including parts of the South Cambridgeshire district. More significantly, Cambridge#Westminster says "One area of the city, Queen Edith's ward,[26] lies in the South Cambridgeshire constituency, ..." and gives a reference which looks convincing; do you dispute that? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the Ordnance survey maps and the above comment is correct: I withdraw my original comment. 82.69.91.35 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Richard Parkins

Arbury Park would be another example - it’s contiguous with the rest of Cambridge but (AFAIK) currently outside all of the Cambridge political/administrative boundaries. Ewx (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Thousands of years of history, one of the world's most famous university cities and the second line of the lead (and comprising a substantial proportion of the relatively short intro) is "Cambridge is at the heart of the high-technology centre known as Silicon Fen – a play on Silicon Valley and the fens surrounding the city". Has someone from the council development office written this? danno 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not be bold and try and re-write it? I think you've got a point. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. Cúchullain t/c 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

– This topic, a town with a mere 125,000 inhabitants, is clearly not the primary topic for "Cambridge". Even though this article is currently at the base name, University of Cambridge, commonly referred to as "Cambridge", still gets more page views (76k for the university v.s. 50k for the town), and Cambridge, Massachusetts gets almost as many (35k). The proposed title follows the pattern used to title the articles about many other towns in Cambridgeshire (see Category:Civil_parishes_in_Cambridgeshire). Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment If population has anything to do with it, Cambridge, Massachusetts has a population of only 105,162 versus 125,700 for Cambridge. But population is irrelevant, otherwise Bethlehem, a village with a population of only 25,266, wouldn’t be a primary topic; clearly notability is derived from something other than population. Your point on number of inhabitants is irrelevant to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.164.211 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose. Your page view stats suggest far more people are interested in this city than the US one. But there's no chance of confusion with the US city as they are always disambiguated by state. As for the university it will only be referred to as "Cambridge" where the context is clear ("I graduated from Cambridge in 1987"). By the same criteria the football team is as ambiguous ("Liverpool played Cambridge in the FA Cup"). But we don't have to deal with that, or everything else with "Cambridge" in its name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The relevant context for primary topic determination is searching. Are you suggesting users searching for the university do not just enter "cambridge" and click "go"? That they will also enter " university" in the box before clicking go? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this page is moved then it should be to Cambridge, England not Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. "Cambridgeshire" is overly precise, appears odd due to the apparent tautology, and against the guidelines on this matter. Furthermore, this Cambridge is referred to as "Cambridge, England" much more frequently than it as as "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire". All that adds up to "England" being the appropriate term for disambiguation. That is, if disambiguation is required.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Cambridge was the original city of this name, existing many centuries before America was even discovered by Europeans. If new cities are subsequently named after other cities, then the onus is to distinguish them, not rename the original, e.g. New York. Cambridge 2. Cambridge is better known internationally, in my experience, whereas Cambridge, Massachusetts is a district of Boston, barely known at all. Also, it is incorrect to refer to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, as the city has been granted a royal charter in its own right. Cambridge, England would be a more correct term. 85.210.164.211 (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Boston was named after Boston, Lincolnshire. Surely you don't suggest the latter should be the primary topic? Powers T 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If Boston, Lincolnshire was a city with a similar population and status to Boston, Massachusetts; had as significant and notable a history; was as well-known internationally; was the subject of a similar number of Wikipedia visits; was the place most people expected to find when looking for an article of that topic; and was already the primary article on the subject, then yes, there might indeed be strong case for Boston, Lincolnshire being the primary article.
However, in the case of Boston, none of these things is true, except that Boston, Massachusetts was named after Boston, Lincolnshire.
In the case of Cambridge, all of these are true. The population is (slightly) larger than Cambridge, Massachusetts; the city has a significant regional and national status (not just related to the University); Cambridge was established first, well over a thousand years earlier; Cambridge, Massachusetts was explicitly named in honour of Cambridge; Cambridge is at least as well-known internationally; the Cambridge Wikipedia article receives more hits (56623 versus 35176); and the status quo is that the Cambridge is currently the primary article. 85.210.170.87 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's not what you said before. Including those important qualifiers is a far cry from "If new cities are subsequently named after other cities, then the onus is to distinguish them, not rename the original" Powers T 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I did also say 'Cambridge is better known internationally' and it’s been pointed out above fwiw that its population is greater, but you've chosen to ignore that. It is not necessary to reiterate every argument I have against this proposal, particularly as there are overwhelmingly many.
The issues around this have already been discussed extensively and repeatedly here, here, here, here, here, here (and again here), here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (and yet again here), here (and again here), here, here (and again here), here and even here and here (twice!).
But you know that, because you’ve been active in some of these previous campaigns and made the same point on 25 October 2010. 85.210.173.153 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose most UK Russell Group Universities are known by the name of the city they are located in by that name alone, but only in the context of it being a University. By nature of their history and status, the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are slightly different in the outward perception of them, but the terms "in Cambridge" and "at Cambridge" have distinct and discreet meanings. To disambiguate "Cambridge" to "Cambridge, England" or "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire" is not the usual way of thinking, but disambiguating "Cambridge" to "University of Cambridge" is a commonplace occurrence. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to Cambridge, England. Although the disambiguation page gets only a fraction of the pageviews of Cambridge (a strong indication that few readers are led astray), I think the other two main uses are competitive enough to justify putting the disambiguation page at the base name. Powers T 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this move can even be proposed with citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it suggests thatWP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs editing (or reverting) to be clearer. This to me reinforces the impression that more input and common sense often goes into the RMs than the guidelines that they are supposedly built one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. David Biddulph (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the primary topic is either the University, or there is no primary topic. It is not the university town that the university is located in. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The case for change has not been made. As noted, the university is called "Cambridge" rather than "Cambridge University" or "University of Cambridge" only when it is evident from the context that it is the university that is being referred to. I doubt any readers are confused by the status quo here, but, if they are, they will see a blue link to the university in the first line of the second paragraph of this article. Surely that will suffice. -- Alarics (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons completely in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we are to move, "Cambridge, England" makes more sense. PatGallacher (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to Cambridge, England as nom. The main point here is that the town is the not the primary topic based on usage, and so should not be at the base name - where exactly it is moved is much less important. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Question is there a wikipolicy or limit to the number of times a user can try to move a page?--Traveler100 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A user looking for the city will look for Cambridge. A user looking for the university will seek Cambridge University or University of Cambridge. No-one is helped by the proposed change. Sussexonian (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCEPTDAB. If I type "Cambridge", I expect to find something about the town and the university (hence this article), not just the university. mgeo talk 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The formal name of the university is as it says on its page, and Cambridge, Massachusetts follows the naming convention for towns in the US. Neither of those are misnamed, even if they do get more pageviews than Cambridge. From a user-oriented point of view, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire would be a bit archaic and not entirely obvious to international searchers. (Or even UK searchers...) Moving the DAB page to Cambridge might be sensible, but given there's a link already I don't think it's necessary. There's no compelling reason to change that I can see. Kate (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Powers T. Hot Stop 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only benefit from the proposed change will be an end to these discussions. I do not think this will help end users, who are finding exactly what they're looking for, as the page stats seem to demonstrate. GyroMagician (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An end to them? Probably not, just a hiatus until B2C gets round to re-proposing a move. We can hope for a couple of years, maybe. pablo 15:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is obvious the university is located in the city, a reader would not expect Cambridge to direct to the university. The US city has the state in the title and the reader would not expect Cambridge to direct there, rather Cambridge, Massachusetts, or Cambridge, MA. Zarcadia (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reason as Sussexonian's — if it is necessary to distinguish it from the university, I suggest having a note next to the disambiguation message, e.g. For the university named after the city, see University of Cambridge. cmɢʟee☎✉ 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly because the nomination is simply wrong. The University may commonly be called just "Cambridge" in a discussion about universities or academia, but in any other situation it just refers to the town. If you were to say "I'm going to Cambridge tomorrow" to someone they would automatically assume you were visiting the town unless there were some other context to the conversation. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At the risk of repeating the contents of other debates linked above I think that it's important not to erode WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the majority (if not all) English Wikipedia topics could arguably be subject to some sort of disambiguation. This might be satisfyingly pedantic but would make the actual use of the site considerably more difficult - it would in every case force users to drive through a sort of informational suburb before thay got to where they wanted to go.
In the specific case of Cambridge a look at Category:High-importance WikiProject Cities articles, which includes Cambridge, shows that the huge majority of the cities listed with it are unqualified geographically - they're the primary topic associated with their name and are of world-wide notoriety notability.
To those suggesting Cambridge, England as an alternative surely Cambridge, United Kingdom would be more correct? Blakk and ekka 10:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • England seems like the right level of precision for the town, and I support moving the disambig page and not having a primary. I don't understand the suggestion above the "United Kingdom" would be "more correct". The town is much more often called "Cambridge, England" than anything else, it appears to me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts were that it would distinguish it from the other Cambridge, England. WP:UKPLACE states that Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom use [[placename]] and I'd think that this was eminently possible in the case of Cambridge.
My preference generally would be against an 'England' dab if only because (and I'm not in any way accusing you personally of this) of the tendency for people outside of the country to assume that all places in the UK are in England (Queen of England syndrome, if you like). Blakk and ekka 09:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To most of the English speaking world and in most contexts, Cambridge means either the University or the city in England. As there's no proposal to rename the University of Cambridge (nor should there be), best left as is, with the city undisambiguated. Andrewa (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2012 (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.

Rowing in its own subsection

Considering the prominence of rowing on in Cambridge University and coverage of the Boat Race, I think rowing deserves a separate section under Cambridge#Sport. The only other watersport described is punting, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a sport. Even if so, it's probably good enough to list it under Other sports. Any thoughts? cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 20:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't directly relate to the town though: it's more to do with the University. Nor does it take place here. They don't even train here for it, they train at Ely. Rowing and punting both take place here. Punting is if anything more interesting as people row on many rivers in the UK but few have punts.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, thanks! (Though I'm still tempted to split Watersports into Punting and Rowing...) cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Climate Data

The first set of climate information (relating to the Cambridge Botanical Gardens) looks suspect. The average daytime maxima are too high, I think. The second set looks ok though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigalxyz123 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Robyn Hitchcock

Spotted that Robyn Hitchcock is reported/ implied as having been born in Cambridge (section 8.4.1), however he was born in London according to his Wikipedia entry and moved to Cambridge in 1974. He is notable for founding the Soft Boys in Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenTigger (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He's now disappeared altogether. In fact, there is no "Notable residents" section, which seems to be an omission. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The Soft Boys are covered in the Popular Music section, but Hitchcock probably needs mentioning too. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk)

Pubs

There are many pubs in Cambridge: [1], including some historic ones such as The Fort St George and The Eagle. Should they be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Most British towns have many pubs. A few Cambridge pubs do have Wikipedia entries (though a couple of them might not really be sufficiently notable), and perhaps they should be captured somewhere, though probably not in a specific "Pubs" section. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Pubs feature in very many geo articles, and not usually in their own section. Very surprised, if they have articles themselves, that they do not appear anywhere in this article. Which are there? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
See Category:Public houses in Cambridge. Not sure that The Baron of Beef or Panton Arms articles would hold up to much scrutiny. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. So there are eight. Any suggestions as to how these might be included, or at least linked in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's not obvious where they should be included, perhaps that suggests that it's not necessary? The article for Manchester has reached featured article status, and I don't think that anything from Category:Public houses in Manchester is included in it. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's very surprising and, to mind, quite bizarre. If I was lokiing for information about pubs in Cambridge, I'm pretty sure this article would be my starting point. To find nothing, not even a "See also" link, would be quite a shock. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
But what kind of information? If one is seeking info on what pubs there are in the town then wouldn't you try somewhere like CAMRA or Tripadvisor? Wikipedia isn't a travel guide.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting information like the price of a burger or what the current guest ale is. I guess one could go and look elsehwere for information on Grade II listed buildings like the Fort St George In England? In fact, the way that Wikpedia works, one could go and find everything somewhere else. Surely, pubs like The Eagle (pub) are notable in their own right - that's why they've got their own articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A place such as Cambridge has so many buildings with a Wikipedia article (I make it 148, minimum) that wouldn't it make an unwieldy article if all of them were mentioned directly? I can see that it seems tricky to navigate from Cambridge to The Eagle (pub), for instance, at the moment. Maybe putting Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridge in the "see also" section would be useful? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound unwieldy. I'd suggest that Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridge should certainly appear somewhere. I also think that Category:Public houses in Cambridge would also be very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:Public houses in Cambridge is a sub-category of Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridge, so having both isn't necessary. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I see. Well I wish novice readers of Wikipedia the very best of luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you included Category:Public houses in Cambridge, then all the other sub-categories could/should equally be specifically included - Category:Bridges in Cambridge‎; Category:Cemeteries in Cambridge‎; Category:Churches in Cambridge‎; Category:Libraries in Cambridge‎; Category:Museums in Cambridge‎; Category:Schools in Cambridge‎; Category:Shops in Cambridge‎; Category:Sports venues in Cambridge‎; Category:Theatres in Cambridge‎; Category:Buildings and structures of the University of Cambridge. There needs to be an amount of discrimination else it all gets a bit much. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. It just seems odd that any new readers of the article might be unaware of any of these categories or what they contain. I'm not sure why there is no mention at all in the article of the city's most notable pubs. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still unsure as to why an encyclopaedia article on a city with so many notable aspects requires specific mention of its pubs. What would be said other than "Cambridge has many pubs, some of which are notable"? Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem is mentioned in Nottingham, but then it does claim to be the country's oldest pub. The country's largest pub (The Moon Under Water) is not mentioned in Manchester. How do you feel about there being no mention of the city's most notable restaurants or shops? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm equally mystified. I'd suggest that any city, in most people's minds, is defined to a very large extent by it's most notable features whether they are churches, shops, pubs, concert halls or whatever. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So your point is a more general one? Maybe it might be worth looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and, if your points aren't addressed in that, starting a discussion there on the relevance of such information and the best way of presenting across all UK settlements. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think perhaps it is now more of a a general concern for me (thanks latgely to your questions here.) Maybe it's just a matter of inconsistency - many articles for villages name the village pub (or restaurant, whatever), but when we get to cities there are so many pubs that, even if they are themselves notable, there is no room to mention them. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I've seen pubs specifically identified in articles on villages, but it's probably partly because these small settlements don't have much else to write about, and many of these articles may well be poor examples of Wikipedia articles.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, for many UK small villages and hamlets, the pub and church will be by far the most notable things there. I'm not sure that then makes any article "poor" per se. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean that including these things is what makes the article poor. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Revisit move discussion

It should be clear to anyone (anyone outside the UK, that is) that Cambridge, Massachusetts (perchance some of you have heard of Harvard University?) and the University of Cambridge are just as famous as this town in England, that there is no clear primary topic here, and therefore this should be moved back to Cambridge, England and Cambridge (disambiguation) should be moved here. Am I wrong, or just crazy? It just seems like the previous move discussion was unfairly influenced by the fact that most people who peruse this page (naturally) are British, and therefore may not know much about the US city. But it's a perfectly notable town in its own right, I assure you. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Heard of Harvard, but thought it was in Boston... - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 19:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No, as before William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Being wrong and just crazy, there's no clear primary topic. Same with Cambridge. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death and the answer is still no.Py0alb (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Very constructive input. Thank you all so much for contributing. --SchutteGod 76.171.231.104 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


Put it like this, if neither university existed, would the historic county town of Cambridgeshire, an important Viking trading centre and the home of association football still be famous? Yes. Would an undistinguished medium sized suburb of Boston? No. It would be no better known than Cambridge Ontario, Cambridge Tasmania, Cambridge Jamaica or all the other towns named in honour of the famous English city. Most people think Harvard is in Boston anyway.
/discussion.
Py0alb (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"Fame" has not a thing to do with it. Neither do false assumptions, or snobbery about whether a town is "distinguished" enough. Notability does. At least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And Cambridge, MA - home of Harvard, MIT, and other famous colleges (not to mention 125 Nobel recipients) - is every bit as notable in the US as Cambridge is in the UK. Talk about what "most people think"...most people outside Britain only associate Cambridge with the university and have no idea there's actually a town called Cambridge. Does that mean we redirect this page to Univ. of Cambridge instead? Hardly. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.177.50 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that it is fair to say that, in the US, "Cambridge, MA" and "Cambridge, England" are of approximately equal stature, and people naturally disambiguate them in that way. (It helps that this form of disambiguation is used in speech for nearly every US city, so people find this way of saying a city name very natural. However, this form of disambiguation is not very common elsewhere.) Outside the US, I think that an non-disambiguated "Cambridge" is clearly "Cambridge, UK". (This comes from personal experience living in the US, UK and other countries.) I am not sure what this means for the article title, but my preference is for non-disambiguated "Cambridge" meaning "Cambridge, England", with a hat-note pointing to the US city - this most clearly represents the global norm. Bluap (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Economy and colleges

The colleges are contributing a lot in the economy of the city and it would be a good idea to be mentioned in the economy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

University sport

There is a bit of an edit war going on regarding including details about Cambridge University Ice Hockey Club into the main body of the article, linking this to information on the ice rink that is due to be built in the East of the city. I feel that this article is to cover the city, and whilst the University is a key part of it, the sport section is for sports teams representing the city. University sports teams represent the University, and so should be covered in the University of Cambridge article. Many of the Uni teams have their own Wikipedia articles, and there is probably sufficient info and notability to have a stand-alone article titled something like Sport at the University of Cambridge. In addition, the proposed ice rink is not due to be a University facility. Though money has been bequeathed by a former Uni ice hockey captain, the project is to be privately funded and a public facility.[2] Note that other, more notable, Uni sports teams (rowing, rugby union, etc.) are not really covered in this article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: the new ice rink: "Backers intent on bringing an ice rink to the city have identified a site that could house ... " Is that a crystal ball you've got as a source there, or an ice ball? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Yes, the most one can currently say about this is that it is proposed.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 31 external links on Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cambridge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


I hope to review this article soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

Result

Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments by Ritchie333

@Ilikeeatingwaffles:, @Emir of Wikipedia: I was surprised to see this pass GA, particularly given the extent of reviews Portsmouth and Faversham had, and Cambridge is far more important historically. Amongst the immediate problems I see:

  • There has been no mention of why Talk:Cambridge/GA1 failed, and if any of the issues have been addressed
  • The inline citations in the lead should at least be commented on
  • The Roman history section is quite small. I am sure this should be longer, given its prominent importance to Roman Britain on the Via Devana
  • The medieval history section looks to be too small as well, I would expect more on the city's relationship between East and Middle Anglia, for example
  • The end of the first paragraph of the "Medieval" section is unsourced
  • The town north of the river was severely affected being almost wiped out - "wiped out" is a WP:EUPHEMISM and should not be used in a GA
  • I would expect even a summary of King's College Chapel to contain more than two terse sentences
  • Similarly, In 1209, Cambridge University was founded by students escaping from hostile townspeople in Oxford does not cut it, even as a summary, for the substantial historical importance the university has on the city
  • Personal opinion this, but I'm sure I have seen the college backs onto the Cam described as one of the greatest views in Europe, or something similar. I would recommend researching this and putting something about the backs in the article. It is the lead picture, after all!
  • Following numerous deaths due to plague - is this the Black Death 200 years earlier or something else? This needs to be documented
  • The "Cambridge SUDS Design & Adoption Guide" source is a dead link - this should be at least retrieved via the Wayback Machine if possible
  • The demography in Cambridge changes considerably in and out of University term times, so can be hard to measure - as well as being unsourced, this is not a particularly encyclopedic section of prose
  • What makes Cambridgefutures.org a reliable source?
  • The Transport section makes no mention of the numerous former rail services that ran from it, including the Cambridge to Mildenhall railway, the Stour Valley Railway and the Cambridge & St. Ives Branch Line
  • and the A1303 to Newmarket and beyond to Colchester. - the A1303 is a local road, the historical 20th century road between Cambridge and Colchester is the now-defunct A604, the modern way is probably the A14 / A12 via Ipswich or the M11 / A120 / A12 via Stansted. Either way, this is factually incorrect.
  • The A service continues on to the railway station and Addenbrookes, before terminating at a new Park and Ride in Trumpington. - this sentence is unsourced

I'm sorry, but just from a ten-minute look through the article, it does not appear to meet the GA criteria. We need to sort this out; either the review can be reopened and I'll look at it some more, or we can roll the article back to C-class status, which I think is fairer. I am not inclined to go to a full reassessment via WP:GAR, which I feel is overkill.

Also paging @J3Mrs: and @Eric Corbett: for comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Portsmouth and Devon are completely irrelevant to this. The citations in the lead are minimal and are appropriate for both controversial content as well as content that isn't mentioned elsewhere. I think the history sections are adequate for a GA but not an FA. The end line of the first paragraph is non-controversial and can easily be deduced from the borders. I think that if you disagree you should go through with a full reassessment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree. Emir of Wikipedia, I have no doubt at all that you're working in good faith, but GAC isn't just a matter of working through a checklist, and there's no way that this is sufficient as a GA review for a 6600-word article. Just a skim through the end sections, without even looking at the body text, throws up obvious red flags. (What makes this a reliable source, for instance, and what is this section doing there?) I also agree with Ritchie that Following numerous deaths due to plague screams out as something that needs clarification as I'm unaware of any plague outbreak in East Anglia in the early 16th or early 17th century (the 'source' for this claim is a guide to country walks which is immediately suspect given that it claims plague is spread via untreated sewage, and "plague is spread by Y. pestis" is probably the one piece of epidemiology which every schoolchild knows). ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As a basic rule of thumb, the more popular an article is, the more work is needed at a GA review, which is why minor albums need less overall work than an article like this one, which gets about 1,800 views a day, to the extent the talk page says "Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues". I mentioned Portsmouth's GA because the effort involved there (and it hasn't finished yet!) is orders of magnitude more than this one, which will give you some idea of what's required for something like this. Cambridge is a worthy article to take to GA, and would be an excellent benefit to the project if done correctly. You really don't want to go to GAR - I fully predict the article and review will be torn apart and you'll feel completely disillusioned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Just catching up, I don't think it's anything to do with popularity, more to do with complexity. Settlement articles are difficult and reviewing then takes some background knowledge. I don't think this article meets GA criteria 3a. I did a bit of copyediting but at no time thought it comprehensive enough to pass a GA. J3Mrs (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
By "popular" I specifically mean a cross between "has more page views" and "has more coverage in reliable sources"; otherwise I agree with what you say. As there is no clear consensus this can pass GA without significant work, I am closing the review as "not listed" for the time being. That's not to say the article shouldn't be improved - of course it should - but it's best to do this out of the spotlight of GAN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictures of Cambridge Centre

Are there good pictrues of the centre of Campbridge town? --82.192.229.198 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several street panoramas near the bottom of the article, though I am ambivalent as to whether they can be described as good from an encyclopaedic point of view, as they distort perspectives so much. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You coukd have a look here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thx Martinevans123. But i guess there are not realy important pictures of cambridge centre/city or even nothing about that area. But i dont realy know commons wikimedia. So i just had a look the the direct pictures you linked. For my taste this linked site has to much little info boxes, makes it vast. A bit like yahoo.com compared too the google.com site. I had the impression, that in other towns f.e.g. Boston i like the picture concept n style. I dont knwo each of this city. But the amount i heared of Cambridge and the look to that article, gives me some lack of visual impressions. Looking at google picture gives some more result like https://www.google.ch/search?q=Philip+Haas++Angels+and+Insects&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&biw=1093&bih=491&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWnJG09M3KAhWFAxoKHWLEAIMQ_AUIBygB&dpr=1.25#tbm=isch&q=cambridge+town&imgrc=aCk3nSLPilz2JM%3A, but is that more Cambridge-like? I think i just lernd, that University is not the same as city, at least in international context. greatings --82.192.229.198 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You could try exploring the city using Streetview. The city centre is dominated by the university but there are streets there, such as Market Street and Green Street, where the streetscene isn't just colleges and university buildings, and the same is true of main roads, such as Maid's Causeway and Mill Road, that lead away from the city centre. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
A Flickr search returns quite a few reasonable shots.Blakk and ekka 13:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are thousands of really good images on flickr and, if you ask nicely, many photographers are happy to change "all rights Reserved" to "public domain", especially if they know it's for use in a Wikipedia article Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The pictures that there are aren't really representative of the City itself, each being taken in a small area to the south-west of the city centre. There is no Parker's Piece (probably the single most recognisable landmark), no Mill Road Bridge, no Regent St, no War Memorial Junction and Train Station, no Midsummer Common. Py0alb (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There are already images of Parker's Piece and Midsummer Common, but within the Culture section. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Cambridge. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Second world war

"and no historic buildings were damaged" is not true. The Round Church East window had its stained glass damaged by a bomb. See the Round Church article for reference. I'm not sure whether this was the only such damage or not so I don't want to edit the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.131.2 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cambridge. 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:

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) 20:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Borough Status

Cambridge is listed as a non-metropolitan district. It has borough status as well as city status, so should it not be called "city and non-metropolitan borough" instead.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is both a non-metropolitan district and non-metropolitan borough. Borough is an honorary title, and district describes the area in legal terms (a sub-division of a non-metropolitan county). That's my understanding, anyway. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A borough is a type of district, all current boroughs in England are also districts but not all districts are boroughs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Panoramas?

It's been mentioned a couple of times before (the 2012 peer review and a discussion at the top of this page) that the panoramas at the bottom of this article don't seem to add a great deal of encyclopedic value. Of the seven currently shown, I would suggest keeping only the last two, of the view from the tower of Great St. Mary's and of King's College Chapel and the Senate House.

The first four images in particular are hopeless – 360-degree panoramas from such close distances lead to extremely distorted perspectives which are no earthly use to anyone. Especially in the images of Trinity Street and King's Parade, the center and focus of the image is a random shop, whereas the historically important buildings which make up Trinity and King's College are minimised and pushed to the edges. The image of Silver Street is less horrible, putting the interesting bits in the center, though the perspective is still terribly distorted and making me queasy looking at it, and the image of the quayside, along with the now-familiar fun with perspective, is technically horrible: not only is the middle full of lens glare, but the different images which make up the panorama are exposed so differently that the stitching is visible even on a thumbnail.

The skyline is less bad from a technical perspective – there are stitching errors still, but you have to look at the full-sized image to see them – but what does it show? A bunch of roofs? How is that at all helpful to someone reading the article? If the caption explained what was visible, that would be one thing (though, really, there are three interesting things visible: King's College Chapel and Great St. Mary's are better illustrated already elsewhere in the article, and the University Library is mentioned once in passing), but as it is this is an illustration which helps only those who already know very well what the Cambridge skyline looks like. If there's a feeling that this image is actually useful, I'm happy to take a shot at captioning it, but unless there is a compelling reason I suggest we cut all of the images I have mentioned.

(And while I'm at it, does anyone want to defend the utility of the video captioned "Cambridge morning", or can we cull that one too?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you say about the panoramas, and would also keep only the last two, which at least are visually attractive and give a reasonable view of some of the important buildings. As for the video, I don't see how it could be argued to add anything of encyclopedic value; I've removed it so that others don't feel obliged to watch it before commenting. Wham2001 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public: since nobody else has commented in the last two weeks I have removed the offending images. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

metro population

How can the metro population of Cambridge be 280,000, when in contrast Ipswich (a much larger city) only has 180,000 poulation listed for its urban population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.200.74 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC) : Ask the Office for National Statistics. Here is how to verify, I don't have time but I recorded the technique and pasted it here. NB ensure that you are comparing like with like: the 'built-up area' is the metro area or urban area. Often the 1976 boundary is now just a sub-area:

  1. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ then section headed Local Area Report
  2. Name of urban area and then Search ... Example: Bristol
  3. Select the relevant built up area ... Example: Built-up area (villages, towns or cities), ...Bristol (in South West Region) (caution! not "Built-up area sub divisions (town or city sub divisions)").
  4. Get the GSS E number from the response ... Example: "This report covers the characteristics of people and households in Bristol Built-up area in South West (GSS code E34004965)".
  5. Plug into template:NOMIS2011 ... Example {{NOMIS2011|id=E34004965|title=Bristol BUA}} produces UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bristol BUA (E34004965)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. which reports "There were 617,280 usual residents as at Census day 2011".
Have fun. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have had a look at this again and struck out my reply as valid but irrelevant to the question. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The 'metro' figure given is very questionable and I will delete it. The cited source has been deleted, it is not even in the archived version and so cannot be verified. Its basis was an attempt to derive a pan-European model for the economic span of cities, taking in settlements outside the city but dependent on it for services and employment. Its data source in the UK was the 2001 Census. See ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. Given how much places outside the green belt have grown in the past 19 years and awkward questions like overlap with the London commuter belt and how far out is it valid to go (Peterborough?), the methodology is questionable and, given that it has not continued, it may have been deemed to have failed. But others may disagree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the number given should be removed; it is going to be confusing for readers, as seen by 213.205.200.74's question above, and as you say is not verifiable. What would be your view on replacing it with the value from List of urban areas in the United Kingdom? From a quick read of that page it is basically what is described in your struck section above, and is closer to the definition that I would expect for "greater Cambridge". Plus it is verifiable. Wham2001 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree to the principle but don't know how to do it. I've already added it [the urban area/built up area] under 'Demographics'. NB that it doesnn't include places like Cambourne that, in a US context, would be regarded as 'Cambridge metro area'. I don't believe that we can use the 'metro' function in the infobox because that really is for isolated places like Las Vegas or Dallas that have discontiguous satelite townships, I can't see how it work in the UK where there are so many overlapping 'spheres of influence'. It doesn't work in the Netherlands, Rhine valley and many other places in Europe either, which is why I suspect it was abandoned. But if you have a solution? Maybe the infobox template could be updated to use a word other than 'metro area' for UK usage? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not really with it today and hadn't noticed that you'd already updated the article. I see what you mean about "metro area" not really making sense in a UK etc. context. In my personal opinion any number that can't be understood without some explanatory text probably ought not to be in an infobox in the first place, so I think you're correct to remove it from the infobox and mention it in the article text instead. Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Birth of Rugby football?

You say Cambridge played a unique role in the invention of modern football, referencing Association Football.

Is it not true that Rugby Football can also be traced back to Cambridge (the university, not the town)? The famous incident at Rugby School, where William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it, did not directly result in the launch of a new game; the school reinforced its ban on handling. It was a couple of boys, present that day, who went on to Cambridge, who jokingly mimicked the action, which was then copied by other undergraduates, and a game was born. (Sorry no reference.) Valetude (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The possible pronunciation /ˈkæmbrɪdʒ/ (... instead of, only, /ˈkeɪmbrɪdʒ/)

The name of the River is Cam (/ˈkæm/), and not river ˈkeɪm. The second, in my opinion (at least) equivalent, possibility of pronunciation of "Cambridge" should be mentioned in the article. A resident, a tourist guide, told me in Cambridge, 34 years ago, /ˈkeɪmbrɪdʒ/ KAYM-brij was wrong, /ˈkæmbrɪdʒ/ KAYM-brijKAYM-brij correct. 2003:E8:5F02:9A40:3950:A12E:D51C:2893 (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but would it change your mind if I told you that the Cam was actaully named after Cambridge, not the other way around? See first paragraph of the Cambridge#Medieval section for an explanation of how that came about. EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Cambridge, Gloucestershire (also on a River Cam) is pronounced /ˈkæmbrɪdʒ/, but this one never is. Your "tourist guide" was just wrong. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I have lived in the city and never heard any pronunciation other than /ˈkeɪmbrɪdʒ/ as documented in the lead. That corresponds to KAYM-brij which, as you rightly say, is correct. The river is always /ˈkæm/ (cam, as in linkage); never /ˈkeɪm/ (came, as in arrived). Certes (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I reckon we could find multiple reliable sources to support a statement that tourist guides in Cambridge delight in regaling tourists with untruths.----Pontificalibus 15:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
That is certainly true, my tourist guide was just wrong. Cambridge, on the River Cam, Cambridgeshire, only the pronunciation /ˈkeɪmbrɪdʒ/ is ok. (It was a wonderful summer in England anyway, unforgettable, such nice people there.) And thanks, exciting and pleasant to learn that the name of the city Cambridge, Gloucestershire is pronounced /ˈkæmbrɪdʒ/. (Maybe I met a tourist guide in Cambridgeshire who once grew up in Gloucestershire? ;-) ) 2003:E8:5F02:9A23:7953:72E0:913:253A (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Did your tourist guide also tell you that in Cambridge pigs can fly? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambridge/Archive_2&oldid=1219051368"