Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 16 April 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

UK geography Unassessed

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A section on politics please.

This is an excellent piece, but why is it in Talk rather than on the main article page? -- Arwel 18:12 May 6, 2003 (UTC) (UEA 1976-9!)

'County town' is the correct name for the admistrative seat of a county in England, even when the seat is technically a city rather than a town. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This article currently consists of two articles, one after another. This is absurd and needs fixing by intregrating the later sections into the first. Morwen 09:54, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay Morwen Have ammended the mess of a poor article into something more substantial and coherent. More to follow from Norwikian 10:33, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles on a British place that I have ever seen. It is a mass of incoherent disconnected drivel that doesn't follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Someone just needs toi ammend the opinion and put in some corredct spelling and grammar. Pjbeef

Err - well, please go ahead. GRAHAMUK 12:41, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

you are welcome PJBeef, but what exactly is your prob? THere's 1000 years of history to cover, i object to it being called drivel, none too polite more like a pot-pourri of rare quotes i've collected over the years. Any suggestions how to improve, indeed such is the nature of wikki that you yourself are free to tidy this drivel yourself, alternatively offer constructive crit. only. 62.253.32.5 20:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Phew i nearly believed you PJBeef !! i have just taken a look at other City's entries. C'mon itsa notso badda . Have courage to maintain a talk page PJ! I doubt you would be quite as caustic then !! Besides with an pseudoymn as yours to a Veggie of 30 years standing that's a challenging handle, your caustic nature may result from too many testotosterone enriched burgers!!62.253.32.5THE NORWIKIAN 20:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All-too-often these days an individual's sense of identity and pride in belonging to a place is attacked as parochical to the increasing number of nomadic peoples who wander the earth. The great figures of Norwich (Sir Thomas Browne, George Borrow, John Crome) did not, contrary to Mr. PJBeef create drivel. I suspect that User PJBeef suffers from an all too common jealousy of the rootless to those rooted to a place and attacks the article on Norwich on grounds of incomprehension as to why anyone should bother to quote the numerous favourable comments made by travellors, visitors and those choosing to relocate to Norwich from a sense of inferiority or alienation. Norwikian 12:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Come out, come out wherever you are PJBeef take a look at the first entry on this talk page, User: Arwel Parry appears not to agree with you either. Norwikian 16:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Erm, sorry about the comment above under my name - i've actually only just come across it by coincidence. I found out it was written by my brother who likes to live on the edge by talking drivel (and actually never contributes to Misplaced Pages). Sorry about him, the REAL pjbeef thinks that the article is very good and I am about to change my Misplaced Pages password and kick my brothers ass. Keep up the good work guys - if 'i've' spoken any more 'drivel' anywhere please tell me. PJBeef 20;16, 21 April 2004

I've changed a few numbers (e.g. 2) to two and removed "In effect the City..." on the 2nd paragraph. I think aspects of this article read as though spoken. I think it needs a bit of cleaning up; PJBeed is right with regards to grammar. Mononen 00:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

UEA not a redbrick University

Have corrected (twice now) the statement that UEA is a redbrick University. Excellent though it is, it could not be termed redbrick. It was not established at the same time as the civic universities of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, etc. Cheshirec

Seems to be confusion between the redbrick universities of the 19th C and the New Universities that emerged in the 1960s ... AndrewMcQ

Plus, anyone who's been to the UEA could not possibly confuse it with anything resembling red brick! There's a reason the student union magazine is called "Concrete", that's all I'm saying. Cromis 01:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

El Viejo as a sister city

Could anyone clarify the position of El Viejo as a "twin" of Norwich. From what I understand of this excerpt from the Norwich City Council website, it is a formal twinning, not an "unofficial" one:

"An important development ion 1999 was the decision by the Norwich City Council to add El Viejo to the list of existing formal civic twinnings with Rouen in France, Koblenz in Germany, and Novi Sad in Serbia. The Link is recognised as the official organisation for the operation of the civic twinning of Norwich with El Viejo."

81.100.216.53 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My impression was that Rouen, Koblenz and Novi Sad were the only 'official' twins - and that the link with El Viejo was instigated some years ago by the local Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign. I'm glad it's now official that Norwich has a link with that needy country. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

External links, Nov 05 edit

I removed:

• John Innes Centre Genome Laboratory, meritorious and serious though the site be, since it's not about Norwich in any shape or form: if we start listing everything that happens to be in Norwich, we'll get a long list of junk.
• BBC article about Norwich's internet savviness, because it's just a small anecdotal article, which, in addition, will likely disappear off the Web pretty soon as these things do: a temporary page. Bill 14:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent re-write

The recent reorganisation and re-write on 6 November was long overdue. This is now much more like the article it deserves to be. Congratulations to the editor. I have just added Bill Bryson to the list of contemporary people associated with the city - as he now lives in Wymondham, only a few miles away - and he opened the recent Norwich Heritage Open Days in September, I thought it was appropriate. -- Bruce, aka Agendum Talk 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Westwood grew up in Lowestoft not Norwich

Demographics

The main text says: The population for the Norwich Urban sub-area was 174,047 in 2001. It is the 27th largest settlement in England using this measure

But the box says: Population: Ranked 152nd - Total (2004 est.) 125,000

To my non-expert eye these appear contradictory. Is there a demographer in the house? Barnabypage 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Norwich urban sub-area includes suburban settlements contiguous with the city but not within its jurisdiction - Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston, Old Catton and parts of Hellesdon to the north and east are all within Broadland District. The 125,000 figure excludes these areas. Ghughesarch 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Barnabypage 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Amelia Opie

The mini-biography of Amelia Opie, while interesting, is mis-placed. Far better to put all this detail on her own page. I propose that the unnecessary detail be deleted from this Norwich article. Agreed? Agendum 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. IMHO, a list like that should contain the briefest of blurbs on the individual, enough to give context or highlight something important to the city. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. Barnabypage 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chapelfield or Chapelfields?

When I lived in Norwich I always referred to it -- meaning the park -- in the plural, but I note from the mall's Website that they mostly (but not exclusively) use the singular. Does anyone have a definitive answer on this? Barnabypage 12:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to just swing by and research, but it's a little far. :) That's why I deferred with what's in the mall's website, even though it contradics the Chapelfields article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely used in the singular, and has been ever since I have been in Norwich, hence 'Chapelfield Garden's' - see http://www.cfsoc.btinternet.co.uk/history.htm; and the new shopping centre on the site of Rowntree Mackintosh factory (formerly Caley's) is officially called 'Chapelfield' (although - strictly speaking - that should be the geographical area of which it is a part), and more colloquially is known as 'the Chapelfield mall' or 'Chapelfield shopping centre'. See http://www.chapelfield.co.uk/ But I have never seen it used in the plural, and have worked in Norwich for over twenty years. Agendum 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and edited and moved the shopping centre's page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan Partridge

I am somewhat tired of seeing the name Alan Partridge associated with Norwich - especially three mentions in one article, which is unnecessary. I am considering whether this joke is a little bit tired now, and mention of this character should now be omitted from the piece - especially in view of Steve Coogan's article about the creation of his character in the Eastern Daily Press of June 27.

Admittedly, Partridge is a parody, but it now turns out that the choice of Norfolk for the home of the character of a radio sports presenter was almost accidental. - Agendum 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we keep only the reference under Perception. Views? Barnabypage 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Weblinking

Every other page on a political area in the UK has a link to the government website in the box on the right. I don't know how to do it, but it'd be good to have a link to www.norwich.gov.uk in there for consistency.

Why? - a link belongs under External links unless its only a reference link or there was a field for it. GraemeLeggett 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, every other one has it. You should go through the entire list of UK districts and change them instead.

Norwich Citizens

What are the people of Norwich called?- SCB '92 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Norwicians" is one term, you can see how it might not get used at lot. The (Anglican) Bishop of Norwich is "Norvic". GraemeLeggett 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Millennium Library

It appears that there are at least two Millennium Library buildings on this planet... one in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the other one in Norwich, England. I renamed the Winnipeg one (my hometown) to Millennium Library (Winnipeg) to avoid any semblance of confusion. --Jimj wpg 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

Norwich, East Anglia → Norwich — Article was moved without consensus, needs to be discussed beforehand; move back to restore the previous naming. Even if we were to move the article, it should be to Norwich, Norfolk, not here. However, this is easily the most common usage and Boston (given in the edit summary) is not an analogous situation due to the US naming convention of using state names. DWaterson 08:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved. "Norwich, East Anglia" was never going to be an acceptable title, so I have undone it. I'm prepared to see a move request to have it moved to "Norwich, Norfolk", but it would definitely need to be discussed first. --Stemonitis 08:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I originally Intended to request the move, not actually move it. I do however, believe it should be moved because of Norwich, CT and Norwich University. I dont understand why the boston issue isn't relevant. Also, if you look at Rochester, which is both a city in England and NY State, the one in England is under the title Rochester, Kent. I feel a similiar move should be made with Norwich to Norwich, Norfolk (or East Anglia, whatever is more appropriate) WhiteKongMan 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions for American places are different to those for other countries. I would be happy to see "Boston, Massachusetts" at "Boston", but that's an issue for the US community. For British places, the standard method of determining the primary topic apply, which in this case means that the East Anglian city gets the article Norwich, with the others at Norwich (disambiguation). Norwich, Connecticut is considerably less important than Norwich, Norfolk (less than 1/10 of the population, and even less of the renown), and so must be dismabiguated (as it would be anyway, because of the naming conventions for US places). --Stemonitis 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Norwich → Norwich, Norfolk – {Norwich is also the name of an important city in Connecticut, and a US University. Also, There are Norwich's in Canada and Jamaica. Rochester and Boston are two similar examples of a situation like this where Rochester in England is found in the article Rochester, Kent and Boston in england is found under Boston, Lincolnshire . Also, when I moved the article the first time it was inadvertent because I had intended to simply to request a move. I was also unaware that Norfolk and not East Anglia would be the correct term to use. If this article were moved, Norwich would redirect to the new one until links to Norwich could be rerouted to the new article. I hope you guys take this seriously. Try not to be too sentimental about this proposal too WhiteKongMan 09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)}

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. SUPPORT I like idea of it being moved beacuse of Rochester, England (which I have always felt is more noteworthy than Norwich, England) is put under the title Rochester, Kent. I also think it might hwlp reduce the perhaps of a pro-K bias on wiki Mrscottjackson 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Support Searching for the Term 'Norwich' on Encarta.com lists Norwich University as its first search result. Brittanica online's first search result for Norwich is Norwich, CT. Norwich, CT is second on Encarta. Also, Google.com (US) Lists Norwich University as its first result, as does CBC.CA (Canada) 199.94.73.221 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Rochester and Boston are irrelevant to this discussion: Rochester, New York is ten times the size of Rochester, Kent, and Boston, Massachusetts is much bigger than Boston, Lincolnshire. Norwich, Norfolk, however, is the biggest and best known of the Norwiches. See WP:D#Primary_topic. As an aside, I'm not sure how Rochester could be more noteworthy than Norwich, either, what with Norwich being five times the size, and with arguably greater historic importance. Joe D (t) 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2. OPPOSE The English Norwich is of considerably more notability than any of the others and as such is likely to be the desired subject of a user searching for 'Norwich'. The comparison with Rochester doesn't persuade me, because Rochester (New York) and Rochester (Kent) are both quite notable, so there is more scope for confusion and need for disambiguation. Barnabypage 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - the original Norwich is more notable than anything that has taken its name thereafter.GraemeLeggett 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• This is nothing like the Rochester and Boston situations: in those cases, Rochester, Kent and Boston, Lincolnshire are not the biggest or best known cities with those names. Norwich, Norfolk, however, is the biggest and best known city named Norfolk. See the disambiguation guidelines on primary topics. Joe D (t) 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for inadvertently deleting the comment above earlier today - as you surmise, it was an error. Barnabypage 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• What is "Pro-K" bias?GraemeLeggett 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-UK maybe? Barnabypage 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed UK geography articles
• Unknown-importance UK geography articles