Talk:Peterborough/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removing perfectly good entries

Please don't take offence, Chrisieboy, but you are getting very patronising about the article revisions you keep doing to every single entry! The actor I added is perfectly known and is a regular on BBC1's Eastenders. Just because you've never heard of this person, doesn't mean nobody else hasn't! You can't keep doing this, many people are getting pissed off with this and quite frankly, I am, too. This article isn't just yours so can we be fair about this? Can I ask for your permission to re-enter Patel's name in the sub-article? Pretty please?

GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.60.46 (talk)

Bridge Street Mural

I've uploaded it for the Fu Xi figure. Is it worth adding the mural as a whole? It's entitled Bridge House Mural, Peterborough. --GwydionM (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - if anyone knows how to create a link to the image without showing the image itself, please let me know.

Put a colon in front, Image:Bridge House Mural, Peterborough.jpg. David Underdown (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--GwydionM (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Medeshamstede

There seems to be difference between this article and the one on Medeshamstede, relating to continuity of settlement. This needs to resolved. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Aston Merrygold

Could this person be included within the famous Peterborians section? He's notable enough now...

GrumpyGuts (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Guildhall, Cathedral and modern history pictures need replacing with better ones which have been uploaded to wikimedia (excluding modern history, will replace the house with Queensgate)

The two already uploaded images can be found here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg

GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than edit-warring (read WP:EDITWAR) over this, can I suggest that both you, User:GrumpyGuts and User:Chrisieboy take the time to discuss the matter on this talk page to attempt to gain a wider view about what to do here, rather than repeatedly adding and reverting the two images under question? Grumpyguts was free to replace the material, as outlined in WP:BRD, and Chrisieboy was also free to revert it, ideally once on both editors' parts.

But the error being committed on the article is that of failing to then discuss the matter here, if disatisfaction still exists. Grumpyguts should have initiated a discussion on this page (in addition to the bald assertion made above) to get a wider range of views about which images are the better ones. Obviously this didn't happen, and I hope much is learned from this about better ways to procceed, but it might have been better if Chrisieboy then had initiated discussion here, given that Grumpyguts hadn't, and this may well have protected him/her somwhat from any future accusations of edit-warring.

Currently, unhappily, both of you are heading towards a 3rr violation, and one or both of you could get blocked (depending on who does what next) if anyone chooses to report this, or if the repeated adding and reversions get noticed by another passing administrator.

Can I suggest that you both put the images, side by side, on the page here, and invite others to comment on which looks the better one out of each pair. That way, the underlying principles concerning WP:CONCENSUS can be satisfied, and it stands a good chance of arriving at a better solution because more people can critically evaluate the relative merits of both photos. DDStretch (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried this, like above, but User: Chrisieboy obviously isn't interested and doesn't want to comment. GrumpyGuts (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the current picture in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterborough_Front.JPG

...and this is what should replace it

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg

This is the other current image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pbguildhall.jpg

...and this is what should replace it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg

are the replacements good enough? Comment! GrumpyGuts (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I suggested would be better:

	Current	Proposed
Cathedral		File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg
Guildhall		File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg

Now everyone can immediately see them side-by-side to make a more informed judgment. DDStretch (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of the images proposed are copyright violations and may be speedy deleted. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So it now appears. The discussion is therefore over, and the current images must remain. However, the copyvio was not known at the time the edit-warring was going on, and so that problem was still an issue. DDStretch (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you then, why you did not mention this immediately, rather than engage in smart-alec comments on GrumpyGuts talk page about them being "horrendous" and so on? We are supposed to be collaborating here, which means being as open and informative as possible to our fellow editors, especially when a simple error of not noticing that fact on the part of GrumpyGuts and others may have happened. The matter could have been resolved quickly if you had merely informed the relevant talk pages about those facts. As it is, you perpetuated the edit-war when it could have been stopped very quickly. DDStretch (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The "horrendous" images were taken on the user's mobile phone. Please try to remember to assume good faith next time you wade in. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Along with you remembering not to edit war... DDStretch (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better if I ask the Flickr user if I can use those images?

GrumpyGuts (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That sometimes yields results, and would probably be worth trying. In future, I recommend using this tool to see whether an image is suitable for commons and generating the file info. All you have to do is put in the file number, which is the last part of the url of the image. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the images with a proper camera:

	Current	Proposed
Cathedral
Guildhall

What do you guys think? GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's space for the Telegraph picture, so I support its use. The first two images proposed are of higher resolution than the originals, and the new cathedral image is taken from a better angle so I support the inclusion of both. The cathedral one is a bit washed out, so you might want to retake the picture with a shorter exposure time say 1/500 rather than the 1/350 used. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I can photoshop this picture to make it darker if it's a better solution than to retake it, it's so much better than the current one (except the absence of a chunk of the arch, the thing is massive!) GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In terms of the Cathedral and Guildhall, in both cases I prefer the original images. Why do you think they need replacing and why do you think that yours are better? I have taken the liberty of adding the picture of New Priestgate House to the Peterborough Evening Telegraph article however, where it is better suited. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well for one, as Nev1 just said, my images are of a bigger resolution and are much better quality. The old pictures are smaller and aren't very good quality. I have just changed the exposure to the Cathedral so it looks even better :) GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the original cathedral image is that at a quick glance is that the building on the right appears to be attached to the front of the cathedral; the angle in the new picture does not have the same problem. While the composition of the guidhall picture is nice (good sky, good colours generally), the image is too small and since there is a larger one available, I think it should really be replaced. Ideally, the original image would have been a lot bigger. Nev1 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As their primary use is as thumbnails, I don't think size is as important as aesthetics. Although the Cathedral picture is improved, I do prefer the original and oppose the change. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Although the Cathedral picture is improved, I do prefer the original and oppose the change": could you explain why you prefer the old cathedral image even though it's an improvement? Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've took the liberty of taking my time to take these pictures to the best of my ability, even though the camera I used wasn't very good. Look at the quality! I'm trying my best to improve the article but you do have the right to oppose. You just don't make sense, those images are a million times better GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the file history, the exposure has been changed from 1/350 to 1/500, per Grumpy's comments above. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with that? Nev suggested this so I've done it. Lucky for me, I have the old 1/350 if that's the issue! GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to Nev1, per my edit summary. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"According to the file history, the exposure has been changed from 1/350 to 1/500, per Grumpy's comments above" That doesn't answer the question GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to add these images or not? C'mon, fellas. I didn't take these for nothing, the Cathedral one has been editied again and will be replaced at a later date. I need a verdict GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm for it, they're an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. For the reasons given above. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

...you oppose it because the exposure was changed? (Laugh)

At the moment, it's two against one because I support GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As everyone's agreed the cathedral picture is better, I've replaced it in the article, but not the guildhall. I still believe the new guidhall image is superior to the one uses because of it's greater definition. Images are not merely to illustrate, but to inform and a bigger, better defined image will obviously be better at doing this. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nev1 please revert yourself, I have agreed no such thing. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You ask him to revert but you just revert mine without notice...I feel really loved now GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heopfully Chrisboy is now asking because he learnt from the earlier incident. "Although the Cathedral picture is improved, I do prefer the original and oppose the change": you admitted the new image is better (or perhaps I misunderstand you) and failed to provide a reason why to keep the old one. I like it is not good enough. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious, but in case further clarification is required, I was referring to my first impressions of Grumpy's second version, not the (then) current image. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have the 1/350 version. I'm going into town again tomorrow and I'll retake it with the 1/500 exposure and the Guildhall if the weather is better. I still don't see a reason why you dislike the second version GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now, and will provisionally revert my change. However, unless you provide reasons why this image is better than this one, the new image will end up being used in the article. As I have said, images should be informative, not merely decorative and the larger images fulfil this better. Also, the new angle of the cathedral is less misleading. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to use the new Cathedral picture? I'm sick of looking at the old one GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reasons have been stated for replacing the cathedral picture and no counter argument has been forthcoming. The second picture is not only higher res, but more aesthetically pleasing. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. For the reasons given above. Namely, 1) the primary function is as a thumbnail to illustrate the text and therefore arguments about resolution are spurious; and 2) the current picture is more aesthetically pleasing. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's not spurious as images are meant to be informative as well as look good; in fact they should be informative first and foremost as this is an encyclopedia not a photo album. Therefore, a higher resolution image is superior. Also, you've completely ignored the fact that the new picture has a better angle. I find the angle of the new image more aesthetically pleasing, what do you like about the old one? Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the policy that states images should necessarily be replaced ones of a higher resolution? The fact that the proposed image is taken from a better angle is (also) your opinion; in my view, as someone familiar with the subject, the version of the west front straight on is a better, more typical and realistic perspective. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy explicitly stating what you say, I'm using common sense. The old image is partially obscured by another building, something the new image does not suffer from. Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I DO NOT know how else to put it, the current image has been OBSCURED by ANOTHER building. Instead of focusing on the Cathedral itself, users will have to deal with ANOTHER building because it is IN THE WAY. The proposed image IS BETTER because it is less MISLEADING, of better QUALITY, RESOLUTION and informs in a BETTER perspective. I don't know WHY you CAN'T see this GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough if the original was tiny, but it isn't and there are other images in the dedicated article, where this could be added to the gallery. The Cathedral is not "partially obscured," it is framed in the context of the adjacent buildings in the Minster Precinct, whereas, in the proposed version, it looks deceivingly isolated; that is the actual angle of approach. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The image is supposed to be of the Cathedral, NOT any other building. It HAS been obscured (means it's in the way, by the way) and is misleading. The first time I saw that image, I thought it was attached to the Cathedral. Now, I must be going mad to think that the current image is better than the proposed GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same reaction when I first saw the image (I also thought it didn't look great, but seeing the new image I see I was wrong). Despite Chrisieboy's objections, the concensus seems to be that the image should be replaced. However, with only three editors involved, I think a broader range of opinions is required to settle this. I will leave a message on the WP:UKGEO talk page asking for more input. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, how about this image as a compromise (the licence is commons compatible). The angle ensures the cathedral is not obscured, while showing some of the surrounding buildings. Also, it's hi-res and looks good in thumbnail form. Nev1 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that one, it is at night time and the person who took it must of been tilted...not saying it isn't good but should be the mabey list GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget that, the search parameters I was using had reset and the image is not free for us to use. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

After a slight slip up, I think I've found a very good picture [1]. Some benefits as last time, except it's not at night and the colours look right. Nev1 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good, just the picture needs cropping from the left side which I can do...just need more people to comment GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight over-exposure on the left side of the photo, but not major (could this be clipped a bit?), and definitely better than the current one. I would say change the current image to this one. DDStretch (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the cropped version [2] GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly better than the rather gloomy one proposed by Grumpy, but I still do not see the need to change it. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also looks better than the current image to me and is, I consider, an improvement over its first version. DDStretch (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Two other people are up for the change, I don't see why you (chrisieboy) can't see the reason for the change. The new image has has been uploaded to the name of PBcath(dot)jpg GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's hold off until tomorrow before adding it to the article to allow time for more people to add their opinions if they want. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The cropped version loses one of the tops of the spires. The original one is representative of what you see as you first enter the close, and is a pretty iconic representation in that respect. The other proposed version is somewhat side-on. Something taken from the corner of Becket's would be a good compromise (I'm no longer within easy reach). The layout of the close does make it hard to get a really good photo. David Underdown (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't cropped the height of the image...the cathedral is so big the lense couldn't capture all of it GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of green int eh foreground though, something taken from the same sort of position (which looking at it again is pretty mush wehre I suggested above), but with better framing would probably work. At the moment though, there's no clear winner, so no particualr reason to change from the original. David Underdown (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that we have all these photos as options too. --Jza84 | Talk 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposed image has been changed with a slightly more front angle, better colours and less of the left spire missing. Can we re-elect on this? GrumpyGuts (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Population

The population figure in the intro differs from the Peterborough info box...the intro figure is referenced but the info box one isn't, yet they are from the same year (2007). Can this be changed so it shows the 2008 figure? Both of them?

GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox figure actually seems to be for June 2006, and is based on the latest data from the Office of National Statistics. The population figure seems to have a magic template which will automatically pull in the latest data once it's released. I've settled on the 2006 data since this is probably the most settled, the 2007 projection was given in a Paliamentary written answer in 2006, so confusingly it's actually older than the 2006 figures now given. David Underdown (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I made the exact change before but it was reverted, mabey because I didn't state 2006..I don't know but least it doesn't conflict anymore. Thanks GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough Cathedral

	Current	Proposed
Cathedral

I'm still proposing an image change as this new image has been used for the Peterborough Cathedral article.

I reckon this image is far more colourful than the current one, bigger and more informative in terms of not being mis-leading. The current image has a building in the way, smaller and less colourful. The Peterborough article needs an update! GrumpyGuts (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The contrast is actually better in the original image, allowing detail to be seen more easily. Fine, there isn't the minor overlapping of one of the other buildings in theclose on the new image, but equally we lose the top of a spire which isn't ideal really. I did think you were being a little naughty in changing the image on the Cathedral page whist it was unresovled here, but I didn't want to start another edit war. David Underdown (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough Cathedral article isn't the place concerned. If it wasn't wanted it would have been reverted. Chrisieboy reverted the first time but not the second. It's a shame that it has some of the spire missing, yet that's a fraction of the cathedral missing compared to a large chunk because of a building GrumpyGuts (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough - The Arts

I reckon we need to change the picture of the Royal Albert Hall. Although it depicts Peterborough Cathedral, the hall isn't in Peterborough. I have taken the liberty of photographing the Key Theater. I feel this image is better suited for the article

	Current	Proposed
- The Arts

GrumpyGuts (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The Royal Albert Hall is of (inter)national importance. An article should be started at Key Theatre and the image used there. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be true but if you look at other articles on cities, they have pictures of what the city includes. Why have a picture of something that is around 90 miles away? We may need a bigger opinion on this 'Support' GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support A picture of the Royal Albert Hall seems like a non-sequitor unless the arts section deals with Peterborough's depiction in the arts. As the section now reads, an image of the Key Theatre would be more relevant, however I think the section should be expanded. The section also needs a copy edit: "The theatre provides... enlightenment". Pretty big claim for a small theatre. If the section isn't expanded, a picture of the theatre would be much more relevant. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well how about if we add both? GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Both pictures could be used, although one would end up in the section below (but there's plenty of space to do that, so not necessarily a bad thing). Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that section to be expanded a wee bit to make way for a new image. What do you think, Chrisieboy? GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't wish to comment. It'll be done in due time GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough Cathedral (2)

	Current	Proposed
Cathedral

I'm still proposing an image change as this new image has been used for the Peterborough Cathedral article. Chrisieboy believes the concensus before the previous section doesn't exist so I am creating another one.

I reckon this image is far more colourful than the current one, bigger and more informative in terms of not being mis-leading. The current image has a building in the way, smaller and less colourful. The Peterborough article needs an update!

GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Image of Peterborough Cathedral

Rerun time folks. Cutting to the chase compare the following two images:

	Current	Proposed
Cathedral

The two images are similar, but the one on the right has better colour and isn't washed out. Also, although the angle is very similar, the building to the side of the image is no longer obscuring the cathedral. Opinions please. Nev1 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's from the same angle and is alot better. Although it could be cropped from the left GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The left has been slightly cropped, but wikipedia is a little behind commons atm. Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Update map

England map needs updating to reflect 2009 structural changes. MRSC (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.