Talk:Norwich

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 18 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Echinkle22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of British[edit]

The percentage is very high for ethnicity 'white', that is misleading as Polish and other white EU nationals make a considerable % of Norwich residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.77.207 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures for travel to work area[edit]

I suggest amending the population figure for the travel to work area to 282,000 in line with the mid-2009 population figure stated by the office of national statitistics, [1] , this is significantly different from the figure currently quoted in the article and also considerably less than the 1991 figure quoted in the article. Unless there are better sources that contradict this figure.

Caractacusrex (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split out transport section?[edit]

I suggest that we split out the transport section into a separate article for 'Transport in Norwich' as has been done with Transport in Ipswich, Transport in Luton and Transport in Manchester etc. PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making it "transport in norfolk" with norwich as sub header Chaosdruid (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Our experience is that a town provides a nice focus for an article and that there will be plenty of content to justify an article for a reasonable sized town. For smaller places (<50K population?) the transport details can be included in the town article. It may be appropriate to have a transport section/article for a county for inter-urban travel, however that might possibly sit well as an article for the region. For now though lets focus on the city itself. PeterEastern (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following your examples I agree that it should be possible. (PS who is the "Our" in our experience ?)
The section is at present concise and already there are redirects to main articles for Rail, Park and ride, NNDR and Postwick Hub
What exactly are you proposing to do ? remove the section to another page? expand it massively?
I can see from the Luton page that the section on transport is a sad section...perhaps you should just add a page for "Norwich proposed transport" and add a link beneath that header ?
Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I say 'Our' I mean a three people who have worked to build up content up about transport in the East of England while working for ITO World Ltd. ITO is a transport information company and we are interested in having a better understanding of the probably future evolution of our transport system in the UK. We have some funding support for this from a research project which is supported by the Department for Transport and Technology Strategy Board.[2]. Check out the List of future transport developments in the East of England to see what we have been up to - nearly all the schemes listed there have content that we have worked on in them including all the maps etc (ie quite a lot of work). We also provide a lot of support to OpenStreetMap. I agree that the content left in the main Luton article is a little thin and possibly more of the core information should have been retained. I am also happy to leave all the content in the Norwich article for now with a view to spinning it out if it gets too big. There is more to add about the future from the official transport strategy and then some people might want to add historical information. Personally I would prefer to keep detail of the past, current and future together in a single article with a summary in the Norwich article rather than split out the proposed from the current. PeterEastern (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool ! Site looks pretty impressive to say the least !
I worked for the DWP a few years ago and was on the "Green Initiative" as rep for my department...unfortunately no one wanted to try and cycle to work with us, but the battery disposal initiatives were widely accepted lol
The history of transport is pretty important and understanding future needs also - would like to see those included so maybe we should think of merging some of the non main page linked topics (road, water, bicycle and proposed) and do a more complete version to link to later.
The train guys have some info about the other 2 railway stations from pre 1950 in that main Norwich_Thorpe_railway_station Maybe merging some of them into a more comprehensive article would be better - these pages are a bit all over the place it must be said.
Maybe a page concentrating more on Road and future developments with links to the others would be best ? We could recreate the links as they are in the Norwich page and expand further once you have created it?Chaosdruid (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the direction from the past tells us a lot about where we are likely to be heading into the future; for that reason I am consciously keeping the scope of the NDR article to be the whole of the original route to then document how the pressure now builds for the rejected sections to be built which is now happening. I suggest that 'past railway stations' will probably need to retain their own short articles for other purposes, but their construction and passing should be noted in the transport history section of 'Transport in Norwich', there may however be other candidates for merger in the Norwich areas. It sounds as though you could help add some history to a 'Transport in Norwich' article;) I would like to know the story around the road building in the 1960s for example but won't be able to help with that - were you aware for example that it was one of the example towns in Traffic in Towns (1963) as a 'typical ancient town where traffic could be restrained'. We need a section on cycling and the proposals there. I should also have linked to Ideas in Transit which is the research project we are involved in. I believe that we are now in agreement on the proposed split on the understanding that core information about the current transport system for the city is retained in the main article? PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split declined. The transport section is not too large, and I have reduced it further by removing some excessive detail. The aim of an entry in a general encyclopaedia is to give a basic overview useful to the general reader - adding too much fine detail rather than being helpful to the reader can in fact be off-putting. Transport in Norwich is not in itself a notable enough topic for a stand alone article. The priority for the section at the moment is reliable sourcing. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT SilkTork *YES! 08:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have any strong opinions either way on whether there should be a stand-alone article for Transport in Norwich, I think that a case could be made for a separate article but I accept that a 'Transport in Norfolk' or some other arrangement may well be better.
In my view it was certainly right to cut back the Transport section in this article though, it was far too long and detailed before and even now is still around the same length as the Transport section in London. Transport is no more important that, say Economy or Culture, and should not be given an excessive treatment just because editors active on this article are extremely knowledgeable on the topic.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Community" Section added 29/01/2010[edit]

I have reverted this edit or addition because I don't think it adds to the article in its present form. I have these points about it:-

  1. I'm unsure of what exactly is meant by "Community" as a heading. Surely it is much wider than just education and the NCT?
  2. If there is to be mention of education in Norwich, then it should be fuller and more accurate i.e. how many primaries, secondaries, academies. The growth of the latter in Norwich is an interesting subject which I think needs expansion. Middle schools have all disappeared now, as I understand.
  3. Spelling and capitalisation need to be right, plus there should be some wikilinks.
  4. UEA and NUCA have been covered in some detail in other sections of the article. Perhaps there needs to be a wholesale alteration and movement if there is to be a section on Education or Community.

Given the present size of the Norwich article, I think we need to give very careful thought to new sections being added, in order to avoid duplication and making it too unwieldy and/or turgid. My views, of course, and I'd welcome suggestions. Roaringboy 11:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

"This Article has Multiple Issues"[edit]

I hope that I'm not alone in NOT wishing to see this every time I look at the article!

Perhaps we should really do something about adding the references and sources they call for. I may be wrong, but as far as I can make out, they seem mainly required in the history pages, mostly the earlier ones.

If I surmise right, then I'm happy to make a start on this problem. Before I do so, I'd welcome the comments and suggestions of other editors. Roaringboy 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

It's long overdue. The article has become an accumulation of miscellaneous facts about the city, some notable, others not. Some self-promotion may also have crept in. I think some pruning is definitely required by someone willing to "sub-edit". There have been suggestions to split into separate articles, and I think this should also be considered, as it's very long. – Agendum (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. - There seems to be a certain amount of redundancy in the article, with things being covered in fair detail more than once. This goes a long way towards making the whole as big as it is. Certainly pruning would reduce the thing to a more manageable length. I also agree that there may be some "puffs" which shouldn't really be there. - Whilst I agree that there could perhaps be less information overall (or it be better and more tightly phrased) and that there are some fairly detailed and abstruse sections (see 35 above re Transport) which might be better discussed in detail as a separate topic, I think that the benefit of a full but not verbose entry is that anyone wishing to find information of any sort on Norwich will find it or pointers to it in the main article. I'm thus wary of splitting away too much in complete chunks, although an abridged entry under Norwich with links to a detailed separate article would probably do the job. - I had a look out of interest at some other articles about UK cities of comparable size (e.g. Exeter), and some of these in my view give an indication of how Norwich should look. - There are Norwich topics like the education system which could do with amplification, especially in the light of present changes. --Roaringboy 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

I've removed the Multiple Issues tag. The article is clearly in pretty strong shape today, and appears to be well-deserving of its class B rating. Keep improving! PKT(alk) 14:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caley's Chocolate[edit]

The article states that it is produced in Norwich, having been resurected from under Nestle. Although the packaging and their website quotes "Caley's of Norwich" it is actually made in Hampshire using an existing chocolate manufacturer (under license, if you like). The story can be read here: http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED17%20Jul%202010%2008%3A08%3A21%3A243 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisR (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes to reflect the information above.

--Roaringboy 07:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

Separate Education section[edit]

I feel that it might be better to split education out into a separate section, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (which I accept was written specifically for U.S. cities but is still a useful guide) and many other English city articles e.g. York and Newcastle upon Tyne. Education presently seems to be incorporated in Culture, which seems imperfect to say the least. There is quite a lot to say about Education since Norwich is home to a number of notable education institutions, such as the University of East Anglia, City College Norwich, Norwich University College of the Arts, Norwich School and Norwich High School for Girls.

I also feel that it would be better to have a Geography section, which could incorporate the present Architecture and Climate sections and also move the article closer to best practice.

I would welcome any thoughts that anyone else might have on either of these suggestions. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm inclined to agree with you that education should be a separate section. My reasons are advanced in my comments on the "Community" topic which precedes this discussion. To summarise these briefly, the diversity of education provision in Norwich and the speed of change (loss of middle schools as part of a countywide change, the rapid change to academies, the possibility of one or more free schools etc.) mean that Norwich is home to some interesting and important educational developments, as well a variety of establishments.

UEA/NUCA appear in the Culture section because of their cultural importance (Sainsbury Centre, creative writing etc.) rather than as any attempt to shoehorn them in there as part of Education.

I agree that climate could well be in a geography section but, whether best practice or not, I would not have thought that Architecture (which to me is mainly historical as well as cultural) would be well-suited to being subsumed into such a section. The city is noted for its architecture, as a brief perusal of sources such as Pevsner will show, and in my view is therefore worthy of a separate section. --Roaringboy 07:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

city photo[edit]

Could a more attractive photograph of Norwich be used? 86.160.228.182 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this (left) if it was higher resolution and with less foreground perhaps? Otherwise the river view might be an improvement. Any local photographers up for the challenge?--Charles (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have particular disadain for the image used in the infobox at present. It is extremely dark, shows little of the city outline and was put in by a bot.
The old picture was fine as far as I can see [3] ... Chaosdruid (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without the captions it would be.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - but cannot identify the person credited unfortunately. I would try and remove the text but for the fact that the castle has all those trees obscuring it.
It has been raining today but I will try and see if I can get some in the next few days, weather permitting. This one is quite pretty [4] though I do not expect mine to turn out that nice lol Chaosdruid (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any progress on this? The current picture is ghastly. My civic pride is quite affronted Jamrifis (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the infobox image is awful. The ideal solution would be a montage of better photos (for those who may be unsure what I mean by montage please take a quick look at Birmingham or Milan). I don't personally have the software needed to produce such a montage e.g. Paint Shop Pro, but if I were able to prepare a draft image I would try to include the following pictures:

Unsigned, but I believe this was posted by Rangoon.

I was hoping to get this done, but it seems like every time I have the chance it has been raining or a dull day. The montage is not really a good idea as those images can be better used to illustrate points not easily explained in the sections.

The pic (above and on the left) seems great as a pic for "The viewing spot from Mousehold Heath" as it has too much foreground and bushes/trees in it but, if the photo was taken from about 100 feet further forwards, would be much better!. I was going to take some from the that actual viewing marker and then assemble into a panorama.

I will try again over this weekend - weather permitting! Chaosdruid (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, are you against the idea of a montage in general, or just one including those images? Four of the images above are in any case currently all used in the Architecture section, which seems slightly excessive and also a bit of a waste as I expect that a very large amount of visitors to the page don't actually look that far down.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the top of the page the article is on the CD and for schools. The pictures are not excessive as they show Norman, 14th century, medieval and modern architecture as well as showing the mix existing in the centre. These are all things which are difficult to put into a few words, necessary as this is a summary of the "main" articles.
I am not against montages per se, just where they are used it should be to show lots of differrent things, not just architecture. A few monuments, some parks or gardens, intrinsic ethnic qualities, notable people etc.
The point I was making is that the original picture was a skyline shot. That is what we are trying to either source/recreate or to add something in its place while a suitable replacement skyline is found. A montage can always be included as well, although there are those who consider montages a no-go, I personally only feel they are useful when used correctly and no other suitable picture exists. The Kiev page used to have one, as did many others, but there are a few good panoramas there now. The difference is that Norwich is on hills and really the only good panorama is from the location above top left^^
Also there is the difficulty of image use, it would be preferable to use thumbnails in wikitables rather than creating one picture out of many. This would allow individual clicking on images without having to set up an image map and array - much more easily changed if one image is found to be problematic.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Moushold pic, take one nearer the edge of the hill showing all of Norwich from that vantage point maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.210.113 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domesday Book references[edit]

Referring to the Penguin Classics edition of the Alecto translation I see on folio 116V:Norfolk (which contains part of Norwich Hundred):

... And on the land of which Harold had the soke there are 15 burgesses and 17 empty messuages which are in the occupation of the castle. And in the borough [there are] 190 empty messuages in this [quarter] which was in the soke of the king and earl, and 81 in the occupation of the castle. ...

The phrase "in the occupation" is interesting. The 98 messuages clearly still exist at the date of compilation, for the scribe uses the present tense and is recording that which can potentially be taxed. I wondered at first if this meant that the property had been seized as lodging or barracks, but I have been advised that it may mean that the messuages had been enclosed by the curtain wall of the castle. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Bodies[edit]

In the Medieval section there is a paragraph on the bodies found in a well in 2004. It is my opinion that the matter is not as cut and dried as the current text makes out. However, this view is original research, so I cannot make the edits myself. I list below a couple of sources for others to make a determination as to the notability of the counterveiling position.

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/British-Jews-to-bury-medieval-massacre-victims-306943

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/103175/norwich-bury-bones-%E2%80%94-jewish-or-not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan West (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UEA not a plate glass university?[edit]

The article states:

'The University of East Anglia on the outskirts of Norwich is, contrary to popular belief, not one of the so-called plate glass universities. The UEA (founded 1963), along with Sussex University, were both founded before the Robbins Report ...'

This seems to assume that only 'Robbins universities' count as plate glass. However, the term is generally applied to all universities in the U.K. founded from scratch (i.e. not based on some existing institution) in the 1960s. The definition assumed here is also at odds with that in the Wikipedia article on Plate Glass University, though of course that isn't decisive. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_glass_university Norvo (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to sourcing. The (counter-)claim is unsourced so can be struck but equally there is no cite that it is known as a "plate glass". The article on Plate glass universities is equally flawed and does not show that the term is in common use, let alone that the UEA is one of them. The answer is to see what the sources say. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither article gives any source for the claim that UEA is or is not a plate glass university, how about simply giving the date of foundation unless a reliable source for "plate-glassiness" or otherwise is found? Norvo (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds the best solution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Populated with Oxford graduates with 1st class undergraduate degrees (then moving on to research degrees elsewhere) as lecturers, there's nothing much 'from scratch' about the UEA circa 2013.--2.222.77.207 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City Council[edit]

Hi everyone, I created a page for Norwich City Council -- previously it simply redirected to Norwich. Feel free to improve it. I also moved the non-vital information about the city council's coat-of-arms there too as it's only incidental to the city's governance (and isn't really in line with Wikipedia:Summary style). Cheers, Duffit5 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split history section to separate article[edit]

Hi everyone, at a whopping 39 paragraphs by my count the History section no longer provides a summary of the city's history. I propose we should split the history section to its own article, History of Norwich. Similar has been been done in other UK cities such as History of Sheffield (FA class), History of Bristol (GA). What do people think? Duffit5 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly normal thing to do. The only points to remember are 1) maintain the contribution history when you do the cut and paste (see Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article for instructions) and 2) leave an adequate summary behind. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a good idea, as it has "grown like Topsy". A residual summary is definitely necessary, as one of the main things about Norwich is its history. Readers with a general interest should be provided with enough historical background, and, if they wish to know more, then off to the separate History entry. The one thing I do have some reservations over is the 20th Century section, and the latter part of the Victorian. These contain information (such as shawls, brewing etc.) which is of an "industrial" nature; rather more so than truly "history". I would suggest that these pieces of information remain in the main article in pretty much their present form. It may of course be necessary to coalesce them under a heading of (for example), "Norwich Industries" or something of that nature. Roaringboy (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most Norwich industry is now history though. Wire netting, steel/wood construction buildings, shoes, electric control equipment, confectionary, crackers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for your input. I have started to trim down the summary in my sandbox: User:Duffit5/sandbox/History of Norwich summary. Feel free to chip in if you like. Once we have a workable summary then I think we can make the split. Roaringboy, yes the industries you mention are historically important and are worth discussing in any account of the city's history. I also think there is scope to go into greater detail about these historically important industries in "Economy" section. FYI, looking at more recent information about Norwich's economy, manufacturing only accounts for 8% of employment (business and financial services and the public sector being by far the largest sectors at 31% and 26%, respectively).[1] Duffit talk 02:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Population and Employment Figures". Norwich City Council. Retrieved 3 February 2014.

Esoteric association[edit]

Is this section of bit of WP:UNDUE? Within this article some of the content is -in my opinion - borderline notable for inclusion. Some could be transposed to expand the entries in the list of notable residents but are uncommon symbology in monuments and tombs that important outside of the articles on the locations where they are present? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I did have some reservations about it being so prominent so I moved it to the bottom of the Culture section, but the content seems innocuous and referenced. Personally I think it's best to leave it be for now as the problem with unreferenced material is more significant than a few obscure facts. Duffit talk 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Norwich. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 10:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


21st century[edit]

The "period" history articles go up to the 20th century. As we are about to enter 2016 in the 21st century, I wonder if perhaps there are some things of historic record or interest which have occurred in the present century? Many changes or developments have been covered in the "Economy" section, but there must surely be more.

I'd welcome any ideas on how to bring this up to date with a new 21st century section; or whether this is indeed needed.

I'm mindful of the proposal to split the history section out as discussed in 13 above, but which was not done. Is this an opportunity to do so now?

Roaringboy (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Norwich. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

School merge[edit]

I have suggested that Town Close School should be merged to here as it is a non-notable primary, as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Any comments appreciated. CalzGuy (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At the moment all the school's article does is attract vandalism. Zortwort (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Norwich. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Norwich. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AD vs CE[edit]

Currently this article has one use of AD and one use of CE. From the creation of this article in 2002 until 29 March of this year, only AD was used. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is clear that only one style in an article gets used and "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." On 29 March, one of the two ADs was changed and no reason or comment was given, let alone a substantial one. For nearly 20 years this article used only AD. I merely edited the article to make it consistent with MoS. Masterhatch (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this article has two uses of CE unless someone's been faffing about again. CE/BCE are commoner these days also on Wikipedia, but please yourselves. Why you expect me to list the arguments instead of looking them up I'm not sure. To sum up, anyway, "CE and BCE are often used by those of faiths and backgrounds who don't worship Jesus, or in contexts where it makes no sense to refer to Christianity — such as in historical research." You didn't know that? Ah well. That's all I have to say on the matter. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"CE/BCE are commoner these days also on Wikipedia" is probably not true, but who knows. We should of course follow the WP:ERA rules. Don't know where that dubious quote came from. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that quote too. As for which is most common, that's irrelevant. Wikipedia is more about most common in English anyway, not what is more common within wikipedia. For my two cents, though, it seems like BC/AD is still most common overall in wikipedia and most of the BCE/CEs have been recently changed to that (like this article). What i find WAY too common is articles that use both styles--BC/AD & BCE/CE)-- like this article did. For the past few weeks if i run across an article that uses both, I'll go back to see which was used 1st and when it changed then I'll clean up the article using the original style. Most of the time BC/AD was 1st but sometimes BCE/CE was 1st. Masterhatch (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this the way to do it, ideally also checking to see if it is one of the extremely rare cases where there has actually been a discussion like this on talk. A consensus there will over-rule anything else, per ERA. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split the article as proposed Amitchell125 (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​​​ I propose that section Norwich#Notable_people be split into a separate page called List of people from Norwich. The content of the current page seems off-topic and the section is large enough to make its own page. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The people section could be more focussed towards people from Norwich who well known and associated with Norwich (St Delia?) over people who are from (or spent time in) Norwich but Norwich is not part of the identity - eg the very Welsh Ruth Madoc, Aryton Senna for which there are the Categories.
Section doesn't need "notable" in the title because they have articles and by definition article = wiki-notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of your splitting propsal, please do it. (At least unless someone is about to come up with an exceptionally good reason not to.) And set up an idiot-proof link from the Norwich page to the new page. The Norwich article still gives our ISP connection difficulties here in England (and not too far from Norwich) on account if its size. I thought we'd seen an end to all that when we were browbeaten into supplementing the copper wire telephone link with an all singing all dancing (and quite expensive) twenty-first century cable laid by a couple of Ukrainian gentlemen in an alarmingly shallow trench under the grass beside the lane here, but somehow ... no. I don't necessarily disagree with Graeme Leggett's observations, but they don't really address the question asked on this occasion. If you feel strongly about it, maybe start a separate discussion on the talk page here? Be well Charles01 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to the split, but not that the content is "off topic". Please seeWikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Settlements:_Article_structure#Notable_people and Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people, both of which state that "Notable people" sections should be included.
Because of the strange way that "readable prose size" is calculated, that excludes lists such as "Notable people", but still gives a "readable prose size of 88kB. As per WP:SIZERULE articles with a readable prose size of over 60 kB "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)"
As the "Notable people" do not count towards "readable prose size" the article will still be over 60kB after splitting them off - so what else could be split off? - Arjayay (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Arjayay, I'm currently looking at FA/GA articles on cities, and the top-end ones don't list people (Winnipeg has an article similar to the one I'm proposing). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodness, yes, that needs splitting. And do include "notable" in the title - our average reader is entirely ignorant of our in-house rules. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'I'd also like to include 'notable' as per my original proposal. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would definitely support the split and then an extremely reduced 'notable people' section for the main Norwhich. I believe there is a MOS rule somewhere that lists of people shouldn't have the word 'notable' (though I'm not sure that anyone here was suggesting that should be done) but for the section in this article I'd agree with Gog that it's worth clarifying. Aza24 (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top of entry collage[edit]

I have today undone the reversion to the "image_skyline" Norwichcollage2019.png from the newer Norwich New Collage 2021.jpg. The main reason for doing so is that the captions are for the newer image and do not refer to the old png file. The reason that the editor gave for reverting to the older collage is that he thinks it is of far better quality than the new. The newer collage images are somewhat gloomy, and although it's a matter of aesthetics and preference, I don't think that I would choose the view of City Hall with Winchester Tower looming alongside, or the Castle with a crane dominating it.

I think that a) the new collage should be replaced with some different photos or b) the collage should be reverted to the 2019 version with the correct caption. My preference is for b), unless a better set of photos can be found for a).

Comments, please. Roaringboy Roaringboy 10:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two images of the cathedral- a tree is obscuring the detail of the entrance. Norwich is more than ancient buildings so old and new makes sense. A crane over the castle is about renewal. A photo of the RC would be better from down on Grapes Hill so its in context. No image of the market? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be the creator of the newer 2021 collage so any inquiries into my choices and suggestions is fine. I updated the collage on two simple reasons:
  • 1) The older one was really too close to each building and the view of Norwich Cathedral was not very clear as the building is much bigger and the reason for that photo of its longer self is to show the full length of the cathedral from the city centre part.
  • 2) The photo of City Hall was not the greatest in the other collage with the clock tower being quite high up and the RC cathedral was taken from one angle. At least in the aerial photo you can see all the major buildings clearer.

So if my suggestions are allowed, I would say use clearer photos then closeups or angles for showing important buildings because that one photo of Norwich Cathedral was really bad. I can provide a photo of the two cathedrals if someone wants another go at the collage. These photos show much better positions of the cathedral then close ups which don't show the full buildings as best they can. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I take the point about the crane and castle, but the crane will in time disappear, and I would suggest that what is needed is a photo of the permanent Castle, alone (at least for now) in all its glory. I have seen elsewhere some good photos of the Market, looking down upon it, but it's not a "skyline" thing or individual prominent building. There is a ground level Market photo in the "Retail" section, but another wider panoramic view might also be useful there, if only to illustrate the scale or extent of the Market.

The number of vantage points from which to photograph the two cathedrals and capture their bulk and size is limited, but any photos which do so would be welcome.Perhaps we could change the collage as suggested. Roaringboy Roaringboy 14:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes before the anon comes back here and tried reverting with out discussing first so I've reverted them DragonofBatley (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not familiar with Norwich, but have reverted the collage to the status quo, the one which appears to have been in place since at least Jan 2019, as a case of WP:BRD. Discussion could continue here. My own view is that the older collage shows five distinctive views of the city in clear attractive images, while the six new images are much less distinctive and, without zooming in on them, don't distinguish Norwich from many other European cities. PamD 07:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New photos for Norwich page are grey and mediocre[edit]

I think the old photos used on the other language Wikipedia pages for Norwich are better and the new photos uploaded by Dragonofbaitley are grey and mediocre-looking. The old photos were bright and close-up which meant you didn't have to open the image, while the new ones are zoomed out and largely taken in poor weather.

Thoughts?

The collage made by Deu is far superior

--Menacinghat (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its Batley not Baitley. Maybe @Menacinghat: read the user names first and no I think the new ones show the cathedrals and castle better then the other close up badly edited one cheers though for getting my username wrong though. Just what the encyclopedia needs DragonofBatley (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The six-image collage strikes me as dingy, compared with the five-image collage. Maproom (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population graph needs revision[edit]

In the population graph, the red "growth" line contradicts the blue "population" line, most obviously for earlier dates.TobyJ (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norwich&oldid=1217370752"