Peterborough is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 20, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 16, 2015 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. East Anglia B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography High‑importance 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 Wikipedia. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Voted three times in a row "worst place to live in England".^[1]

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

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

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

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

I agree with Crouch, Swale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The very second and subsequent sentences of the lead currently say

For centuries, the city and many of its surrounding villages formed the Soke of Peterborough, in the historic county of Northamptonshire. The Soke of Peterborough had an independent county council, based in the city, between 1889 and 1965. After the Soke of Peterborough was abolished in 1965, the city formed part of the short-lived Huntingdon and Peterborough until 1974. Though the city has a long history as part of Northamptonshire (from the Middle Ages up to 1965), the city has been part of Cambridgeshire since 1974, and is the largest settlement in that county.

Is this really the most important information about Peterborough? Yes, it is interesting to people who are interested in history (but administrative history????). It seems likely to me that many readers won't bother reading any of the article when this turgid prose tells them what they can expect. Yes, I realise that Peterburgians are proud of their individuality and heritage, but we try to write for a worldwide audience, not our neighbours.

So consider this an invitation to discuss the extent (if any) to which the historic local government arrangements belong in the lead, since it has been a bit of an edit warring battlefield recently.

Could the solution be a separate City of Peterborough article dealing with the administration of the District: if so it would certainly belong there. As a model of how that might work, see City of Milton Keynes v Milton Keynes. Comments welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with you @JMF - what's there currently is overly detailed. If it's important to mention the Soke of Peterborough in the lead remove [The Soke of Peterborough had an independent county council . . .] up to [as part of Northamptonshire (from the Middle Ages up to 1965)]. Retain as a new sentence "The city has been . . . ". Rupples (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I doubt that that will resolve the dispute. I think the basic problem is that the article as it stands is trying to do too much ("jack of all trades, master of none") and needs to be split so that it can give adequate coverage to each of modern Peterborough, historic Peterborough, civic Peterborough at least. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]