Talk:Northampton

Northampton received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-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 articles England Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Northamptonshire High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-related articles 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.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I seem to remember that Northampton applied unsuccesfully to become one of the "millenium cities" but lost out to Wolverhampton, am I right? G-Man 21:16, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I think that it also lost out to swindon. It is also mentioned that Milton Keynes is not a city, I always thought that it was even if not 'officially',Andham2000

Milton Keynes likes to pretend that it is a city. I think its population is smaller than that of Northampton. John Campbell 13:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective, Reading (232,662) and Dudley (194,919) are still larger towns by population than Northampton (189,474). Medway Towns (which, whilst grouped together by National Statistics actually comprises the settlements of Gillingham, Chatham, Rochester etc, has a total population of 231,659) is larger in total for the conurbation, but Milton Keynes (pop 184,506) is definitely smaller. - Census 2001 [1] DWaterson 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City status isn't usually granted to urban areas or to urban sub-areas, but to boroughs, though. I haven't reverted, but I've clarified that the claim relies upon several very dodgy definitions. Morwen - Talk 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to accept this change; it's certainly correct, and better than the original version. You're right that city status is usually applied to a Local Authority (whether it be called a Borough, Metropolitan Borough, London Borough, or District) rather than a settlement itself. DWaterson 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about parts of the Leisure and Culture section, such as: "...to follow in the footsteps of giants like Deep Purple, Madness and My cat dillion." Deep Purple didnt play at the Racehorse, right? --Jeffthejiff 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Deep Purple did many moons ago in the Back room, it was a venue similar to the Irish Centre back in the early 90's or the Roadmender previously (remember?). I wondered if I was a bit 'chatty' in that section though Andham2000 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Madness played in the 90's on their incognito tour.

Alright then, i just couldnt find anything else about them playing there. Maybe you might have been a bit too chatty and vague. I also cleaned up your My Cat Dillion article and renamed it with capital letters. jeffthejiff 11:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Jeff, This section is just name-dropping famous music acts that have absolutely no connection with Northampton other than they have played gig's there!! I suggest this paragraph is removed, possibly just leaving in reference to the genuine Northampton but not very famous My Car Dillion (sic). --80.177.124.44 13:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Ade_myers. So removed paragraph for now, --80.177.124.44 18:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ade_myers

Is Nothampton not larger than Dudley now, contradictory to what it says on the page? Sh4wz0r 07:28, 18 Sep 2008 (UTC) Sh4wz0r —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.22.3 (talk)

Probably (and equally I wouldn't be surprised if MK is more populous than Northampton), but let's wait for some official statistics to verify this. Matthew (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone write something about the Twinfest? That would be a part for Culture and the Twinning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.248.172.22 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has the roadmender actually shut now? It's a shame if it has. Mattyw 10:53 2 Dec 2005

Funding pulled by the Council last week - liquidation before Xmas :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 14:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the front of the chron and echo - it was shut down immediately yesterday. ---- jeffthejiff (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's shame. I moved out to go to uni a few years back. I loved that place. have the council said what they plan on doing with the building? --Mattyw 14:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roadmender Reopened in october, Trust me I live here.

Is anyone sure that Northants TV was ever on terrestrial? It seems highly unlikely to me. John Campbell 13:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was, yes, I think only for a year or so. Oxford had a similar local terrestrial channel too I believe. Tom- 14:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*a bit late in commenting* but it definetly was. I remember the excitement. Aah. But then they tried to make the reception better and ended up making it worse. Then it mysteriously closed down. Anyone know what the hell happened to it? That sentence i wrote in this article seems to be the largest source of information about Northants TV on the web. Has anyone got any other information about it? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, after a bit of delving, I can bring you... the Northants TV website! Or an archived version, at least. Ah... the memories of really quite crap local TV.

I heard they had plans to launch a full news operation with bulletins, but then they vanished off the face of the Earth. have a contact for someone who used to do some presenting there, so I may try to find out :) Tom- 21:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, i think i found a version on archive.org quite a while ago, but i could only get to the front page. ta. Although, there isnt much of worth there anyway, being a "temporary site". i tried to find the former HQ of Northants TV once, and nothing related to it was there. I wonder if that telephone number still works... Ooh, I found the logo though, hurrah. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they had a

Restricted service licence, as do/did about 30 other local TV stations across the UK. --Kiand 16:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

He is listed as living in Cogenhoe. However, the Peter Purves article says he lives in Suffolk. Does he have two homes? Or is there a mistake somewhere? --A bit iffy 12:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I thought that he was still at Cogenhoe - will look into it. 08:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning this film, to my knowlege it is the only mainstream film ever to be made in the town, so perhaps worth a mention.andham2000

There have been some that use rural Northants - who can forget 'Clockwise' starring John Cleese ? I seem to remember bits of the Goldeneye James Bond film were filmed near Harlestone ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason it was specifically claiming Northampton was never designated a new town. This is not actually true, and so I've changed it. Morwen - Talk 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection was that the New Town Commission set up the Northampton Development Corporation, which was responsible for the expansion in the Eastern District, as well as planned expansion in the West and South. However Northampton Borough Council continued, and the town as a whole did not receive the central funding that it would have it it had been designated as New Town. Milton Keynes in contrast was a New Town and gained a fully developed infrastructure. However I can't verify this, and the web references seem to indicate the contrary. I do wonder though if Northampton was gazetted as a New Town, but then never came fully on stream. Or was it that the expansion area under Northamton Development Corporation counted as a New Town? Can anyone help? John Campbell 13:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is incorrect, particularly when you click on the East Anglia link. It shows a completely different area of the country.

Well spotted - Ive changed it Jameswilson 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northampton is in the very edge of the East Midlands but has East Anglia TV

..and Northampton is in the recruiting area of the Royal Anglian Regiment, the Northamptonshire Regiment having amalgamated with the Lincolnshire Regiment, and then subsequently merged into the Royal Anglians.Cloptonson (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglian Regiment isn't East Anglian. The Royal Leicestershire Regiment also became part of it. Leicestershire is defenitely East Midlands. "Anglian" could refer to any part of England that was settled by Angles rather than Saxons or Jutes and therefore really any part of England north of the Thames. It could even refer to the south eastern part of Scotland. Northamptonshire has Anglia Television, receives Anglian Water (along with most of East Anglia) and is part of the East Midlands Rugby Union (along with Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire.) It is also in the East Midland Regional Area so far as national governmnent is concerned. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made some changes to the layout which were reverted with a "No that doesn't work". The changes I made and reasoning behind them were as follows:

• Put infobox at top of article - that is where I would expect (and have seen) infoboxes for all other articles.
• Moved Guildhall Building image to section that mentions it.
• Removed "See picture left/on top" as I don't think this reads well, and there is the extra problem of keeping the image layout and text in sync.

Comments on why this doesn't work welcome. MartinRe 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problems with it was that It squashed all the images into one small area, which didn't fit very well. Also many articles have images at the top such as Birmingham or Leicester for example, personaly I think It's good to have an introductory picture at the top of an article (my personal preference). The see picture thing could be turned into a link to the image perhaps. G-Man * 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Abington park...

The Park also hosts a high-class tearoom/restaurant "The Park Cafe" (formerly known as the 'The Old Oak'). It serves a menu of specialty coffees, a very wide selection of meals, and a special childrens menu. It has been under ownership of Tony Ansell since 1981.

Seems more like an advert to me. Not sure what makes it high-class, why we need to know it has achildrens menu or who runs it. Perhaps something that could be removed????

80.5.196.32 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Should this be deleted? A-Nottingham16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Lorna Fitzgerald back into the list. A Google search for 'Lorna Fitzgerald' returned 234,000 results, as opposed to Joan Hickson's 168,000. Joshua Issac (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if people would stop linking scandalous accusations to St Peter's Independent School, these comments are not helpful, and anyone considering sending their children to a school will research OFSTED reports anyway, without being linked directly to them. The page has a link to OFSTED, so why does St. Peter's have a 'special' link - if you're going to do that, link to every other school's most recent OFSTED report.
This school has had a good reputation for 30 years, and I have experienced over a decade of that.

"Until 2004 the county operated a three-tier system involving primary, middle and secondary schools." Shouldn't it be three-tier system involving lower, middle and upper schools. That's what they were called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.211.246 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct..~~

These are verifiable facts which are germane to the subject. Just because you find the matter distasteful is not a reason that an encylcopedia article should be censored. Crafty (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Numbers. This school seems to have been singled out for criticism. A) None of the other schools have ANY comments next to them, they're merely a list. B) The article vaguely states "subject of several controversial issues", but then all the links that it provides appear to point to one allegation which prompted an Ofsted visit. I note also that while the references quite happily point out that a charity commission investigation was launched, the result of the report is sadly absent. None of that seems particularly encyclopaedic to me. Factual accuracy and neutrality is not the same as censorship. danno 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OSTED report is there and states: "St Peter’s Independent School does not meet all the regulations for independent schools, and in particular the overall provision for pupils’ welfare, health and safety is inadequate. This is primarily because safeguarding procedures are inadequate. The failure to properly safeguard pupils means that the overall effectiveness of the Early Years Foundation Stage is inadequate. "A link stating The Headteacher has been cleared is also there" (current ref 19). The headteacher has now resigned. If this was a school like Eton there would be no question that these sort of links would be of major national interest. In this case is is of local interest only, though I wouldn't say major. One does wonder what the motives are of those who want to censor this information.Cj1340 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was about the school I'd agree. But it's about Northampton. Does it make the article more encyclopedic? Do I gather that none of the schools had anything positive to be said about them? That this is necessary to give the article good overall balance? That this is a relatively current event that must be in an encyclopedic article about Northampton, as opposed to other current events which are not? I don't think so.

talk) 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

88.107.78.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I concur with 88.107.78.95, but per

WP:COATRACK the article about the area to include a matter which is unlikely to be germane in a few years. Also, since this is a content dispute I would remind EVERYONE that WP:3RR is a clear line and not an entitlement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For what's it worth I concur with the IP, but they have been repeatedly reverting this for five days without sanction. I'm amazed. ninety:one 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same time the ip has been reverted without anyone bothering to discuss the matter - I, cynically, am not amazed. I have now reverted the last non ip editor and then fully protected the article while the ip is blocked; I wonder if any of the article revert warriors fancy their chances in taking me to ANI? I welcome it! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a constructive attitude, daring editors to run to ANI. I must disagree with your decision. Reverting to the version without the offending sentence, a version that still requires consensus, and then protecting the page, is not the right thing to do. ninety:one 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct - mind you, nor is ignoring the obvious consensus on this page to keep reverting the ip until they get blocked and then reverting the last ip edit as "vandalism". Two wrongs may not make a right, but unless people start talking and quoting policy and guideline for the inclusion of the material then they are going to have to take the lumps as they are doled out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologise for the constant reverting, but I'm sure you can sympathise that you wish to protect something when it's close to your own heart. Thank you for removing the 'offending' sentence - as has been mentioned by others, surely it is a list and should stay that way?

Thanks once again.

88.107.78.95 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the article. I very strongly urge that this page is used to arrive at consensus for why the material should be included - quoting the relevant policies and guidelines. Please note that I am against inclusion per

WP:COATRACK

and I am certain only should it be proven that these policies are not appropriate, and that the inclusion is encyclopedic and in keeping with relevant policy that it will be again included. Until it does, I emphasise that it should not be included in the article.

To the ip editor, please only refer to WP policy and guidelines - WP is

not censored to remove embarrassing content, but inclusion is based upon encyclopedic principles only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting that this article is supposed to be part of the Wiki Geography project, yet there doesn't seem to anything remotely connected to it! Peter Shearan (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teens to wed in Pagan wedding

“We’re planning to one day go to Northampton in England which is like the pagan capital of the world to do our ‘10 years and a day’ handfasting.”

If Northampton is the pagan capital of the world a mention might be interesting. I could not find anything to confirm it one way or an other. Did he mean Northamptonshire?Geo8rge (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like nonsense to me.... Matthew (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'like' makes the statement sound indecisive (unlike if they had said "is the pagan capital of the world") and POV on the part of the speaker. There are many pagan faiths in the world whose readers and followers may not have heard of Northampton.Cloptonson (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the infobox looks too big with the Northants and UK maps in it. Anyone else agree? And, if so, do you know enough about these maps/templates to know if there's anything that would combine the two and take up only half the space? Matthew (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "21st century" section, there is a statement that Northampton's population will be at 300,000 by 2018. A few lines later it gives a figure of 1,000,000 for the same year. The first figure I can almost imagine happening, although it's a bit of a stretch given the recession. The second is outright preposterous. Ignoring the fact that the town centre couldn't handle that traffic and the fact that Northampton's proximity to Milton Keynes makes that kind of growth very unlikely, the giving of two different figures for the same period is very poor for a Wikipedia article. Can anyone clarify for me the source of these figures or if either of them have any truth to them? Tom walker (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first figure I've seen several times before, and refers to the town's population. The second figure I haven't seen before, but it seems to be referring to the catchment area of the 300,000-sized town, and hence doesn't seem as unrealistic as you might be thinking (would be interested to see what the figure currently is for comparison!). You're right, though: both need citations. Matthew (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the WNDC website that supports these wild claims. It reads like a spoof to me so I'm going back to tag them as 'dubious'. --

talk) 12:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

They're patent nonsense. I've removed them. Possibly the 1 million figure might be for some sort of wider Northampton/MK/Bedford region, but that is not a Northampton population figure in any meaningful sense, and MK is designated as the primary core for the region. Postlebury (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have a reference about Northants? What is it, an abbreviation? Is it equivalent to Northampton? Better? Worse? Older? Newer? Preferable? More formal? Less formal?

Thanks. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It's an abbreviation for Northamptonshire, the county and is used for all counties ending in 'shire'; thus Beds=Bedfordshire Hants=Hampshire etc Cj1340 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is /nɔrˈθæmptən/ the tradition pronunciation? I say /nɔːθˈhæmptən/ but that might be a modern spelling pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derbyadhag (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell a Northamptonian from a blow-in by the pronunciation. We locals say Nor-tham-ton. If you hear North-Hampton then you know you are listening to a blow-in.

Northampton Massachusetts is a well-known small city in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.30.167 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Coming from Northampton (UK) I have personally been confused a couple of times by reading about "Northampton" and it turns out to be Mass. I think there's one is Australia as well.. being an anonymous IP, I know my argument holds much weight here :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.222.230 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Northampton England has been around a LOT longer than Northampton, Mass. Furthermore, it can't be argued that Northampton, Mass. is better known worldwide (which is why

talk) 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I refer everyone to a similar discussion surrounding Birmingham and Birmingham, Alabama. Northampton is ten times the size of the Massachusetts one in terms of population and has a much longer history. It may not be better known in the US but the American one isn't better known in the UK and worldwide the UK one is more significant. Likewise as JMF says the UK Boston is less significant, so the US one gets the main page in that case, as is the case with Washington and countless others. Tom walker (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you need to redo the layout of northampton tempeter because you need to add the record of the maximum tempeter it has reached and the records lowest it has went to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skype565 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under section Buildings, Delapre Abbey (a place I myself have not seen, having only once visited Northampton) is introduced in this confusing sentence - it appears more than one building is being talked about:

Just south of the town centre

Cluniac nunnery, the County Records Office and site of the second Battle of Northampton, which was founded by Simon II de Senlis

, the son of first Earl of Northampton, in 1145.

For benefit of people who have never seen it, please clear it up. The information may be better expressed in more than one sentence.Cloptonson (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150603123806/http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/community/discover-northampton-s-own-lost-castle-1-2874922 to http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/community/discover-northampton-s-own-lost-castle-1-2874922

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —

What is an "inclusive rugby team"? Inclusive of what? 2.24.119.101 (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Edit 767691408 added two lots of named refs britishhistory2 which seems to be to britishhistory and andrewmartin2 which seems that it should be to andrewmartin. I have changed the refs

Unfortunately, I don't have access to either of these sources, so it would be great if someone who does could check.

Newystats (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that it be converted to a bar chart, rather than a long table with loads of white space as at present.
Like this one for MK, perhaps? Alternatively, make the table collapsible (and collapsed by default)? --

This report covers the characteristics of people and households in Northampton Built-up area in East Midlands (GSS code E34004611). Figures are sourced from the 2011 Census key statistics. There were 215,963 usual residents as at Census day 2011",[1]

This population figure is larger than is given in the article and also the GSS code is different. I suspect that someone has used the 1970-something boundary The figures given are for "Northampton District" (the Northampton Built-up Sub-area), which excludes the modern expansion of the town

I have invited discussion on this whole issue (which affects more than Northampton) at

talk) 11:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

'Northampton's market square is one of Britain's largest and most historic' - what on earth does that mean? What are degrees of historicalness? 109.158.15.191 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I think it might be intended to mean the oldest site for a market which is not true. I think the 13th century is quite late for a market square. Professor Hoskins I think wrote in his history of the Leicestershire landscape that Leicester Market Place goes back to Roman times. It might also be intended to mean that a great many historic events took place there,but the article only mentions one (a riot.) It might mean that there are more old buildings around it than in other places,but with one exception there can be only one building older than the 1680s and most are newer. I think York, Norwich and Stamford could probably beat that. Whatever it was intended to mean I don't think anybody will complain too much if you alter it.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graph that shows Northampton's population should be made smaller

In my opinion, the graph that shows Northampton's population should be made smaller because at its current size the graph is spoiling the alignment of the text in the article, making it look unprofessional in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxsponge15 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok on mobile too. Layout is unpredictable, it depends on the user's screen size and font size preferences. It is a little unusual in being on the left rather than the right. The article has far bigger problems than that. Why, for instance, is there a little non-sequitur about the Easter floods in this section? Surely it belongs in Geography? Overall, the article could do with a wholesale restructure. IMO anyway. --

talk) 13:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Large" town

There is a discussion at

talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The discussion above concluded that we shouldn't use the term 'large' because we have no objective or independent definition of it. So another way round has to be found, such as "the largest town in Northamptonshire"? --

talk) 08:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact a "way round" has been used a little further down where it says it is one of the largest towns in England which is not a citySpinney Hill (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With a population of over 225,100 (2018 estimates), shouldn't Northampton be listed as a 'large market town' rather than simply just a 'market town', as seen with other places such as Reading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toppyboy79 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliably sourced definition of "large" in a UK context let alone world-wide, the term is a violation of WP:no original research

and cannot be used. Thank you for pointing out that the term had crept back into the Reading article: I have removed it with the same explanation.

BTW, I had to move your contribution because you put it in the wrong section? --

talk) 19:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, no worries. Yes, apologies about this being in the wrong section I haven't used this talk section before so was slightly mistaken. Thank you for editing the Reading article accordingly, I did find it odd how Reading (and Swindon) were specified as 'large towns' and Northampton wasn't. Thank you for explaining as to why neither Northampton or any other town in England should be specified as a large town. Toppyboy79 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over IPA rendition of name

@

WP:STATUSQUO

applies: the article should stay as it was before the dispute began. In any case, you are both wrong: the local dialect pronunciation is closer to Nawf_amp_ʔon.

Vabadus91, not that it is relevant in this case but it is not correct to say that British English has a specific rhoticity because it depends. England west of Bristol, Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different pronunciation to the rest of England. Not sure about Wales. --

talk) 17:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Standard BrE is indeed non-rhotic, despite there being rhoticity in some British dialects. And if we were going by local pronunciations alone, then Northampton is pronounced non-rhotically by locals. Vabadus91 (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So has a British equivalent of the Academie Française been established? Maybe you mean English English? --

talk) 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article

talk) 18:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Distance from London

I don't know if there is a general rule about the basis for this figure, but according to Google Maps the road distance is 68.2 miles from Charing Cross; according to the Engineer's line reference, the rail distance is 65 miles 68 chains (65.85 mi) from Euston. Either way, definitely not 60.

talk) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:UKGEO, unless there's a "higher" authority that specifies the basis on which distances between places are calculated or sourced. Rupples (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it will have to go the UKGEO. A long time ago, I had both "as the crow flies" distances and the "Google Maps calculated road distance" reverted in the past as not reliable, but I have certainly seen them in other articles. A clear policy is needed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements outside the town boundaries that are sometimes considered suburbs of Northampton

The (mostly) reliable source for what is or is not part of "Greater Northampton" is the Office for National Statistics. So if the area concerned is not on this map

• Office for National Statistics
  .

then some serious citation finding is needed. Sorry but "it's obvious from looking at a map" qualifies as

WP:Original research

.

NB this is the status as at the 2011 census: the maps for 2021 have not been published yet. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New article for Northampton parish

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to create an article for the civil parish of Northampton, (e.g. Northampton (civil parish)) as it is defined differently from the urban area/former borough which this main article is predominantly about. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? G-13114 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some idea of what would be included in the proposed article to help assess whether there would be much overlap with the existing Northampton article. Also, why such content would be better placed in a new article rather than added to the existing one? Rupples (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of demographic data pertaining to the parish like population, which is different from the urban area, the fact it's the most populous parish, some history of why it came about etc. G-13114 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of see what you're getting at. There's a significant difference between the urban area's population and that of Northampton parish. However, it might be confusing to have separate articles for Northampton and Northampton (civil parish). The population of the parish is noted in the Northampton Town Council article and relevant demographics could be added in as well; both are of direct relevance to the council article. That's what I would do but let's see what others think. Rupples (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]