![]() | Canterbury has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 19 September 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Canterbury (city). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Someone might want to include this public domain 16th century map of Canterbury, http://www.cts.edu/FacHomePages/images/Rural%20England/Image16.jpg
-- Imran
Was the cathedral really damaged by a "lighting storm" or is that a typo? --
Bill321 —Preceding
undated comment added
16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
See section below on "Gandhi's visit" for a comment on this. Eebkent ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"Canterbury today is a major tourist centre, second only to London." (my emphasis) Does anyone know if this is true? I'd have bet good money that Canterbury would be a less popular tourist destination than Oxford, Cambridge or Stratford, for a start.
Harry R
I don't know, but because Canterbury is so close to France it is always full of French tourists - it's a very easy day trip. So it's not so unlikely. Redlentil 22:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it me, or does that section read like it has been plagiarised from somewhere? Even if it hasn't been, it feels out of place with the rest of the article as (1) the article doesn't go into anywhere near as much detail about anywhere else in the city and (2) the style of language seems far too formal. Perhaps it should be a separate article?
St Thomas Hospital
I've never read such a dreadful piece of purple prose in all my life! Can someone turn it into standard English and take out the floral twirls?
I'm a Westgate.
My family's history is one of scalliwaggery and mischief, so it does not surprise me that the westgate was built 1) after crusades, which we took part in, and 2)finished right before wat tyler's rebellion.
good timing, plus a little hate for poll-taxes...
woops, we left the gate open.
"my bad, the town is taken over by a band of do-gooder civil rights activists...i mean -evil- civil rights activists.....heh-heh"
69.148.120.165 07:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
While searching Google for info on Canterbury, I discovered that much of this article has been copied without attribution (and presumably, without permission) from http://www.vrcanterbury.co.uk/. 68.251.151.75 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) C.S. Andreas
Can editors please stop adding a figure of more than 100,000 for the population. That figure, with the citation, is clearly for the whole district - what Canterbury City Council would call Canterbury, Whitstable, Herne Bay and the surrounding villages. Anybody with any physical experience of Canterbury would know that the idea of there being more than 100,000 within the city itself is laughable.
If anybody wants to argue by using the 135,278 figure listed at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/29uc.asp, as has happened before, then first look at the other areas listed under Kent and you will soon see the breakdown is to district council level - ie Swale, rather than Faversham, Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey, for example:
Ashford Canterbury Dartford Dover Gravesham Maidstone Sevenoaks Shepway Swale Thanet Tonbridge and Malling Tunbridge Wells
Thanks Gretnagod 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Or even check this: http://www.upmystreet.com/local/my-neighbours/population/l/Canterbury.html
You'll notice the figures are from the same source and correctly listed as Canterbury City Council, giving the same population as 135,287. Gretnagod 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
OK but where do the current figures come from? I've noticed the source isn't cited at all... surely its better to have the figure from the GOVERNMENT'S OFFICE OF NATIONAL STATISTICS FOR CANTERBURY than an uncited source?
Hypnoticmonkey 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Best answer I can give is to check the Herne Bay, Kent entry and check the references at the bottom. There, neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk has been used to find the population of the individual district (ie Canterbury City Council) wards that make up Herne Bay.
But just to stress again, the Canterbury District figure and the Canterbury City figure will be completely different. Gretnagod 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
reference 7 links to a southwest train web page that doesn't mention Canterbury as part of the 2009 changes that will see fast trains linking kent to London. As far as I know, no mention of Canterbury has been linked to a faster train service in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.228.63 ( talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Canterbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I've reorganised the article per WP:UKCITIES. I'm afraid there is a very significant problem with referencing in this article, there are too many uncited facts for this article to pass GA standards; I refrained from tagging each one with a {{fact}} template as there would be far too many, however if editors feel this would be helpful I will happily do it. This is not however the only issue, I will attempt to outline the problems.
I believe this article has perhaps been nominated prematurely, once the above issues are addressed I'm confident it can pass GA, however these are not small issues. I will put the article on hold for the period of a week in case an intrepid reviewer wants to put in the effort required. I'd also recommend asking User:Epbr123 to have a quick copy edit of the article, he's participated in promoting a lot of Kent related articles and is familiar with the requirements of GA. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, if you disagree with my opinions you can take the article to WP:GAR. Good luck. Nev1 ( talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that I think this article passes the GA criteria. I'm astonished at the rate it's been expanded, it's been a fantastic effort by everyone involved. Nev1 ( talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this source may prove useful to anyone trying to expand the article. Nev1 ( talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that from the main article there's a train station missing: "Today, Canterbury has two railway stations, Canterbury West and Canterbury East...Canterbury West station...Canterbury East...A fourth station in Canterbury was Canterbury South." What's the third? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutchie6 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I wondered about this too. But when you look in detail you see the sentence "The first station in Canterbury was at North Lane", which presumably justifies the claim about four stations. (Comment added by User:Eebkent) (My first contribution to a Talk page; apologies if this isn't in the right format.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eebkent ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Canterbury has been a city since time immemorial, and there are numerous sources confirming this. This was due to the presence of the Cathedral. Whilst it did gain a city charter in the 15th century (1448, to be precise) this gave the city the right to a Mayor. It did not grant city status to Canterbury, as this was something the city had already had for centuries. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.93.77 ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A new edit states "The city's newspaper, the Kentish Post, was founded in 1717 as the country's second oldest newspaper[18]. It became known as the Kentish Gazette in 1768[19]."
This is not correct. The Kentish Post is the 28th recorded English newspaper (others may have failed to survive or are still to be discovered). See R. M. Wiles, Freshest advices : early provincial newspapers in England, Ohio State University Press, 1965. The error is due to a mis-reading of the page cited from the Kent Messenger web site which means (I think) that the current Kentish Gazette is the second oldest newspaper still publishing, as the successor to the Kentish Post.
It is definitely worth recording the start of the Kentish Post in 1717. I intend to modify the reference under "18th century–present" and move the KM references down to the section on "Newspapers". I hope to create a new Wikipedia page for the Kentish Post. Vidoue ( talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
On Oct 2, 212.34.125.4 edited this section so as to include Vladimir. In my view, this was incorrect. The whole set-up is quite complicated; there are different types of relationship between towns; twinning, groups of "sister cities" or similar, and towns and cities with "protocols d'accord" (whatever they are in this context!). In the case of Canterbury, there is also confusion because of relationships entered into on behalf of the entire local authority (LA) district City of Canterbury, or on behalf of parts of that local authority (in particular, what I'll call the "old city" of Canterbury).
Note that the Canterbury page has suffered from this confustion before. On 26 May 2008 Nev1 wrote: "I will reiterate again that this article is about the city not the district, so I have removed the towns listed as being twinned with the district".
In preparing suggested changes to this section, I've worked from the City Council webpages: http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=2264 and http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=1133, which offer reasonable (and verifiable) sources. Those pages suggest:
(i) the only city twinned with the "old city" of Canterbury is Reims;
(ii) Canterbury (whether the LA district or "old city", I don't know) has "protocols d'accord" with Tournai, Bergues, Saint Omer, Wimereux, Certaldo, Vladimir and Mohldal;
(iii) Canterbury (again, I don't know whether the "old city" or LA district) has a City to City partnership (whatever that is) with Esztergom;
(iv) the whole of the local authority district is linked through the Canterbury Three Cities Association (sometimes called the Three Towns Association) with Bloomington-Normal, Illinois, USA and Vladimir, Russia.
Unless anybody has clear information about (ii) and (iii), I suggest that these items should be omitted from all pages. Since (iv) relates to the LA district, I suggest that Vladimir should be removed from the Canterbury page and entered on the City of Canterbury page. Eebkent ( talk) 14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Since when has Canterbury been twinned with: Bloomington-Normal, United States, as this article states? I have never heard of this twinning, perhaps I am deaf? This should be backed up with references if it is true, otherwise it should be deleted.
151.230.133.20 (
talk)
12:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
In much the same vein as above, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England#City_disambiguation that (I believe) outlines a sound rationale for some effective alterations to how we deal with cities and places within cities that share its name. I'm really hoping to gain a broad consensus for this proposal, so comments at WP:ENGLAND are welcome. -- Jza84 | Talk 11:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
On 13 December 2009 19:38, SmackEater interchanged the order of entries in the music section to give pride of place to the "Canterbury Scene", justifying this on the grounds that the "Canterbury Scene is the most important musical contribution of Canterbury". I feel that this is inappropriate, and would far prefer DavidShaw's previous ordering. I don't see the Canterbury Scene as anything like as important as SmackEater claims; I have lived in the city since the early 1970s, and hadn't heard of it at all until there was a small splurge of publicity a few months ago. The Wikipedia page on it is hardly encouraging, commenting that there "is debate about the existence and definition of the [Canterbury] scene", and quoting views that it is wrong to associate it with Canterbury. Given all this, I don't think an encyclopedia really ought to do more than give it a passing mention on the [Canterbury] page.
I don't want to start an "editor war", so I haven't simply undone SmackEater's change. I'm happy to leave this open for debate, but unless I see more cogent support for keeping the present ordering I propose to undo that change in a few days.
I'm not best placed to write a comprehensive section on Canterbury music, but I'm sure that there's much that could be added. As for "the most important musical contribution of Canterbury", surely that is the centuries-old continuing musical excellence in the Cathedral. People who know more about all the music performed by staff and students in the universities could also be encouraged to contribute paragraphs. Finally, the current section gives lists of pop groups which have played (once?) in various locations in the city. If that sort of thing is to be included at all , should the section not also include lists of companies which visit to perform operas, symphony concerts, chamber recitals, etc, throughout the year and of course during the annual Festival? Eebkent ( talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have limited detail on music related to the Cathedral / UKC / Marlowe / Odeon. That material has not gone but been used to reinforce the music content of those venues own Wikipedia pages. Ed1964 ( talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
On 14 Feb 2010, Bill321 (I think) wrote: Was the cathedral really damaged by a "lighting storm" or is that a typo? -- Bill321 —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
Presumably a typo, and I'll change it in due course. But I see that the sentence being discussed was:
I'm not convinced that Gandhi "famously helped rebuild" the cathedral. I hadn't heard that story myself, and the only references I can find on the web simply copy the Wiki article. Gandhi certainly visited Canterbury; there's a photo in: http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/special/html/specoll/GANDHI.HTM and a chronology in: http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/Chronology_of_Mahatma_Gandhi's_life/England_1931 which seem to prove that he visited on Oct 4/5 1931. So that bit is verifiable.
If anybody can verify the "famous story", could they please edit a reference into the article? If I don't hear anything, I'll keep the reference to the visit but remove any mention of rebuilding on grounds of absence of verifiability. Eebkent ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Changes suggested above now implemented. Eebkent ( talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that this is the original Canterbury, I think typing "canterbury" into the wikipedia search engine should default to the disambiguation page. I'd never heard of Canterbury in England until now. Canterbury in New Zealand covers hundreds of time the area of Canterbury in England and has three times the population, so why should the word "canterbury" immediately default to canterbury in England. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What the above editor asked back in August 2010 is whether this page really is the primary topic. I wondered about that, too, and have put this article name into the Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool and see that there are between 600 to 1000 views of this page per day, or 24,381 in July 2012. So how does that compare to other pages? That's one of the ways one can use to find out whether there is a primary topic. Here are the results, sorted by page views:
page | July 2012 views |
Canterbury Cathedral | 15392 |
University of Canterbury | 5968 |
Canterbury Region | 4070 |
Canterbury Christ Church University | 3246 |
City of Canterbury | 2084 |
Province of Canterbury | 1445 |
Canterbury, Victoria | 1373 |
total | 33578 |
That's of course only some of the pages listed on the dab page; there are lots more that produce monthly page views of under 1000. Based on this, is anybody keen to look into a formal move request that would swap this page with the dab page? Schwede 66 19:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This wasn't my post, but I don't see why the talking newspaper shouldn't have a mention and a link. 100 swubscribers isn't at all bad for a specialist activity of this sort. I would suggest reducing the original posting
to a shorter
Vidoue ( talk) 20:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting silly. There are several of us involved in changes back and forth over the simple little thing of "a historic" as opposed to "an historic." A historic is more common in form for British English (in my opinion), which is the language the article is written in. I don't see anything in the MOS of ENGVAR to allow for very localized usage taking over the language of an article, though I may have missed something. Also, in my experience alone, an historic when used is used in speech, not in writing. So lets see if we can have a discussion over this, and no more editing by any party until it's resolved. BRD remember and it's been through several iterations without the D. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Canterbury was a prosperous medieval seaport on the western side of the Wantsum Channel. On the eastern side of the Wantsum Channel was the original Isle of Thanet. Is there any reason for not mentioning this? AT Kunene ( talk) 14:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about the distance of Canterbury from the Wantsum channel? Most of the online maps of Roman Canterbury seem to show this town quite clearly as a seaport town and there is some reference in modern history books mentioniong Canterbury as "a prosperous seaport town". AT Kunene ( talk) 18:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about the distance of Canterbury from the sea? The online maps of Roman Britain seem to clearly show Canterbury as a seaport town and ther are modern history book references to Canterbury as a "prosperous medieval town". AT Kunene ( talk) 19:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the map in the inside cover of Bright's Old English , Canterbury is spelled as "Cantuareburg." The map has Anglo-Saxon spellings of major cities and regions mentioned in literature. However, it is stated at the start of the wiki article that it is spelled as "Cantwareburh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 ( talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Confused?
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
– As per the rationale above, I question whether this page could be regarded as the primary topic. There might be other disambiguators possible for this article. Schwede 66 21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions 7 gates, but not all the names of the gates are entered. I'm looking through my father's old slides & he has a gate name that is illegible. I would like to find a complte list here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This page has no climate and weather section, which is unusual for the page of a significant place. Fig ( talk) 14:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to mention the Marlowe twice, it's not an advert. If the theatre in St Margarets Street the original Marlowe? I suppose the current Marlowe was the same business as the converted Marlowe? Maybe name other theatres? Penny Theatre? Marlowe Arena? And so on. Slightnostalgia ( talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Tidied it up a bit with a framework for others to add further new material. Ed1964 ( talk) 18:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Canterbury. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
these links are not useful -- 188.221.224.31 ( talk) 18:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Canterbury. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canterbury. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Canterbury/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
*
![]()
Key |
Last edited at 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Canterbury. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-wIDc3KDokkJ:www.thelangton.org.uk/doDownload.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=1133When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Canterbury. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/schools/keysites/castle.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.marlowetheatre.com/archive.asp?id=499{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thetownguide.com/Canterbury/Index.asp?p=1When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canterbury. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the 115 killed cited to Margaret Lyle's book Canterbury: 2000 years of History and replaced the figure with the higher one (119) based on the CWGC's casualty list of civilian deaths through enemy action within Canterbury County Borough. All the CWGC listed deaths occurred within hostilities and does not include any who may have died of effects of injury after hostilities ceased in 1945. Cloptonson ( talk) 18:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
According to the article Roman Canterbury was "abandoned" and "gradually decayed", then "Jutish refugees" arrived and possibly "intermarried with the locals". In reality Germanic mercenaries were first housed outside the Roman town, but they revolted - burned the Roman town and took over the area. The ash layer of the burning is there, as are the post holes of the Germanic huts put into the ruins of Roman buildings. History is a violent (brutal) thing - it should presented as it was, not whitewashed. 2A02:C7E:1CC3:8A00:CCEF:72E4:1F34:184B ( talk) 10:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail the material added in the edit [2] may have a basis in [3]. I am not sure whether that could be considered as a reliable published source as I did not find the publisher. The text does not look good using the term 'than many realise' and refering to underfunded individuals. I hope that helps. SovalValtos ( talk) 08:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA from 2008. Article suffers from uncited statements, outdated statements, one sentence paragraphs, and some sections that could probably be expanded. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
GarryHenderson6, and anyone else whom this may concern, I'm attempting to rescue this article which is currently under the cosh at GAR. This means that the article must be free of all major problems, which include especially uncited claims. The choice is to remove the materials, or to find sources. It is generally difficult to source old claims made in the spirit of WP:OR as these will have been inserted without sources in the first place. Usually the best thing to do is to remove what is not cited, and to look for basic facts that are reliably cited (using WP:RS), adding those in place of the old uncited materials. Obviously I can't do this if my edits are being reverted for whatever reason. The effect of restoring an old uncited claim is to put the article back into the unsustainable position that caused it to be brought to GAR in the first place. I'd be really grateful if you could assist me in my work (such as by finding sources); or at least, allow me to proceed with the rescue. If there's anything else you want explained, do feel free to ask. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Canterbury has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 19 September 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Canterbury (city). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Someone might want to include this public domain 16th century map of Canterbury, http://www.cts.edu/FacHomePages/images/Rural%20England/Image16.jpg
-- Imran
Was the cathedral really damaged by a "lighting storm" or is that a typo? --
Bill321 —Preceding
undated comment added
16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
See section below on "Gandhi's visit" for a comment on this. Eebkent ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"Canterbury today is a major tourist centre, second only to London." (my emphasis) Does anyone know if this is true? I'd have bet good money that Canterbury would be a less popular tourist destination than Oxford, Cambridge or Stratford, for a start.
Harry R
I don't know, but because Canterbury is so close to France it is always full of French tourists - it's a very easy day trip. So it's not so unlikely. Redlentil 22:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it me, or does that section read like it has been plagiarised from somewhere? Even if it hasn't been, it feels out of place with the rest of the article as (1) the article doesn't go into anywhere near as much detail about anywhere else in the city and (2) the style of language seems far too formal. Perhaps it should be a separate article?
St Thomas Hospital
I've never read such a dreadful piece of purple prose in all my life! Can someone turn it into standard English and take out the floral twirls?
I'm a Westgate.
My family's history is one of scalliwaggery and mischief, so it does not surprise me that the westgate was built 1) after crusades, which we took part in, and 2)finished right before wat tyler's rebellion.
good timing, plus a little hate for poll-taxes...
woops, we left the gate open.
"my bad, the town is taken over by a band of do-gooder civil rights activists...i mean -evil- civil rights activists.....heh-heh"
69.148.120.165 07:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
While searching Google for info on Canterbury, I discovered that much of this article has been copied without attribution (and presumably, without permission) from http://www.vrcanterbury.co.uk/. 68.251.151.75 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) C.S. Andreas
Can editors please stop adding a figure of more than 100,000 for the population. That figure, with the citation, is clearly for the whole district - what Canterbury City Council would call Canterbury, Whitstable, Herne Bay and the surrounding villages. Anybody with any physical experience of Canterbury would know that the idea of there being more than 100,000 within the city itself is laughable.
If anybody wants to argue by using the 135,278 figure listed at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/29uc.asp, as has happened before, then first look at the other areas listed under Kent and you will soon see the breakdown is to district council level - ie Swale, rather than Faversham, Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey, for example:
Ashford Canterbury Dartford Dover Gravesham Maidstone Sevenoaks Shepway Swale Thanet Tonbridge and Malling Tunbridge Wells
Thanks Gretnagod 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Or even check this: http://www.upmystreet.com/local/my-neighbours/population/l/Canterbury.html
You'll notice the figures are from the same source and correctly listed as Canterbury City Council, giving the same population as 135,287. Gretnagod 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
OK but where do the current figures come from? I've noticed the source isn't cited at all... surely its better to have the figure from the GOVERNMENT'S OFFICE OF NATIONAL STATISTICS FOR CANTERBURY than an uncited source?
Hypnoticmonkey 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Best answer I can give is to check the Herne Bay, Kent entry and check the references at the bottom. There, neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk has been used to find the population of the individual district (ie Canterbury City Council) wards that make up Herne Bay.
But just to stress again, the Canterbury District figure and the Canterbury City figure will be completely different. Gretnagod 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
reference 7 links to a southwest train web page that doesn't mention Canterbury as part of the 2009 changes that will see fast trains linking kent to London. As far as I know, no mention of Canterbury has been linked to a faster train service in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.228.63 ( talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Canterbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I've reorganised the article per WP:UKCITIES. I'm afraid there is a very significant problem with referencing in this article, there are too many uncited facts for this article to pass GA standards; I refrained from tagging each one with a {{fact}} template as there would be far too many, however if editors feel this would be helpful I will happily do it. This is not however the only issue, I will attempt to outline the problems.
I believe this article has perhaps been nominated prematurely, once the above issues are addressed I'm confident it can pass GA, however these are not small issues. I will put the article on hold for the period of a week in case an intrepid reviewer wants to put in the effort required. I'd also recommend asking User:Epbr123 to have a quick copy edit of the article, he's participated in promoting a lot of Kent related articles and is familiar with the requirements of GA. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, if you disagree with my opinions you can take the article to WP:GAR. Good luck. Nev1 ( talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that I think this article passes the GA criteria. I'm astonished at the rate it's been expanded, it's been a fantastic effort by everyone involved. Nev1 ( talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this source may prove useful to anyone trying to expand the article. Nev1 ( talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that from the main article there's a train station missing: "Today, Canterbury has two railway stations, Canterbury West and Canterbury East...Canterbury West station...Canterbury East...A fourth station in Canterbury was Canterbury South." What's the third? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutchie6 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I wondered about this too. But when you look in detail you see the sentence "The first station in Canterbury was at North Lane", which presumably justifies the claim about four stations. (Comment added by User:Eebkent) (My first contribution to a Talk page; apologies if this isn't in the right format.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eebkent ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Canterbury has been a city since time immemorial, and there are numerous sources confirming this. This was due to the presence of the Cathedral. Whilst it did gain a city charter in the 15th century (1448, to be precise) this gave the city the right to a Mayor. It did not grant city status to Canterbury, as this was something the city had already had for centuries. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.93.77 ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A new edit states "The city's newspaper, the Kentish Post, was founded in 1717 as the country's second oldest newspaper[18]. It became known as the Kentish Gazette in 1768[19]."
This is not correct. The Kentish Post is the 28th recorded English newspaper (others may have failed to survive or are still to be discovered). See R. M. Wiles, Freshest advices : early provincial newspapers in England, Ohio State University Press, 1965. The error is due to a mis-reading of the page cited from the Kent Messenger web site which means (I think) that the current Kentish Gazette is the second oldest newspaper still publishing, as the successor to the Kentish Post.
It is definitely worth recording the start of the Kentish Post in 1717. I intend to modify the reference under "18th century–present" and move the KM references down to the section on "Newspapers". I hope to create a new Wikipedia page for the Kentish Post. Vidoue ( talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
On Oct 2, 212.34.125.4 edited this section so as to include Vladimir. In my view, this was incorrect. The whole set-up is quite complicated; there are different types of relationship between towns; twinning, groups of "sister cities" or similar, and towns and cities with "protocols d'accord" (whatever they are in this context!). In the case of Canterbury, there is also confusion because of relationships entered into on behalf of the entire local authority (LA) district City of Canterbury, or on behalf of parts of that local authority (in particular, what I'll call the "old city" of Canterbury).
Note that the Canterbury page has suffered from this confustion before. On 26 May 2008 Nev1 wrote: "I will reiterate again that this article is about the city not the district, so I have removed the towns listed as being twinned with the district".
In preparing suggested changes to this section, I've worked from the City Council webpages: http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=2264 and http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=1133, which offer reasonable (and verifiable) sources. Those pages suggest:
(i) the only city twinned with the "old city" of Canterbury is Reims;
(ii) Canterbury (whether the LA district or "old city", I don't know) has "protocols d'accord" with Tournai, Bergues, Saint Omer, Wimereux, Certaldo, Vladimir and Mohldal;
(iii) Canterbury (again, I don't know whether the "old city" or LA district) has a City to City partnership (whatever that is) with Esztergom;
(iv) the whole of the local authority district is linked through the Canterbury Three Cities Association (sometimes called the Three Towns Association) with Bloomington-Normal, Illinois, USA and Vladimir, Russia.
Unless anybody has clear information about (ii) and (iii), I suggest that these items should be omitted from all pages. Since (iv) relates to the LA district, I suggest that Vladimir should be removed from the Canterbury page and entered on the City of Canterbury page. Eebkent ( talk) 14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Since when has Canterbury been twinned with: Bloomington-Normal, United States, as this article states? I have never heard of this twinning, perhaps I am deaf? This should be backed up with references if it is true, otherwise it should be deleted.
151.230.133.20 (
talk)
12:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
In much the same vein as above, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England#City_disambiguation that (I believe) outlines a sound rationale for some effective alterations to how we deal with cities and places within cities that share its name. I'm really hoping to gain a broad consensus for this proposal, so comments at WP:ENGLAND are welcome. -- Jza84 | Talk 11:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
On 13 December 2009 19:38, SmackEater interchanged the order of entries in the music section to give pride of place to the "Canterbury Scene", justifying this on the grounds that the "Canterbury Scene is the most important musical contribution of Canterbury". I feel that this is inappropriate, and would far prefer DavidShaw's previous ordering. I don't see the Canterbury Scene as anything like as important as SmackEater claims; I have lived in the city since the early 1970s, and hadn't heard of it at all until there was a small splurge of publicity a few months ago. The Wikipedia page on it is hardly encouraging, commenting that there "is debate about the existence and definition of the [Canterbury] scene", and quoting views that it is wrong to associate it with Canterbury. Given all this, I don't think an encyclopedia really ought to do more than give it a passing mention on the [Canterbury] page.
I don't want to start an "editor war", so I haven't simply undone SmackEater's change. I'm happy to leave this open for debate, but unless I see more cogent support for keeping the present ordering I propose to undo that change in a few days.
I'm not best placed to write a comprehensive section on Canterbury music, but I'm sure that there's much that could be added. As for "the most important musical contribution of Canterbury", surely that is the centuries-old continuing musical excellence in the Cathedral. People who know more about all the music performed by staff and students in the universities could also be encouraged to contribute paragraphs. Finally, the current section gives lists of pop groups which have played (once?) in various locations in the city. If that sort of thing is to be included at all , should the section not also include lists of companies which visit to perform operas, symphony concerts, chamber recitals, etc, throughout the year and of course during the annual Festival? Eebkent ( talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have limited detail on music related to the Cathedral / UKC / Marlowe / Odeon. That material has not gone but been used to reinforce the music content of those venues own Wikipedia pages. Ed1964 ( talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
On 14 Feb 2010, Bill321 (I think) wrote: Was the cathedral really damaged by a "lighting storm" or is that a typo? -- Bill321 —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
Presumably a typo, and I'll change it in due course. But I see that the sentence being discussed was:
I'm not convinced that Gandhi "famously helped rebuild" the cathedral. I hadn't heard that story myself, and the only references I can find on the web simply copy the Wiki article. Gandhi certainly visited Canterbury; there's a photo in: http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/special/html/specoll/GANDHI.HTM and a chronology in: http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/Chronology_of_Mahatma_Gandhi's_life/England_1931 which seem to prove that he visited on Oct 4/5 1931. So that bit is verifiable.
If anybody can verify the "famous story", could they please edit a reference into the article? If I don't hear anything, I'll keep the reference to the visit but remove any mention of rebuilding on grounds of absence of verifiability. Eebkent ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Changes suggested above now implemented. Eebkent ( talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that this is the original Canterbury, I think typing "canterbury" into the wikipedia search engine should default to the disambiguation page. I'd never heard of Canterbury in England until now. Canterbury in New Zealand covers hundreds of time the area of Canterbury in England and has three times the population, so why should the word "canterbury" immediately default to canterbury in England. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What the above editor asked back in August 2010 is whether this page really is the primary topic. I wondered about that, too, and have put this article name into the Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool and see that there are between 600 to 1000 views of this page per day, or 24,381 in July 2012. So how does that compare to other pages? That's one of the ways one can use to find out whether there is a primary topic. Here are the results, sorted by page views:
page | July 2012 views |
Canterbury Cathedral | 15392 |
University of Canterbury | 5968 |
Canterbury Region | 4070 |
Canterbury Christ Church University | 3246 |
City of Canterbury | 2084 |
Province of Canterbury | 1445 |
Canterbury, Victoria | 1373 |
total | 33578 |
That's of course only some of the pages listed on the dab page; there are lots more that produce monthly page views of under 1000. Based on this, is anybody keen to look into a formal move request that would swap this page with the dab page? Schwede 66 19:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This wasn't my post, but I don't see why the talking newspaper shouldn't have a mention and a link. 100 swubscribers isn't at all bad for a specialist activity of this sort. I would suggest reducing the original posting
to a shorter
Vidoue ( talk) 20:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting silly. There are several of us involved in changes back and forth over the simple little thing of "a historic" as opposed to "an historic." A historic is more common in form for British English (in my opinion), which is the language the article is written in. I don't see anything in the MOS of ENGVAR to allow for very localized usage taking over the language of an article, though I may have missed something. Also, in my experience alone, an historic when used is used in speech, not in writing. So lets see if we can have a discussion over this, and no more editing by any party until it's resolved. BRD remember and it's been through several iterations without the D. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Canterbury was a prosperous medieval seaport on the western side of the Wantsum Channel. On the eastern side of the Wantsum Channel was the original Isle of Thanet. Is there any reason for not mentioning this? AT Kunene ( talk) 14:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about the distance of Canterbury from the Wantsum channel? Most of the online maps of Roman Canterbury seem to show this town quite clearly as a seaport town and there is some reference in modern history books mentioniong Canterbury as "a prosperous seaport town". AT Kunene ( talk) 18:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about the distance of Canterbury from the sea? The online maps of Roman Britain seem to clearly show Canterbury as a seaport town and ther are modern history book references to Canterbury as a "prosperous medieval town". AT Kunene ( talk) 19:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the map in the inside cover of Bright's Old English , Canterbury is spelled as "Cantuareburg." The map has Anglo-Saxon spellings of major cities and regions mentioned in literature. However, it is stated at the start of the wiki article that it is spelled as "Cantwareburh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 ( talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Confused?
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
– As per the rationale above, I question whether this page could be regarded as the primary topic. There might be other disambiguators possible for this article. Schwede 66 21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions 7 gates, but not all the names of the gates are entered. I'm looking through my father's old slides & he has a gate name that is illegible. I would like to find a complte list here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This page has no climate and weather section, which is unusual for the page of a significant place. Fig ( talk) 14:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to mention the Marlowe twice, it's not an advert. If the theatre in St Margarets Street the original Marlowe? I suppose the current Marlowe was the same business as the converted Marlowe? Maybe name other theatres? Penny Theatre? Marlowe Arena? And so on. Slightnostalgia ( talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Tidied it up a bit with a framework for others to add further new material. Ed1964 ( talk) 18:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Canterbury. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
these links are not useful -- 188.221.224.31 ( talk) 18:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Canterbury. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canterbury. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Canterbury/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
*
![]()
Key |
Last edited at 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Canterbury. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-wIDc3KDokkJ:www.thelangton.org.uk/doDownload.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=1133When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Canterbury. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/schools/keysites/castle.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.marlowetheatre.com/archive.asp?id=499{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thetownguide.com/Canterbury/Index.asp?p=1When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canterbury. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the 115 killed cited to Margaret Lyle's book Canterbury: 2000 years of History and replaced the figure with the higher one (119) based on the CWGC's casualty list of civilian deaths through enemy action within Canterbury County Borough. All the CWGC listed deaths occurred within hostilities and does not include any who may have died of effects of injury after hostilities ceased in 1945. Cloptonson ( talk) 18:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
According to the article Roman Canterbury was "abandoned" and "gradually decayed", then "Jutish refugees" arrived and possibly "intermarried with the locals". In reality Germanic mercenaries were first housed outside the Roman town, but they revolted - burned the Roman town and took over the area. The ash layer of the burning is there, as are the post holes of the Germanic huts put into the ruins of Roman buildings. History is a violent (brutal) thing - it should presented as it was, not whitewashed. 2A02:C7E:1CC3:8A00:CCEF:72E4:1F34:184B ( talk) 10:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail the material added in the edit [2] may have a basis in [3]. I am not sure whether that could be considered as a reliable published source as I did not find the publisher. The text does not look good using the term 'than many realise' and refering to underfunded individuals. I hope that helps. SovalValtos ( talk) 08:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA from 2008. Article suffers from uncited statements, outdated statements, one sentence paragraphs, and some sections that could probably be expanded. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
GarryHenderson6, and anyone else whom this may concern, I'm attempting to rescue this article which is currently under the cosh at GAR. This means that the article must be free of all major problems, which include especially uncited claims. The choice is to remove the materials, or to find sources. It is generally difficult to source old claims made in the spirit of WP:OR as these will have been inserted without sources in the first place. Usually the best thing to do is to remove what is not cited, and to look for basic facts that are reliably cited (using WP:RS), adding those in place of the old uncited materials. Obviously I can't do this if my edits are being reverted for whatever reason. The effect of restoring an old uncited claim is to put the article back into the unsustainable position that caused it to be brought to GAR in the first place. I'd be really grateful if you could assist me in my work (such as by finding sources); or at least, allow me to proceed with the rescue. If there's anything else you want explained, do feel free to ask. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)