Talk:Midlands

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

Sheffield?[edit]

The article talks about Sheffield being the "capital of the north midlands", but I would argue most people would consider it as being part of the North and not the Midlands. Also how relevant is a 1911 entry to the Encyclopedia Britannica to the present definition of the midlands. I would argue that a much better way of estimating the territorial extent of the Midlands would be to look at the BBC's regional TV areas of the West and East Midlands. Whilst a bit sketchy, I would argue that it is a much better definition than that provided by a 102 year old encylopedia entry and should at the very least be included.

File:BBC satellite regions.png

--Redadder123 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that most would consider Sheffield as being in Northern England since I'm originally from Sheffield myself (so I consider myself as a northerner) but at the same time, we can't deny either that to some extent, the city has occasionally been included (or considered as) as part of the informal North Midlands area even if just rarely. And I might also point out that while most consider Sheffield to be in the north, some people in the far north of England (e.g. Tyneside, Cumbria or Northumberland) would more likely consider Sheffield to be more central geographically (which isn't surprising to me as Sheffield through firmly northern, almost lies exactly between Berwick upon Tweed and Southampton). And since this article gives mention to the South Midlands including counties in Southern England like Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire or Buckinghamshire (though I personally think they are too far south to be considered as such), theres no reason why Sheffield can't be included briefly (I have given mention to Sheffield differently as the bits of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire surrounding Sheffield to the west and east are often considered to be northern), and in any case due to recent changes in the North Midlands article and since South Yorkshire and Sheffield are both mentioned there, I have mentioned that the North Midlands to a slight degree includes the southern part of South Yorkshire (and Cheshire). Broman178 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

too many towns[edit]

before listing every single big town here can we consider what a reader would find useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.242.18 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some aren't even big and some are just suburbs/dormitory towns. It needs slimming down. How about only county towns, biggest in the county if different and besides that nowhere with a population under 50,000,. Is there guidance anywhere? Bevo74 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the word notable, I intend to give the list a major pruning sometime soon. Bevo74 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've changed the list my choices were based on, cities, county towns, towns of over 50,000 people and Stratford as it is very well known across the world. I've probably missed somewhere, so please correct, but please keep it sensible. Bevo74 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever called it the "English Midlands"?[edit]

Sorry but I suspect this title is wrong and probably a Wiki fudge - it is never to my knowledge called the "English Midlands", just the "Midlands". So it should either be "Midlands" if it is agreed as the primary topic, or "Midlands (England)". --Bermicourt (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right Bermicourt - you'll find plenty of examples if you search on the web and the phrase is used in everyday life though I'd agree that 'The Midlands' is more commonly found. Geopersona (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Midlands → Midlands (England) — More neutral. Rarely, if ever, called "English Midlands" within the UK, though the title seems to suggest othewise. Other Midlands pages (South Carolina & Tasmania) are named similarly to the proposed move. --Kurtle (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Almost invariably just called "the Midlands". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I added the propesed move.--Kurtle (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "English Midlands" is too uncommon (relative to "the Midlands") for it to be a satisfactory disambiguating title.--Kotniski (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map[edit]

I added another map. The earlier one is fine, but not enough to point out where in England the Midlands are if you're unfamiliar with English geography. /Julle (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever called it the "The Midlands, England"?[edit]

Moving "English Midlands" to "Midlands (England)" is one thing: the phrase "the English Midlands" is used, though I will admit that in most contexts a plain "the Midlands" is much more common; even so, there are indeed other Midlands so a disambiguating "(England)" is fair enough in the title (cf. Midlands (South Carolina), Midlands (Tasmania) etc.). But as for "the Midlands, England", I can't recall ever seeing that formulation used anywhere but here. And why was there no discussion before this latest change was made? -- Picapica (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it's "the Midlands" so 'Midlands (England)' would make far more sense to me. Gwladys24 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– My primary reason for this proposal is that I believe that the title violates WP:THE. In The Hague, for instance, "The" is treated as an integral part of the name and is written in uppercase even in the middle of a sentence. But for the Netherlands, that is not the case. I think the Midlands are much more similar to the Netherlands in this respect. Note that the region is frequently referred to as "Midlands" alone in titles, which would be impossible if "The" were an inseparable part of the name.

As the disambiguation page is in the way, something has to be done about it. Personally, I'd favor just asserting primacy as this page gets 10x the pageviews of the next contender, Midlands Region, Ireland. However, I would also regard moving the current page to Midlands (England) as superior to the present situation, as my intention is not to make this a dispute about the primary topic of "Midlands" but rather a proposal to remove "The" from the title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Though I think maybe its should be Midlands (England), I thought it was a relatively new construct and so not superior to other 'Midlands'. Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose no one says "going to Midlands" (sic), or "today Midlands will see bad weather" (sic). Only notable "The Midlands" is the heavily populated centre of UK. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone say that they're "going to United States" or "today Netherlands will see bad weather"? (Yes, if you google you will find examples. But I can find examples on Google for Midlands as well.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No but The Midlands is The Midlands. Midlands could mean anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify what exactly in WP:THE supports your position? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not particularly interested in WP:THE, since The Midlands vs Midlands is clearly not in the same category as Isle of Wight etc. Midlands could mean anything - this move fails WP:CRITERIA, which is a lot more important than stretching WP:THE to cover a case it wasn't intended to cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If Midlands could mean anything, then Midlands (England) would be the proper disambiguation. Almost all the other entries on the page are also referred to as "the Midlands" as well, so if this is not the primary topic for Midlands, it also cannot be the primary topic for The Midlands. Either way it cannot remain at its current title. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Midlands" is preferred according to WP:THE, and is also consistent with other articles such as Isle of Wight. The current title would be suitable as natural disambiguation, but most other things on the disambiguation page are also "the Midlands" - so if it's primary topic with "The", it's also likely to be primary topic without. Peter James (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:THE and Ptopic per pageviews Lazz_R 22:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I've always seen it written as "the Midlands". JIP | Talk 19:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving to Midlands, as the term is inherently ambiguous. Neutral on moving to alternative disambiguation such as Midlands (England). older ≠ wiser 12:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose to that, the current title is natural and common enough and even if such artificial disambiguatin was needed it should be Midlands, England per WP:UKPLACE, similar to South Bristol, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how the word "The" in the current title serves as a useful natural disabiguator at all. Almost everything else on the disambiguation page is also called "The Midlands". If this region of England is the primary topic of "Midlands"/"The Midlands", then it should be at Midlands per WP:THE. If it is not, then it should be disambiguated using "England"; I'm fine with Midlands, England over Midlands (England), no strong opinions there. The current scenario is like Ronaldo (footballer), which is completely useless as the vast majority of notable Ronaldos are footballers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see that even Midlands (Louisville, Kentucky) is referred to as "The" at the beginning of the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peter James. feminist (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I agree with Peter James. – DarkGlow (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But The Midlands should be a redirect to Midlands. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed. The "the" should be removed per WP:THE - it doesn't really distinguish the topic from others on its own anyway - and this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name Midlands, with 67.5% of the views even when articles that aren't actually titled "Midlands" are included.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 13:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in accordance with WP:THE. I don't think an exception can really be said to apply here for the various reasons given above, and additionally, considering the region is divided between into "West Midlands" and "East Midlands". Rob984 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historic counties in infobox[edit]

There is a small group of editors determined to push the ancient counties at every turn. The topic has been discussed ad nauseam and the consistent and continuing consensus is that this information has curiosity value at best. It certainly doesn't belong in the infobox in a section assigned to current administrative entities. Accordingly, I will be bold and take it out of the infobox and move it down the page under archaeology or something. If anyone disagrees, please take it up yet again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. ----John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


a map showing more context please[edit]

A map showing more context would be more helpful to a global audience. Can someone please find a map that shows the Midlands on the whole island including Scotland and Wales? seeing the location on an isolated map of England is disorienting and not very informative. Irtapil (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second map to the infobox -- Dr Greg  talk  20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map Dr Greg. Lots of maps on here give so little context. Spot on fella. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercia[edit]

I’m sorry, but although the borders do correspond to Mercia, broadly, I don’t think there is that strong of a link between the two. I’ve never met someone who would say Mercia is the Midlands. 57.190.1.2 (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midlands&oldid=1218721619"