Talk:Middlesbrough

Rob Smedley

Shouldn't Rob Smedley be in the notables list? Anyone with a Wikipedia entry would seem to be qualified. --Kcrossle (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But he comes from Normanby rather than the town which is the subject of this article.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the old argument about whether a separately listed suburb also counts as part of the town, or whether it need to always be traeted as a place apart. Yes, everyone knows that Normanby is in Redcar and Cleveland, but it is, de facto, a part of Middlesbrough. Perhaps Middlesbrough could be seen as including Nunthorpe and Eston, perhaps even Lazenby - after that there is a wilderness until you come to habitations that could be said to belong to Redcar.

Looking from the other direction - what about people who belong to Linthorpe? Are they from Middlesbrough? Is that a separate place? (I love it when Linthorpe people get onto the bus and say "The Village" and the Redcar driver says, "Which village?" ... sorry that's unrelated really). --Francis Hannaway Francis Hannaway 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Town East - Town where?

I have no knowledge of, nor can find any reference to, places in Middlesbrough called Town East or Town West. Town Farm - yes, I know that exists. But where are those other two? Francis Hannaway 14:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Hi. I made two changes to this article's infobox data and wanted to check that others thought them OK. Or, er, not. Firstly I reverted a change made very recently when an editor changed the town's name to all caps. The infobox documentation doesn't mention all caps but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#All_caps doesn't suggest this usage and general usage elsewhere would not seem to support this change. The other change I made was to remove the nickname "Ironopolis". The template documentation at Template:Infobox_settlement#Images, Nickname, Motto says "well-known nickname(s)" and I am not sure that this is the case. The ref given for this (and for the other claim regarding this in the article, which I'd better remove for consistency) sadly has lost its audio, and the text given does not support this usage. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong with a good ref but I don't currently believe that it matches the spec. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to find evidence that I'm wrong I haven't had much luck yet, but maybe you can do better. Apart from a billion clones of Wikipedia and articles about the former football team, there doesn't seem to be that much. This from the local paper mentions "The title refers to the town’s nickname throughout the world when it was at the height of its industrial power" which, sadly, is not now. Like I say, prove me wrong and I will be quite happy. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave references from 1870, the earliest I could, find, and the Journal of Social History 2004, which is a refereed journal. How many more do you want? The photo of the wall is also suggestive. An encyclopedia is not limited to current usage. Ironopolis is much better established than some of the Manchester Mafia's claims.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that, having lived in the Middlesbrough area from birth, the name Ironopolis doesn't ring any bells. I've heard of the Ironopolis Club - so it must be based on something - but it is never used now. "Boro" is frequently used, not just to refer to the football team associated with the town, but generally to refer to the town. Francis Hannaway 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Boro (current), Ironopolis (obselete) is a good call. Accurate and helpful. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you : Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Demography

Unfortunately I can't see any reference for the estimation of 2008. Should be added. --Dionysos1988 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing well sourced information

This edit, removed due to "political slant", is not acceptable. Perhaps the information could be placed elsewhere and integrated into the article more appropriately, but it is solid information about the subject. The economy section simply does not mention either the decline of industrial production (the article doesn't go into it in detail either but takes it as a given) nor does the fact that about 50% of the people in the town work for some government or government agency with layoffs in progress. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and work it in where you think fit. I removed it because, however well supported, it was clearly political commentary. Nobody will fault you for placing the information in context, without reference to party politics. Djdaedalus (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Tournament"

Is the Town's being the main setting for the film The Tournament big enough to gain mention in the Televisions and Filmography section? UFOash (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's already been mooted and booted once. And if you read the article on the film, the link is tenuous at best.Djdaedalus (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The first appearance was here. To be fair the article on the film has improved a lot since then. The Boro connection is clearer, but the notability of the film is in doubt.Djdaedalus (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

General discussion - Today's Middlesbrough.

Looking at the overall syle of this page - and the same is true of a great many Wiki pages - it seems to dwell on the past. Ee, it were grand in those days! Don't get me wrong, there should be a history section - but should every subject be weighed down by that, or should we be describing a the modern town of Middlesbrough. It tends to have factiods thrown in here and there. It rambles. It's quite long.

Take, for example, the paragraphs about transport. "... a turquoise-liveried fleet, a colour which was not universally popular."' Do we really need to know that people weren't sure about the colour of buses in 1970? What about just stating, as in the first paragraph, that Middlesbrough and the surrounding areas are served by a network of bus routes operated by Ariva and Stagecoach?

I think the page is full of such ramblings and would represent the town more if we cut a bit more back to the wood - especially when it's just people's unreferenced reminiscences of the good old days.

If it's compared with other pages - London, for example, - a good section on history is included ... but after that, only present day aspects are described.

Further to these points, I'ved noticed that three Middlesbroughs are being described:

• The original Middlesbrough near the Transporter Bridge
• The town of Middlesbrough
• Any good points in neighbouring towns in the area that become by default Middlesbrough when it suits people.

... please discuss :) Francis Hannaway 11:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On the last point about other settlements information you have to decide if the article is to cover just the town, the borough or both. May be you need to consider splitting off the borough into Middlesbrough (borough), which is now a redirect to Middlesbrough Borough Council, though that may lead to some duplication. Probably need to make this decision early on so that you can focus thing better. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Keith. I was thinking along those lines. It makes me think of French football supporters who called Zinedine Zidane French when he played well, and an Algerian when he didn't. Similarly, the Eston/Grangetown WWI hero and VC holder is suddenly from Middlesbrough, Ormesby Hall is suddenly in Middlesbrough (despite the actually technically disclaimer), but photos of Normanby, South Bank, Eston, etc. are not included as views of Middlesbrough. I wonder what other's thoughts are on the subject. Francis Hannaway 16:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Acklamite here!! Now I realise im late in this discussion which I can appreciate may be irrevelant seeing the article split is already in place, however there are a couple of points Id like to make. Firstly the biggy, what constitutes Middlesbrough. For me the Middlesbrough article should not focus solely on the area contained within the administrative boundaries of Middlesbrough Borough Council, nor should it focus on the central pre-1968 county borough boundary (town centre, Linthorpe, Acklam, N Ormesby etc) as a definition of Middlesbrough but include the urban area as a whole including Eston & Southbank, Nunthorpe, Marton, Coulby & Hemmo. Now I fully understand that Eston and Southbank are not and have never been within the Borough of Middlesbrough and are very much part of Redcar & Cleveland, im in no way claiming that, but this article is not about the administrative district of Middlesbrough nor that of Redcar & Cleveland but the urban area of Middlesbrough itself, the 'town'. I realise there are varying factors on what defines a town but for me this best describes the town/urban area of Middlesbrough. Anything to do solely within the Borough, as i see it, should indeed be seperate and included in the Middlesbrough Borough Council article which would exclude Eston & Southbank. This is just an idea but I would like to hear any comments on this, for and against. If this is not a possibilty then maybe the use of the official Office for National Statistics designated urban sub-area for Middlesbrough would be a suitable substitution. The ONS classes the Middlesbrough urban sub-area as the entirety of the Borough with the addition of Ormesby and an additional 8,000 residents. (however all previous references and links to this on Wiki strangely no longer exist and I cannot find any record on the ONS website anymore :S??) My other point was about the removal of Ormesby Hall from the article. Part of the Ormesby Hall Conservation area [5] is actually within the borough, albeit a tiny portion (maybe 2% if that) but because of this, Middlesbrough Council along with Redcar & Cleveland council, are jointly responsible for the area and must consult with each other on issues regarding the entirety of the Hall and grounds. I would very much welome any further discussion on either of these topics. Yours Acklamite 00:26, 3rd November 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Middlesbrough Borough Council

It's very clear that that the page Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough Borough Council are talking about the same subject. I'm surprised others have been so quiet about the issue. Both articles are talking about the Unitary Authority of Middlesbrough aka Middlesbrough Borough Council. At least the Middlesbrough Borough Council page doesn't try to claim places in neighbouring Redcar and Cleveland.

So - let's hear your thoughts on the subject. All opinions welcome. Francis Hannaway 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External link cleanup

I added the tag for ext link cleanup bc there seem to be far too many ext links and many are used in the main text of the article where it would be more appropriate to turn them into inline citations/references. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 07:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

World War II - new article

I'm sure that there is enough interest to move the section about the Second World War to a new article. Then it could be expanded upon. As it is, it takes up a lot of space in an already overly long article. Any thoughts? Francis Hannaway 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now reduced the section about WW2 and submitted a new article Middlesbrough during World War 2 (not live yet - it's being reviewed) which will take the content of the Middlesbrough page on the subject and, in time, be expanded in its new home. Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of history section from Mayor of Middlesbrough article

And dump here. NPOV and WP:FORK concern. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinning and twin towns

Why are "twinning" and "Twin towns" two separate sections? It's tempting to assume that it's a mistake and someone perhaps introduced one without seeing the other already there ... or ... ? DBaK (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Francis: it appears that this was you, here - was this intentional? Please advise. (I've TB'd Francis.) DBaK (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Well, my memory doesn't go back so readily to individual edits, but that looks about right. What I do know, however, is that Middlesboro (or, Middlesborough) in Kentucky, is not a current twin. There's no reference given for it ever having been a twin - but it was already in the article when I started editing. Perhaps it was in the 1800s. My apparent introduction of these "facts" could've been from last summer when I deleted almost half of the whole page by trimming a lot of drivel about bus shelters and public TV screens and weasely POV content. You may be looking at what I stuck back together. So, dated 5th August 2012, that seems about right. Incidentally, I tried to get a merger of Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough Borough Council. It really needs some one from outside the area to look at both articles. But ... going back to twinning - edit as you will. Best wishes! Francis Hannaway (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the merging of the two Middlesbrough articles is that it is actually the borough council that is twinned - not the town. Middlesbrough as a town doesn't have any elected bodies - it is the unitary authority of Middlesbrough Borough Council that has those. Therefore, we could argue that Middlesbrough is not twinned at all. Signs erected on entry roads clearly show that it is the whole of the unitary authority which is twinned. It's easier to see the logic of this by looking at neighbouring Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council with its main town of Redcar. Redcar and Cleveland is twinned - but Redcar ain't. Middlesbrough is both the name of the main town and the name of the unitary authority (and the unitary authority doesn't reach far beyond the town) so it's easy to confuse the two. Food for thought Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful replies and yes, that's food for thought indeed. It means that my initial concern over the duplicate sections is now part of something a bit broader ... although I suppose that deduplicating them here might be a good start anyway. Perhaps fortunately I'm out of time today so I can perform the Lazy Editor Manoeuvre of coming back in a day or more to see what (if anything) has happened! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that you are also right about Middlesboro, KY, by the way. I seem to recall that we discussed it here years ago, or I looked it up, or something ... I don't think that the evidence exists. If it does, I would be most interested to see it! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Twin towns sortout

I'm going to be bold and try to sort this out, but please chime in if you can help! The only good ref I can find so far is the Council's own page on the subject, which mentions only Oberhausen. Historyman53 (please see here) has very usefully pointed out that the ref I had for the Dunkirk thing is not reliable - it's a blog, and in fact I wrote to the journalist and he has no better ref beyond that, so I think that's it done as a WP:RS. But actually I think the council's own current page trumps all, so I am going to cut it back to Oberhausen, at least until someone shows up with an RS for anything else. I will de-duplicate the sections at the same time. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

PS I note that this doesn't address Francis's concern about what is actually twinned - the authority rather than the town ... sorry ... but I am not sure how to, and it's a start, anyway. DBaK (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A climate for Middlesbrough

Someone has helpfully written a paragraph about the climate in Middlesbrough.

"Middlesbrough has an oceanic climate typical for the United Kingdom. Being sheltered by both the Lake District and Pennines to the west, Middlesbrough is in one of the relatively drier parts of the country, receiving on average 25 inches (640 millimetres) of rain a year. It has more of a continental climate than other parts of the UK, with above average summer temperatures, and below average winter temperatures. Summer highs typically reach around 20 °C (68 °F), while winter lows can fall to several degrees below 0 °C (32 °F)"

I would say that, with it being unreferenced, that it is complete original research and not completely helpful. It states that Middlesbrough has an oceanic climate and then that it has a continental climate. I don't know what's wrong with a good old-fashioned temperate climate. My understanding, and experience, of a continental climate, in Europe, is one of much hotter weather in the summer, but with extremely cold temperatures (-10 C to -20 C) in the winter. Would anyone agree that the excellent temperature and rainfall grid on the page would suffice? ... and that we can delete the paragraph, which, if referenced, would be more at home on a page about a region rather than a town? Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like OR, support removal. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Similar sections are on most city/town articles e.g. Manchester or Northallerton, though would need referencing. Keith D (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Manchester is well referenced for rainfall and temperatures, but it mixes 'temperate' with 'maritime' and provides no indication as to how these descriptions were arrived at. The Northallerton page gives references for temperature and rainfall, but the only other reference is a dubious one, coming as it does from a tourist site for the Yorkshire Dales ... could be a bit biased. The rest of Northallerton's paragraph seems to be similarly written as OR by an amateur meteorologist. I think we need to be careful in providing information to the wider public which appears to have been written with authority, when it quite clearly has just been made up.Francis Hannaway (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

City status

This one's for the muppets who keep changing "town" to "city": http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9588713.Middlesbrough_misses_out_on_city_status/ Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ONS: Middlesbrough built-up area (formerly urban area)

The ONS has released new information regarding urban areas, or built-up areas as they are now known, within the UK. The figures refer to the populations of what the ONS have designated as urban areas, regardless of administrative boundaries. In the case of Teesside, the ONS had previously classed Middlesbrough and Eston & Southbank as two separate urban sub-areas. The population of the Middlesbrough urban sub-area of Teesside was 142,921 (which was the entire Borough of Middlesbrough plus the Ormesby ward of Redcar & Cleveland) and Eston & Southbank as 32,600 (the remaining 5 wards of Greater Eston). Now, however, the ONS have classed Middlesbrough and Eston & Southbank as a single urban subdivision of the Teesside built-up area, with a population of 174,700 [6]. Now as far as im concerned this should be the official definition of the town of Middlesbrough and I think it should be included within the article to show Middlesbrough's urban population as 174,900 not 138,400 which is the population of the local authority and doesn't reflect the full extent of the entire built-up area. As this article is about the urban area and not the adminstrative district it should reflect all aspects of the area. With this in mind the areas of Eston and Southbank should feature within the article as they are now officially classed as part of the Middlesbrough area. Hopefully this may give some closure to the argument of what actually is considered Middlesbrough and what isn't, at least in terms of an official government statistics point of view. Acklamite (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Eston and South Bank fall under Redcar & Cleveland Council, and I don't think a "data capture" area for the purpose of national statistics is considered an official area any less than the way they bound "North East" into totals, but I'm not having any luck finding the most recent ONS data to support your views. Maybe you could provide some links? The nomisweb link provided returns a "File does not exist" screen, I'm guessing it was a session based search result so no unique URL is generated. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct Marcus, Eston and Southbank do indeed fall within Redcar & Cleveland council, im not disputing that. I am refferring to how the ONS have re-classed the urban area and its population, not the authority/council area which divides up the conurbation. As before, the ONS classed the urban sub-area of Teesside, known as Middlesbrough, to include areas outside of its authority area. Previously this was only limited to the Ormesby area. However, the Nomis website, which is part of the office for national statistics, shows a change in the methodolgy on what constitutes an urban area and re-classed them as built-up areas. The built-up area of Middlesbrough, or to be more specific Middlesbrough BUASD (buit up area subdivision), according to Nomis and the ONS has a total urban population of 174,700. This does not represent either the populations of the Borough of Middlesbrough nor that of Redcar & Cleveland which are completely different entities to the urban area, but is a more accurate way of representing built up areas that may have a natural urban continuity to them. I must stress again the former urban sub-areas or new built up areas are used to determine the population of an urban area and not the population of the authority. As for the legitamcy of the new methodolgy, I do not think it is simply just a data capture of an area made up purely for statistical purposes, but a way the government can be more accurate in defining population centres regardless of boundaries, physical or otherwise. Here is a link to the report published by the ONS about the re-designation of urban areas in the UK; Characteristics of Built-up areas. Also you are correct about the link I included above, I should have known better not to use a generated search as a reference, however as I have not found any other file or document that I could create a link to I had no option. Even if you go to this page, 2011 census, Key Statistics for Built-up Areas in England & Wales, you are still given the same link to the same section on Nomis. I will have to use an indirect method;

• http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/ks101ew

This link will take you to the usual resident population key statistics page. To download select built-up areas including subdivisions from the drop down box that says 'choose area type'. Or to use the Wizard Query fucntion; first select All next to built-up up areas including subdivisions (you may have to click the link built-up areas..... to access the locale afterwards) / select North East from the drop down box /s croll down the list and tick box next to Teesside - Middlesbrough BUASD (you can click the little map icon next to it to see the coverage of the built up area if you desire) then click next back at the top of the screen / the next steps are to choose variables and how the table is displayed and so forth, simply make your way through these steps by pressing next once completing / once you come to the end step you have a choice of format then click finish for the result! My apologies for how long winded all this may seem but this seems to be the only way to access this information.

Lastly, I also think that as this has been conducted by the ONS, which is part of the government, that it should be deemed official as it is how the government has the defined the area. Acklamite (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered this document also Built-up areas Guidance & Methodolgy. Hopefully add some more incite to how the new urban areas are defined. Also i have managed to successfully copy the link to the results http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2htm.aspx & http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2xls.aspx?tableNum=0&sort=-1&sortasc=yes Acklamite (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the last two links are also returning "File does not exist" for the first and "404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable" for the second.

If ONS have designated "built-up areas" across the UK I think these need to be rolled-out across all of Wiki, that way you prevent any conflicts between articles of neighbouring areas which may happen if you leave old data in one area from, say, 2001 and add new data to another from 2011. If you just focus on Middlesbrough it may lead to confusion. I think a wider-discussion would be more appropriate, with regards to introducing the idea of referencing "built-up areas" over administrative boundaries before we go tinkering with demographic totals, as it may not be warmly greeted and I think it's best to avoid small or large scale disputes by first seeking consensus, seeing how editors feel about it. Clearly there's a lot of valuable fresh data available at ONS, which is usually welcome, but I don't think it's wise to only apply the data for one area to a new standard and ignore the rest of the UK.

I would suggest approaching a relevant WikiProject, such as WP:WikiProject UK geography and discuss your proposal and the implications of introducing this new ONS data, and if it is approved of you may find there are a number of editors prepared to help rollout the changes fast.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm those pesky links, I even checked them by logging out then back into wiki and they worked! Oh well nevermind. Thankyou for the suggestion I shall bring it to the attention of editors and it should indeed be a UK wide standard. I was curious to see if any other articles had already introduced this particular data and indeed I discovered both Leeds [7] and York [8] to have included the 2011 Built-up areas figures for the urban population, aswell as showing the figures for their respective districts. Acklamite (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of sites use session based search results, which basically means the result is stored as a "session" typically with a cookie or stored on their server, and those sessions tend to expire after so long, e.g. a PHP site's session lasts 24 mins, default, after that time your cookie expires and you'll need to perform a new search. It allows sites to dynamically create search results without having to create hard-coded web pages, just templates and the results of the search or a recalled session fills in the rest. Though very useful for web developers it does make it harder to link to such pages as they are not stored.

If a couple of other areas have started introducing these new ONS stats, then yes, definitely raise this with WikiProject UK Geography, as I think it should have been discussed and then done on a larger scale for the reasons I mentioned before to keep all related UK articles up-to-date and on the same wavelength. It's hard to follow related articles if they use different data sets for the same parameter. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have finally got round to bringing this up within the WikiProject UK geography portal and started a new topic for discussion with the main focus on getting all the current data for 2011 census updated. Currently BUASD's are not being used within any articles for towns and settlements nor are they within articles about conburbations, instead only BUA's are being used which of course refer to the entire conurbation or the population of the actual authority is used. Ive also mentioned that the article List of localities in England by population which uses the 2001 method of urban areas needs a new article created using the current 2011 data as this article is purely used for historical purposes now. "This article is provided for historical interest only, because this sense of 'locality' disappears in the 2011 census and the population data have been recalculated" I also noticed I have made a slight error when referring to the York area above. I said that the York article has already started using the population figure for its BUASD of 153,717. This is incorrect as this figure is for the entire Built up area or conurbation. The sub division of York which is part of the Built up area had a population of 152,841. This is because the York BUA is made up of not only York BUASD, the Earswick BUASD which has a seperate population of 876. I know it is only a small difference but still it was inaccurate. Acklamite (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Teesside Tintin

Is Teesside Tintin notable enough for this article? We now have "Comic writer Nick Donnelly creator, voiceover and editor of Teesside Tintin" in the notable people section. Edits by Edaward123456 today - I will drop them a talkback message. DBaK (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In short - No. Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Donnelly, he gone. DBaK (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Longlands

Is Longlands a real enough bit of Middlesbrough to be in the list? I RVd an IP as they'd also trashed the list format and didn't seem to get the alpha order, but I'm agnostic on whether it should actually be in the list or not, and don't want to appear bitey - anyone advise please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A list of suburbs is meaningless in an encyclopedic article. The reader could be in Japan, or Java. They are just words, and if they don't have a page to describe them, then they shouldn't be included. The Newcastle upon Tyne article gives a concise list of council wards in two columns - very neat and tidy; I suggest the Middlesbrough page do the same.Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion Longlands is kind of an area within an area if you will. I mean Its fairly substantial enough in size to be classed as a real bit of Boro but its more just a residential part of Town the same way Gresham is, its not a ward or anything. However I agree that its not really useful in an encyclopedic article as apart from a few local shops and the Baltimore Hotel its really just a normal run of the mill residential area which isnt a bad thing just not really noteworthy. Acklamite (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Irish population

I know it is not commonly known outside of Middlesbrough (perhaps not even within Teesside!), but the fact remains that Middlesbrough had/has the second highest proportion of Irish born inhabitants/lineage in England after Liverpool. Not only did it have a large Irish influence but there was also a significant Welsh population making up 3.9% of Middlesbrough's population during the 1871 census. I definitely think it is worth mentioning as it had a big impact on the area such as evident with the Middlesbrough accent. Acklamite (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Have added a Welsh section. As you've said, The Welsh had a similar impact as the Irish (being in situ for a generation or so before) but I'm afraid I didn't add anything about the accent.

Whilst it seems clear to my ears, I don't really know enough on the subject and have found nothing substantial to support it in the sources I have used. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable, or with time to do the reading, could add this as a subsection.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

addition of Richart Sowa

he is the architect/artist behind the creation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Island

his facebook says he is from middlesbrough https://www.facebook.com/richart.sowa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.128.19 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Middlesbrough - shows up in Scarborough

—83.170.111.148 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

83.170 is right, thanks, but it's the OS grid ref that's wrong, not the co-ord at the top. I'll have a go ... fixed DBaK (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Middlesbrough. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721190457/http://www.alumni.bham.ac.uk/documents/Birmingham_Magazine__2008.pdf to http://www.alumni.bham.ac.uk/documents/Birmingham_Magazine__2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middlesbrough. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513114527/http://www.teesarchaeology.com/projects/stainsby/index.html to http://www.teesarchaeology.com/projects/stainsby/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705094933/http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns to http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middlesbrough. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202051719/http://www.billmilner.250x.com/mbro40.html to http://www.billmilner.250x.com/mbro40.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Middlesbrough. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006053142/http://www.middlesbroughuk.co.uk/ to http://www.middlesbroughuk.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125165048/http://middlesbrough.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/planning-services/conservation/listed-buildings/ to http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/planning-services/conservation/listed-buildings/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928030222/http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=16182285 to http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=16182285
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520071758/http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/history/memories/teesside/3603267.The_player_with_the_Common_touch/ to http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/history/memories/teesside/3603267.The_player_with_the_Common_touch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middlesbrough. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904034445/http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/91658 to http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/91658

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Middlesbrough (/ˈmɪdəlzbrə/ (About this soundlisten) MID-əlz-brə) is a large post-industrial town[1][2] founded in 1830 and situated on the south bank of the River Tees in the Tees Valley region of North East England.[3] The local council, a unitary authority, is Middlesbrough Borough Council. The 2011 Census recorded the borough's total resident population as 138,400 and the wider urban settlement with a population of 174,700.[4] Middlesbrough is part of the larger built-up area of Teesside which had an overall population of 376,333 at the 2011 Census.[5]

Middlesbrough became a county borough within the North Riding of Yorkshire in 1889. In 1968, the borough was merged with a number of others to form the County Borough of Teesside, which was absorbed in 1974 by the county of Cleveland. In 1996, Cleveland was abolished, and Middlesbrough Borough Council became a unitary authority within the Tees Valley. RGs Erimus ("We shall be" in Latin) was chosen as Middlesbrough's motto in 1830. It recalls Fuimus ("We have been") the motto of the Norman/Scottish Bruce family, who were lords of Cleveland in the Middle Ages. The town's coat of arms is an azure lion, from the arms of the Bruce family, a star, from the arms of Captain James Cook, and two ships, representing shipbuilding and maritime trade.[6] TeesInfo (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This should be the ceremonial county as is our usual practice so should be North Yorkshire not Tees Valley. Keith D (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Original Research

I've removed a paragraph about the local accent, which is unsourced and appears to be made up original research. I've pasted the text below in case any editor wants to find some reliable sources and reinstate it.

Another feature of the Middlesbrough accent is the presence of a harsh "CK" sound. This indicates a possible influence from the many Welsh speakers that inhabited Middlesbrough at the same time as the Irish. Words such as black, track and crack often have an emphasis on the ck which give it a sound of clearing the throat. Not only is this feature prominent in Welsh speakers but it is also present in speakers from Liverpool. This further suggests the similarities between speakers from Middlesbrough and the Liverpool area.

~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely concur that this is original research, and it's arguably trivial without any contextual details regarding the accent's idiosyncrasies. It does make sense though, doesn't it? I'm sure some academic or well researched article could be sourced, but I haven't come across any so far.

Currently, this isn't encyclopaedic and it's best placed here for futhur discussion.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic writing is different to writing a travel guide

Please note - when adding your Boro-Love anecdotes about how great and beautiful Middlesbrough is, that Wikipedia is not TripAdvisor. Writing should be concise and informative, with statistics and not hearsay. Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Notable people

This section was very messy, after tidying it up, it appears to be too long + very cumbersome. This section needs to be moved entirely to List of people from Middlesbrough to tidy up. Devokewater (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree – if there is a separate article for it then it does not need to be here too – the guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS has that normally there should be link to the list and a prose summary – however I often find the summary problematic as some of it duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the sport section where several names are already covered) and it leads to debate over which and how many names should be mentioned. EdwardUK (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that - I tidied up the page List of people from Middlesbrough and threw out a few examples such as Ray Mallon (from Thornaby) as those who were not from Middlesbrough. The list of notable people here far exceeds that on the separate article, something which should be reversed. I am perhaps being too pernickety, but I don't think James Cook belongs here either, as Middlesbrough was a tiny settlement smaller than Marton when he was born. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move when I have a spare moment. The joy of all things do you still want it kept alphabetically? Devokewater (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Devokewater Alphabetically? It was like that when I started, just without citations. However, the other Yorkshire lists (List of people from Bradford, List of people from Leeds, List of people from Kirklees, List of people from Barnsley, List of people from Doncaster, and List of people from Wakefield all are alphabetical. Only List of people from Kingston upon Hull and List of people from York are separated by occupation. As long as it's cited and the Middlesbrough article looks better....meh! Good luck and regards. Ooh; if you are struggling with citations, I can help out with some referencing via ODNB, as I did at Richmond, North Yorkshire#Notable people. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, moved as discussed Devokewater (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Middlehaven

Should Middlehaven get its own section in the article:

• Old centre of town(history tick)
• notably has college, football ground, rail station and bridge (present sections)
• a lot of developments are currently planned for it (future section)

They is probably a set boundary but A66 is pretty much to the south and Tees to the north. Where did the name come from, probably simply Middle+haven and when did it come to been named as such. Chocolateediter (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Prima Facie, yes, if you have sources. Devokewater 17:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I need to know when the name came into use since it has exist atleast since 2007 but I cannot back date it any further.

Iron and steel works in what is now Middlehaven is a good section to build up. (Surely some wiki-articles exist to get overviews and references to these, I have a map reference to form a list to look up)

The stadium and transporter bridge (even Newport bridge making the whole bridges section go to Middlehaven) can all move over.

Development sources are easy enough to find. I’ll start making it tomorrow if I feel like it, at most, the whole Middlehaven section will definitely be done in a week.

For starters I’ll put summit on the lines of: “Middlehaven is waterfront of Middlesbrough. It hosts the old town centre and most of the settlement’s industry.” Chocolateediter (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds very interesting. Devokewater 21:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Done Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow blimey! Well done. The weird thing is I had no idea of this usage or even of that bit of the geography ... I was little and our visits into Middlesbrough were not really tourism and heritage absorption! :) Good job and thanks. DBaK (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be some problem with heading levels here as all sections towards end appear to be part of this new section. Also you end up with multiple sections named the same e.g. History. The whole section probably should be part of the main History section rather than a separate section. Keith D (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Large" town

There is a discussion at talk:Milton Keynes#"Large" town that may be of interest to editors of this article (since it also uses the phrase "large town"). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We should change from "large town" to just "town" Devokewater 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Middlesbrough is a large town. Larger than any town in Teesside but they maintain large in their leads. RailwayJG (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Population

There are four different population figures, the correct figures need to be agreed. Devokewater 08:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The correct one is the figure for the Middesbrough district which is what this article is about. But Middlesbrough is also one of the main parts of the Teesside Urban Area which is one of Britain's largest urban areas, so the population figure for that may be worth a mention in the article too. I found an "up to date" (2019) source for the population here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland I will update the article with it. Eopsid (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've updated it now, someone has even made a nice easy to use template to add citations for english district populations, {\{United Kingdom district population citation|England}} Eopsid (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats better, previously the main article + the infobox had different figures Devokewater 11:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Eopsid, if the article is about the district of Middlesbrough, why is there a seperate Middlesbrough Borough Council article? Surely this one can reflect the larger BUASD as a recognised subdivision of a Teesside?

Have tweaked the wording slightly + removed unsourced reference to Teeside. Devokewater 23:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have again removed reference to the urban subdivision of Middlesbrough as per this discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_localities_in_England_by_population they aren't settlements. Anyway Middlesbrough is part of the urban area known as Teesside so we should be using the figure for that when discussing Middlesbrough's wider urban area population even if some of it isnt in the same district. Eopsid (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Eopsid (talk) it looks fine now. Devokewater 17:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We are now back to four different population figures again. Devokewater 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Devokewater: Sorry I added the BUA population (the infobox is for the 2011 census BUA) without realizing that there was a discussion here, please revert if needed though I'd say the BUA is the best population data especially if the borough has a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You aren't using the BUA (built-up area) you are using the BUASD (Built-up area subdivision) which is a very different thing. I don't think the BUASD is a very good measure for anything. I'm of the opinion that we should be using the Borough population (I dont approve of the recent split). But if we have to split it then I guess we should be using the unparished area. Eopsid (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I meant BUASD. BUASDs seem even more useful than BUAs since they are generally for a particular settlement rather than several that are joined. On page 9 NOMIS says "users wanting a population figure for the town itself, rather than the wider area, should look at the tables in built-up areas including sub-divisions area type" so I think this is more useful to the general reader than the district or unparished area though I'd also be fine with the unparished area (assuming the borough stays split). The unparished area is 132,303 in 2011, the smallest number of the 3 (or 4). The BUASD, unparished area and district (and possibly Teesside BUA) should probably be mentioned in the article and the best one used in the infobox. As noted if we do merge the district then we will use the standard infobox for the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of the sub-divisions and dont think they should be used for anything. They are arbitrarily defined but have no offical basis, i.e. they arent used for local government or anything. So they have all the problems of City limits definitions but without any of the upsides. I was thinking of starting a discussion on the main uk geography page to try and completely forego their use. Eopsid (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The BUASDs aren't arbitrarily defined. The Teesside urban area is subdivided based on their urban extent, a bricks and mortar approach. Look at a map of the Teesside area, the boundaries of the subdivisions are literally based on the physical extent of those areas. Middlesbrough/Eston form a single built up unit when viewed from above, which form a clearly defined area seperate from neighbouring settlements such as Redcar or Thornaby. Another point is when you look at the other Teesside articles, Stockton-on-Tees, Thornaby, Redcar, Billingham and Ingleby Barwick all use the population figure for their the BUASD as their "Town" population. Middlesbrough is the only Teesside town not to use this definition and base it on council area alone.

If you look at any BUA other than Teesside they are subdivided both on urban extent and arbitrarily. Tyneside is a good example. South Bank and Eston was a seperate subdivision in the old 2001 census data. Regarding other Teesside articles, Thornaby, Billingham and Ingleby Barwick are all seperate parishes and we should be using those figures. Eopsid (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that their are four different population figures, again:

- Main article says: In 2019, the population of the town itself was estimated to be 177,354

- Whilist the infobox: 174,700 (2011 Census)

Regards Devokewater 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Population figures, yet again

Can we have some agreement on what to include. Some editors want to quote 140k, others 170k + others want to include the entire Teeside population. The sources also vary with some quoting the 2011 census + others quoting 2019 estimates for the same figures! Regards Devokewater 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• 2019 estimate for the BUASD, Teeside is a larger area with a different name and the borough has a separate article though all (including the unparished area) should probably be mentioned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should just use the Borough population, the BUASD doesnt really mean anything and honestly neither does the unparished area. I would like something to indicate how Middlesbrough is at the centre of one of the country's largest urban or metropolitan areas (top 20) but it doesnt look like there is consensus for this. Eopsid (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be the 140k as the basic definition of "Middlesbrough". As much as we try and seperating out the borough / council article pretty much the entireity of this article is about the Borough in any case as until 2011 this was also the definition of the BUASD (which was convenient).

From 2011 the BUASD added two additional settlements to the east in the adjacent Borough. The support for these to be considered "Middlesbrough" as a single settlement entity seems very much to require the acceptance that the BUASD defines a single town, and that the single town takes the name of whatever the ONS calls it, and all sub-articles should be amended to be described as parts of Middlesbrough.

That, I don't think, is supported by either the history of each town or village being distinct, historic borders, public perception, weight of resources, nor the BUASD's structure (which ends up excluding population centres based on greenspace that have traditionally been part of towns that don't always conform to dense urban populaces) and leads to issues of population count conflict with different articles both claiming the same subsets of population depending on what arbitrary study is being used to draw them up.

However, at the same time I have no issue with us mentioning the 170k population figure so long as it is done with due weight and accuracy - how that language is constructed I am happy to see suggestions (although it does seem to suggest a certain degree of a transfer of ownership of those settlements which are both in a different Borough currently, it does seem to raise the question of what happens when there is a Boundary Commission in the future, but that seems like CRYSTALBALL via the proxy of the BUA).

Teeside population has no real place in the lede. It isn't to do with the town at all, and pretty much everything in the lede should explicitly be about the town where possible. It should be in a subsection on geography or similar. Koncorde (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Teesside is to do with the town. A lot of articles have the towns urban area or built-up area population in the lede. The only difference with Middlesbrough is that its just one of the few that isnt named after its largest part, but is instead named Teesside. Eopsid (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Stuff that I am also not defending when it occurs. I find it is inherently misleading to suggest that Liverpool had an urban area of 864,000 the same way that I would argue the BUA for Teeside isn't Middlesbrough (and Leeds was a hot mess last time I looked of about 9 different population figures, though it seems someone has taken an axe to the entire lede at the moment). Things being named for "biggest" constituent parts (especially when Stockton-on-Tees "Borough" is bigger than Middlesbroughs "BUASD" is particularly problematic) and glosses over historic sentiment. Again, the Liverpool BUASD arbitrarily stopping at Bootle, Crosby and Litherland - but not Huyton is very problematic for local historical identity, and suggests a willingness by the ONS to treat some regions differently with their underlying algorithm. Their Ordnance Survey maps for the Tees region is, unsurprisingly, called "Teesside" which is why it got that name as the BUA. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats why I dont like the BUASDs they can often be very arbitrary. What population figures do you think we should have in a lede though? I think it makes sense to show a town is the centre of a larger metropolitan/urban area and have the population for that. That way the reader can get a rough idea of a town's relative importance. Eopsid (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the use of the 140k, and BUASD so long as we are not saying "Middlesbrough has 174,000 people" because that way leads to madness of multi-authority entities. It is of more immediate relevance than the BUA and it at least shows contiguous population in some form of a "town" or urban sprawl, plus it is commonly available and easy to cite and reference. Under geography section there should be a clean reference then to the change of the BUASD at last evaluation. I'm open as to what the correct wording is. My original plan was to add a second paragraph covering modern developments / industry which would cover the expansion of its "urban area" I had not got round to it yet. Koncorde (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

But the BUASD isnt the urban sprawl. The BUA is. Eopsid (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The settlement / localities whatever you want to use, I am open to suggestion, but they are clearly a thing and have been raised her numerous times and has prompted prolonged discussion and we should therefore work to find some wording that is agreeable and accurate. The built-up area represents the wider area around a place, for example a city and any linked towns and villages. Sub-divisions provide greater detail in the data, by identifying the neighbouring settlements and localities within the larger conurbations. Koncorde (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The BUASD isnt the settlement/locality either. Its just a way to subdivide the Built-up areas. And as you showed before in the Liverpool case the way they are subdivided is pretty arbitrary. The only really accurate wording is something along the lines of the Middlesbrough subdivision of the Teesside built-up area. Which is excessive. If we want a "Greater Middlesbrough" mention in the opening section of the article, we should be doing the whole of it, not just a subdivision. Eopsid (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How about instead of using things like "town" or "Middlesbrough its self" etc we use something more like "ONS built up area subdivision" that would help to avoid us making any claims about the BUASD=town? I'd note that the borough is well the borough not the town and the unparished area is the unparished area so nether of those can be used to define the town even though the latter is more likely to correspond to a town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Middlesbrough, as a BUASD, does form a single physical unit/area, especially when viewed in terms of bricks and mortar. When you view it from a map or satellite image, it does appear as a distinct, clearly defined area to the rest of the Teesside BUA. There is a definite measurable urban area in regards to the BUASD, not just as an arbitrary subdivision of the Teesside BUA but as a single built up unit in itself. All of the BUASD also comes under a MIDDLESBROUGH postcode (TS1-TS8) and when travelling within the BUASD between the 2 councils in areas such as Ormesby, Nunthorpe and Southbank, there is no distinction between one area or another due to urban sprawl.

Borough split

Why, has the article been split into two, one for the Borough of Middlesbrough and this one Middlesbrough? I dont think it warrants two articles. All the information in the new article is covered by this one and Middlesbrough Council Eopsid (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I suggest they be merged together again. Eopsid (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You could argue that with Darlington. Why does a borough article exist and why does a town article exist. Darlington has a borough council. Middlesbrough has a borough council. The borough article covers the wards and government side. Like Darlington. Whereas the main article is about the history of the town and not the borough. There is a slight difference. So If Tamworth for example and Darlington can boast a district and borough article. Why not Middlesbrough? If is pointless to merge them as one could make that argument for the two mentioned. RailwayJG (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The boundaries of Middlesbrough district appear to be smaller than the town so aren't comparable to Darlington which covers all of the town and several other villages and Tamworth, Staffordshire is now 1 article. There is older discussion at Talk:Middlesbrough Council. Perhaps the council article should be merged into the borough article instead? Middlesbrough does satisfy 2 of the criteria at WP:UKDISTRICTS for having a separate article, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others. @RailwayJG: perhaps you would be better working on splitting York/City of York instead which does meet most criteria to be split, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Partly parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Crouch, Swale thank you for your input. If your satisfied with the two being able to be seperate and kept as are. I had no problem with Darlington and Stockton now. But what of Hartlepool? Is that worthy of a borough page like Middlesbrough? But at least we can keep the article for middlesbrough and the borough of middlesbrough as it does exist as you stated. Looks like York has already been merged into one. RailwayJG (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Borough of Middlesbrough is the area covered by the Council, Middlesbrough is the town itself, this is similar to Carlslie, although a city it's much smaller then Middlesbrough, see Carlisle + City of Carlisle, the later includes other surrounding towns + villages in addtion to Carlisle itself. Devokewater 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Yes Hartlepool should remain separate since it includes the town its self plus several distinct settlements such as Elwick and Dalton Piercy, see this map of the district and this map of the town. With Middlesbrough the district seems to be smaller than the town and doesn't include any distinct settlements, see town v district. Likewise York (and Carlisle) include separate areas in addition to recent boundaries and parishes so could be split again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont see why you keep referring to the "town" of Middlesbrough, Built-up area sub divisions aren't towns Eopsid (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They are probably the best way of defining a town (or other settlement) unless you have a better one. My point was showing that Hartlepool district clearly includes distinct settlements while Middlesbrough doesn't clearly which can be seen even without knowing the BUA boundaries Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We should be using parishes to define towns and if one doesn't exist then the district, urban area or unparished area. But I think we need to reach a consensus on what we should use. There isnt a neat and tidy definition of towns in the UK not like other countries. Eopsid (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we can keep them separate as no point getting rid of the borough page when it actually exists. And covers some areas as mentioned. I'm happy to see it can be kept so thanks anyway for your input. RailwayJG (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale should we call an agreement to this debate of it being able to be kept? RailwayJG (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've created this discussion on the main uk geography page to see if we can reach a consensus on when we should have seperate articles for districts and towns Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Article_for_both_Borough_and_town? Eopsid (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact is a borough exists I'm Middlesbrough. It is worth having a separate page as it will give the borough more exposure then a simple section on the town article. And wards and political makeup are then the focus of the page then the town one. Makes it easier and if Crouch is happy they can be separate then let's all agree and put this to bed. Borough is of you check out the page and references mentioned on BBC news and Teesidelive RailwayJG (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems pointless when you've already had two other people input on it. But fine. It's just not gonna change the fact the borough exists whether we want to pretend it does or not. RailwayJG (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts has 6 criteria to decide whether we should have multiple articles for borough and town. The borough doesn't satisfy any of the criteria except 4 although thats because middlesbrough has a weird local government history with it being part of the last new county borough, County Borough of Teesside. Eopsid (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Tees area has definitely been somewhat of a test area for government. Teesside being the first river+side county in any sense then abolished just as the others came along and has the first “metro mayor” as Tees Valley. Wish south Tees went back to Yorkshire fully politically and statistically hopefully now those regions are fading. Chocolateediter (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Its a mid-size conurbation that crosses county boundaries. So seperating South Tees back to Yorkshire politically would be stupidly inefficient. And anyway looks like the whole of North Yorkshire is going to be turned into some combination of unitary authorities soon, so its all gonna change. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing though. Eopsid (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I dont agree there doesnt seem to be any consensus to merge so I'm going to remove the merge notice. Eopsid (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eopsid: Maybe a lack of consensus means we should merge back though in this case although the arguments against merging were weak since they seem to be based on false equivalences there does seem to be some merit in the arguments. However I'd consider merging Middlesbrough Council to the borough article instead since that is effectively a content fork per WP:UKDISTRICTS and I'd merge others like Darlington Borough Council into Borough of Darlington since most of the information will apply to both entities and districts aren't well known enough to have the distinction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you completely actually. I will merge into it into the Borough Council article unless anyone opposes? I would support merging of the Hartlepool and Darlington borough articles too. I will add merger proposals to those pages. Eopsid (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want I could produce a list of districts that have a separate article for their council (though they are already in Category:District councils of the United Kingdom) since I suspect many won't need separate articles unless like Plymouth there isn't a separate article for the district. I'd also note as well as content being forked frequently wikilinks are made to the council article where the district is likely more appropriate, say "Middlesbrough Council is in tier 4" this is more relevant to the entire district rather than the council however in cases like Plymouth this is more or less OK since the article is more focused on the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree to merging the council page into the borough page as it would both give the borough article more context and some borough articles do contain the council and polticial makeup. So if we agree to maintain the borough article and merge the council into it as Crouch, Swale proposes. Let us do it. RailwayJG (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That is how we handle the St Helens, Merseyside vs Metropolitan Borough of St Helens and it works well for that case where the Borough covers areas that have historically fell under other parishes, urban or rural districts and so are commonly held as distinct by historic reliable sources, and only referred to collectively within context of the Borough. Koncorde (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Middlesbrough case is different because nothing else in the borough is really distinct from the town Eopsid (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Are villages like Linthorpe not distinct? I can't quite follow the above sections actual arguments because nobody seems to have actually expressed what the particular difference is (or why they aren't different by your metrics). Koncorde (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There are no villages which aren't physically seperate from Middlesbrough in the borough. There is only one built-up area in the borough. Eopsid (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And now the article is about a weird defintion of Middlesbrough thats larger than the borough, hence the 3 unitary authorities that you mentioned below. Eopsid (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Then this whole section of discussion seems WP:OTHERSTUFF discussions of Hartlepool and other areas, and from what I can see nobody has actually defined this Middlesboroughs differences to the Borough, or why it has 3 UA's. I assumed this was a historic settlement (or pre-74 olde boroughe) within a borough concept which we have multiple precedent articles for.

If I cannot work out what this town is, I have no idea how the casual reader would. Koncorde (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot of false equivalences, most of those presented pass every test at WP:UKDISTRICTS other than maybe 1 but Middlesbrough passes quite a few of them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The below is from WP:UKDISTRICTS, Middlesbrough passes every one of these except how old the boundaries are. Which is a weird quirk because middlesbrough's current boundaries are smaller than the district it was in 1974.

   Single articles are generally created where the settlement/district matches most of the following criteria:
   1. The built-up area closely matches the boundaries of the district with no rural hinterland
   2. There is a lack of other distinct settlements in the district
   3. The ONS population for the settlement is roughly the same, or larger than the district
   4. The current boundaries of the district are long-established and predate reforms in 1974
   5. There are very few or preferably no civil parishes in the district
   6. The district does not cover a geographically large area 

Eopsid (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So, for absolute clarity, what is it that we are differentiating on because this discussion is super unclear, and not got any clearer?

Our intro suggests a "town" of 177k[9] and a Borough of 140k[10], but our Governance section excludes the former: In 1968 Middlesbrough became part of the County Borough of Teesside, and in 1974 it became part of the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland until the county's abolition in 1996, when Middlesbrough became a unitary authority of North Yorkshire. while the BUA map is unclear if this is the "town" or not but given that the BUA includes distinct historic "settlements"[11] like Eston that fall under other districts (presumably our Redcar and Cleveland article is also counting Eston and others in its figures based on this logic)?

If Eston is included in the "Town" then this article definition is trying to dance on a pinhead. Koncorde (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are differentiating on. I don't agree with the split. We should be using the borough definition of Middlesbrough. Eopsid (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the 1st one its borderline since there is a small amount of rural land in the south east and south west. Regarding the 4th, at User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others I've used the post 1968 CB to assess that since its an unusual case in that many districts were merged in 1974 while this one was split however its it did take Nunthorpe from Stokesley Rural District (that weren't part of the County Borough of Teesside either) so I'd say 4 isn't satisfied but the rest are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

...Okay. Eopsid aside, can anyone else answer what reliably sourced definition is being used as the basis for the "Town" of Middlesbrough? Are you saying Eston (and others) is Middlesbrough? Koncorde (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The ONS BUASD which as noted is larger than the borough however Eopsid doesn't appear happy with using BUA/BUASDs to define towns (and instead seems to prefer unparished areas which is the district minus Stainton and Thornton and Nunthorpe) but they are probably the best definition we have. The BUASD does indeed include Eston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont like the unparished area either, I think we should be using Parishes and districts to define towns and only use unparished areas in the rare cases where no other definition is available. BUASDs aren't mentioned in many sources. Eopsid (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Eopsid. I think "best definition" is very debateable and this is getting very slippery slope. The use of BUASD in this way when the change to include "Eston" was only made so recently to unilaterally declare it Middlesbrough proper paves the way to a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF type arguments for locales such as Liverpool and Huyton because it too in 2011 became part of the Liverpool Urban Area. We're getting into serious conflation territory for an awful lot of cities, towns, villages etc that do not reflect historic reliable sources, nor are referenced by modern reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The BUASDs as stats for towns are mentioned by the ONS where on page 9 it says "users wanting a population figure for the town itself, rather than the wider area, should look at the tables in built-up areas including sub-divisions area type". To my awareness this is because some larger settlements are considered distinct enough to provide data on but often these are somewhat based on the post 1974 boundaries. Consider for example Topsham that is apparently a town and although it's part of the BUA of Exeter its a separate BUASD and it seems that although its within the 200 metre rule that its not actually touching Exeter, Topsham lost its separate borough in 1966. There is also Fulwood that is clearly part of Preston in that its touching but that's a separate BUASD and until 1974 was a separate district. As can be seen from West Yorkshire Built-up Area Stanley was merged into Wakefield in between 2001 and 2011 and Tamerton Foliot isn't a separate BUASD despite being large and somewhat independent. Presumably the ONS assesses how independent a place is considered today in if it should be a separate BUASD today which might well be the case with Eston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

But isn't Middlesbrough the opposite because the BUASD is larger than the borough? The main reason I don't like the BUASDs is because they aren't really used anywhere outside that primary ONS source. And as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources [...] Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. And this use of the BUASD to define Middlesbrough as seperate from the smaller borough is very much a novel interpretation... Eopsid (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well Middlesbrough is a subdivision of Teesside rather than being the name of a BUA but yes it is still larger than its borough (which points to a merge). The ONS is kind of a primary source for its defined BUASDs though it is using secondary sources to build them but unlike someone working for the council it is an independent source otherwise and using this for a statement about the population seems within PRIMARY though I'd consider changing "town" to "built-up area sub-division" if needed. A definition that is a designated new town, see for example regarding Stevenage (2) the reference to area in the designated new town being moved[12] but that definition would only apply to a few since most towns don't have that definition while the BUA/BUASDs are used in the whole of England and Wales. One thing that I would be careful of (though you might be able to us it to get a rough idea) is text from things like businesses and reviews etc since if you have a business in Thornton you would probably say you are in Middlesbrough so that people know where you are/can easily get to you but if you were a hotel in Thornton you would probably say "near Middlesbrough" so that although people can get there easily it would be outside the town its self. Older people and people who have lived in an area for a long time are more likely to think of places as being separate since they are more likely to remember places being more separate and will probably see more "natural" boundaries that someone unfamiliar with the area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with the Borough being held as a distinct legal entity, and so have its own article, I do have an issue trying to use a BUASD as the definition of a town in order to say "Middlesbrough" has 170,000 residents, has 3 unitary authorities etc and then still have 90% of the article talking about the prior depiction of Middlesbrough as only the borough with each infobox, historical text, reliable source etc still talking about it in the sense of ONLY being the Borough. We're caught in the situation, by having a split off article about the Borough, of effectively saying that this article is now about the BUASD which doesn't cover all the Borough. This article needs to be about Middlesbro the town and unitary authority and historic entity, and then if we want to say that it has a BUASD which stretches into other UA's etc we can do but otherwise we are getting into real OR / SYNTH situations where wikipedia will be creating our own novel interpretation of stuff. Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The borough exists where editors agree or disagree. There are no notable settlements in Hartlepool Stockton or Darlington but they have borough pages. There was already debates and it was agreed to be kept. Reopening an old debate already agreed on is pointless. It passes wiki standards and is reliable. Those against it think Middlesbrough is only a town with a borough. Yet another town is Slough but it has a borough page RailwayJG (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As already noted Hartlepool Stockton and Darlington do contain distinct notable settlements and Slough's borough doesn't have a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is disputing the borough exists, we are disputing whether the town and borough are different enough to warrant seperate articles Eopsid (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was already disputed as you know Eopsid and you asked on nearly two different pages for census and they agreed to keep the borough. You suggested merging and it was decided to be kept. RailwayJG (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And what distinct settlements does Hartlepool contain other than possibly Seaton Carew? RailwayJG (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see on maps Hartlepool is the same as Middlesbrough. Stuck with one small village and two suburbs. Other settlements are either in county Durham itself outside the so called borough or in Stockton Borough. So I heavily disagree with notable settlements for Hartlepool. RailwayJG (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd merge Hartlepool and it's borough as it's smaller then Middlesbrough and has no distinct settlements. Find me a reliable source to clarify distinct settlements for the others which apparently Middlesbrough lacks. RailwayJG (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that discussion goes over to Hartlepools talk page, but the presence of distinct Civil Parishes (Brierton, Dalton Piercy, Elwick among others) is what are generally recognised as "distinct settlements". The issue appears to again be Hartlepools main article is conflating the town with the borough/UA and runs into the issue of the BUASD being an entirely different functional entity.[13], Seaton-Carew meanwhile is a historically distinct settlement within its own township, village has been moved between various RD / EP's.[14] Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you've got your numbers confused Railway JG, Hartlepool's borough is larger in area than Middlesbrough. I've also just checked the Borough of Middlesbrough article and the population and area figures in there are just wrong. There is also already a merge proposal on the Hartlepool borough page. And I don't know what maps you are looking at but the Hartlepool and Middlesborough boroughs are very different. Middlesbrough is in the middle of an urban area whilst Hartlepool's contains an entire one plus a small rural area. Eopsid (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like all the numbers in the Middlesbrough one are wrong because the info box is just a copy paste of Darlington's... Eopsid (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the GSS code so everything should be OK now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Again the debate was had and the census was to keep the borough page so reopening the debate to merge it is pointless. I've tried changing the population but the it won't let me on a pc or mobile RailwayJG (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

JG, nobody has said anything about merging the Middlesbrough Borough page, but even if that was the case consensus can change - particularly if it leaves this article in limbo as neither fish nor flesh because after whatever split was agreed it seems nobody was then committed to fixing them both. Koncorde (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Unitary Authority

Can someone take a look at why we now have 3 Unitary Authorities for one "town"? Something doesn't seem right but all I can see is a string of edits and reverts. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Because this article was recently split off into a Borough one. Something I strongly oppose. And then they decided that this article isn't about the Middlesbrough unitary authority but some mythical town which is larger than the borough. I would just revert it all but I didnt want to trigger an edit war hence the Borough split discussion above. Eopsid (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how that answers the question that there are 3 unitary authorities for the town? Are there 3 unitary authorities for the borough? Koncorde (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The borough is one unitary authority. Eopsid (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

One is the town and the other is the borough nothing distinct about Darlington borough but it still exists RailwayJG (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Darlington Borough contains more than just the town, it has a good size rural area and 1 or 2 physically seperate villages too. I wouldnt be against merging the articles though. Eopsid (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As does Middlesbrough. Two separate villages of Thornton and Stainton which are villages in the borough and they are classed as villages. In the borough just saying they are distinct RailwayJG (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

They aren't seperated from Middlesbrough by rural land unlike in Darlington. Eopsid (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

But ares still villages. Just like Billingham and Thornaby are towns in Stockton Borough and aren't separate other than by the river tees and other towns like Ingleby Barwick which are contiguous with Stockton but still a borough. Only saying RailwayJG (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You're not wrong, its ambiguous. There isnt really a difference between a village and a suburb. You ask two different people if X is a village or part of Y and you might get two different answers. There's old arguments about stuff like that all over Wikipedia talk pages. Unless I'm missing something, Ingleby Barwick isnt a borough its in Stockton's borough? Eopsid (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer is always to see what it once was, not necessarily as it is today, and accept that sometimes they can be both, agglomerated, consumed, subsumed and a variety of other things, but we should always be using RS for the definition / description where possible and giving credence where it is due to historicity where appropriate. Koncorde (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)