Jump to content

Talk:Yorkshire: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Add talkheader
Line 12: Line 12:


I was hoping that the section on history could include a significant section on the Angles - when they came to Yorkshire, the process of de-celtification, ect. The celts, and then the Vikings, get their own quite well done sections. The existing people deserve the same! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.227.97.96|72.227.97.96]] ([[User talk:72.227.97.96|talk]]) 17:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I was hoping that the section on history could include a significant section on the Angles - when they came to Yorkshire, the process of de-celtification, ect. The celts, and then the Vikings, get their own quite well done sections. The existing people deserve the same! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.227.97.96|72.227.97.96]] ([[User talk:72.227.97.96|talk]]) 17:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The 'existing' people are a hodge-podge of many different ethnic backgrounds - Beakers/Celts/Vikings/Angles/Saxons. Not to mention that since the railways the makeup of the population of Yorkshire has been mixed about a lot, and do not forget East Asian immigration in the 50s/60s and Eastern European in the 2000's. Angles we are not! [[Special:Contributions/135.196.157.83|135.196.157.83]] ([[User talk:135.196.157.83|talk]]) 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC) FW


==Beer==
==Beer==

Revision as of 11:55, 28 January 2014

Angles

I was hoping that the section on history could include a significant section on the Angles - when they came to Yorkshire, the process of de-celtification, ect. The celts, and then the Vikings, get their own quite well done sections. The existing people deserve the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.97.96 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'existing' people are a hodge-podge of many different ethnic backgrounds - Beakers/Celts/Vikings/Angles/Saxons. Not to mention that since the railways the makeup of the population of Yorkshire has been mixed about a lot, and do not forget East Asian immigration in the 50s/60s and Eastern European in the 2000's. Angles we are not! 135.196.157.83 (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC) FW[reply]

Beer

There really should be a section on the long and distinguished history of brewing in Yorkshire. I say this as a uninformed Mancunian appreciative of its products :-). Haldraper (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Mancunian complementing Yorkshire folk - that must be a first :D ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 17:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a short beer section that I'm sure other people can expand. Haldraper (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this section for now because it lacks the level of citation of the rest of the article. I have no problem with having this section but all points need to have in line citations as per the rest of the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the section has been reinstated, may be you could add something on this into the sub-article Culture of Yorkshire and then expand on it there. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the African links with Yorkshire? -- Ukabia (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough F.C.

The football section needs to include middlesbrough f.c (properly) as they are the most succesful yorkshire club over the past few years, 12 successive years in the premiership, 2004 league cup winners and 2006 uefa cup finalists, Uefa cup round of 16 2005, 1997 and 1998 league cup finalists 1997 FA cup finalists and reached at the quarter finals of the fa cup in each of the last four seasons. Don't know which is the best reference for this? If middlesbrough is not in yorkshire then why say that brian clough and don revie are from yorkshire when they are both from middlesbrough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endofinfinity (talkcontribs) 12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted for 2 reasons, Firstly it screws up the references, secondly it is recent, post 1974, as the article is on the Historic county of Yorkshire, pre 1974, not on the current amalgamation of the 4 ceremonial counties of Yorkshire. There are some recent notes in the article but these also need to be trimmed back when time permits. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I reverted and mended the ref, as that was what Keith's edit summary gave as reason for revert. (Note to Endofinfinity: if you edit a page please check it afterwards so you can patch up any mistakes like this, where the new text was added in the middle of an existing reference! Thanks) PamD (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all happy with this. Middlesborough F.C. was sired in the North Riding and brought up for most of its existence in the same. Surely a football club belongs to its origins and the Queen's counties, not the whims of local administrative reviews. You can bet that Bolton Wanderers and Oldham Athletic don't consider themselves Manchester clubs! Bkpip (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An historic or a historic county

Can't quite believe I am posting over this as I don't really care that much, but, although journalists might believe that its always a, the key is pronunciation, if the h is not stressed you need to an sound to make it clear. This is explained at http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw007.html. I do not have my copy of Fowler's handy at the moment. I have posted here to avoid an editing war over this trivial matter, not to start one, so hopefully we can reach a consensus.--Sabrebd (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached some time ago, see the discussion here. The opening of the first paragraph has been stable for some time now, due to people respecting that consensus and reading talk pages thoroughly, not through ignorance of grammar.--Harkey (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the consensus is not clear in the archive, which I did not (not very surprisingly) read before making my comments and I did not make any accusations of ignorance of grammar. But it is clear that the page has been stable for some time. Getting hold of a copy of Fowler's indicates that either is acceptable. I will revert my edit (back to 'a') and place a hidden note where it can be easily read.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that.--Harkey (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because most Yorkshire people pronounce the "h" in "historic", it would be inappropriate to reintroduce the "French" form ("an 'istoric"). Dbfirs 16:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chopping History & Intro

1. The intro is too long. I've removed the history section there: since it's all repeated further down anyway, it's redundant. 2. Vis-a-vis history, I've cut the ridiculous list of Roman achievements. Does the author actually believe there were no laws under Celtic rule? I've also re-written parts of the Celtic/Anglian section with more of a NPOV. Many sources cited are amateur efforts and infected with the old Victorian schoolbook view of history. Elmet didn't become part of Deira, which had ceased to exist separately from Northumbria. 3. Wars of the Roses cut heavily. It's not relevant unless you fall into the trap of mis-identifying the Houses of York and Lancaster with the county towns they're named after. Paul S (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest county

The opening sentence has had some changes recently (and has been debated a bit before), but I have restored the original wording as it is, in my understanding, factually correct. It claims that Yorkshire is the largest historic county in Great Britain. The Highlands are not a historic county and Yorkshire is larger than the largest historic Counties of Scotland. I also supplied the best note I could find. Of course it is not the largest unit of local government in Britain now, but the article is not about that.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Comparison To Other Counties In England

Saw the notice there about the opening paragraph. Yorkshire's size is great only in terms of English counties. If it were in the United States or India or Russia, it'd be fairly tiny. I'm fine with the "great size" comment as long as that worldwide context is there. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not nesesarily so. In comparison to US counties it would still be large in area (and particularly large in population. Compared to US states it has a greater area than some of the North Eastern states and a much greater population than the sparse mid-western states.78.151.248.5 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire dialect

It's a little disappointing that England's richest and most well documented dialect is hidden away in a sneaky little one word link as part of a sentence on Yorkshire Day. Couldn't we have a short introductory paragraph introducing the main section? Bkpip (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire flag

The Rose is upside down on the main page! [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.66.110 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a correct orientation, see [2]. Quantpole (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You what?

From Economy section:

" North Yorkshire has an established tourist industry with two national parks (Yorkshire Dales National Park, North Yorkshire Moors National Park, Harrogate, York and Scarborough, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland and such an industry is growing in Leeds."

I'd rewrite this mesen if I had half a clue what on earth it's trying to say. Middlesbrough is a tourist honeypot?! Leeds is in North Yorkshire?? Draggleduck (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to an earlier version which excluded Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland and inserted the missing closing bracket. The section really needs clarifying and relating to the pre-1974 re-jig of counties as this is an article on that rather than the current position of the 4 different counties. Keith D (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/-ʃər/?

In the Toponymy section, "-shire" is given as /-ʃər/. Yorkshire dialect is non-rhotic (unlike parts of Lancashire), so this should properly be /-ʃə/. Alec.brady (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The lead has the correct pronunciation, and the two ought to agree. Feel free to change it (I am no IPA expert and may mess it up). --GuillaumeTell 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ridings

As a recent edit has highlighted, the article never actually explains that it was historically composed of three ridings and York. I think it would be useful to put this in somewhere. I am just not sure where it should go. Any suggestions?--SabreBD (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is a whole section missing that describes the location, boundaries and changes over the years. I would probably put in as the initial sub-section of Geography. Keith D (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made minor initial changes, but not enough to call a sub-section. --Harkey (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's really great. No, I agree, not enough for a sub-section here. Perhaps it will be a bit hard to find under "natural areas", would "natural areas and divisions" work - or it that just getting to complicated?--SabreBD (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think,after not reading the article for quite a while, it could do with a thorough overhaul. But I don't know if I have the stamina or bravery!!!:-)--Harkey (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and I feel similarly. I will put it on my list in case I get a moment of courage. If someone else gets there before me then that will be fine.--SabreBD (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting in something. Could do with a concerted effort to sort out and clarify that we are talking about the historic county here not the present day amalgamation of the 4 ceremonial counties. Keith D (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google summary reads "Switzerland" rather than "England"

I don't know if this is Google's mistake or Wikipedia's, anyway, it surprised me:

http://www.dumpt.com/img/viewer.php?file=9b2rsiiatjszv3bi37zb.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.166.1 (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The have picked up this vandalised version. Keith D (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]