Talk:East Riding of Yorkshire
Revise
Style:
Create
|
 | England Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Yorkshire B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Break into sections
This article definitely needs to be broken into sections: the infobox is massive, and it's confusing (and I understand it). In particular the ceremonial county and unitary authority need to be separated. The coat of arms only related to the ua. The admin county had a completely different coa and anyway needs its own section. Basically we have a number of entities which share the same name, but very different areas.Lozleader 20:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to have an East Riding of Yorkshire article about the ceremonial county and the unitary authority, and East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) about everything else (historic subdivision, the former administrative county), on a similar basis to the split of Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire (historic). Morwen - Talk 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded.
- Thirded :-) It's getting messy. Lozleader 14:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) should not include anything about the 1890-1974 administrative county, however, as that is a different thing to the historic Riding entirely. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you suggest an alternative name for that article if East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) is not suitable? I consider a three-way or four-way split unviable, and frankly there's no point splitting out the article about the "traditional" subdivision if the information about the former administrative county and the Lieutenancy area that existed from 1660s until the 1974 isn't there. Morwen - Talk 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- History of the East Riding of Yorkshire could cover the former local government arrangements while East Riding of Yorkshire could be about the historic Riding and the 1996- Unitary District of the same name. Either that or East Riding of Yorkshire becomes a disambiguation page pointing to East Riding of Yorkshire (district), County of York, East Riding (administrative county), Yorkshire, East Riding (historic county), etc. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you suggest an alternative name for that article if East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) is not suitable? I consider a three-way or four-way split unviable, and frankly there's no point splitting out the article about the "traditional" subdivision if the information about the former administrative county and the Lieutenancy area that existed from 1660s until the 1974 isn't there. Morwen - Talk 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) should not include anything about the 1890-1974 administrative county, however, as that is a different thing to the historic Riding entirely. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- My idea is that we would split entities where the boundaries changed substantially and there was no administrative continuity. This would improve the encyclopedia as it means unconnected entities that happen to share the same name would no longer be treated in the same article. It would mean splitting Renfrewshire and Aberdeenshire (already done) and things like Flintshire, Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. We only have one article for the West Riding of Yorkshire in its various incarnations, and I consider it an anomaly that we have independent articles about two of the three ridings, but not the third. I'm envisaging an intro something like "The East Riding of Yorkshire is a historic subdivision of the traditional English county of Yorkshire. From 1660 to 1974 it was used as a county for the Lieutenancy, and from 1889 to 1974 it had a county council as an administrative county". But I'm being very cautious here, because I don't want to see this as a step down a slippery slope to having an article about every incarnation of every county. Morwen - Talk 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I follow. How about we have an East Riding of Yorkshire article along the same lines as the North and West Riding ones, covering the historic Riding itself and the former administrative/lieutenancy counties, and East Riding of Yorkshire (district) to cover the unitary district, with disambiguation links at the top of each article? Although, to be honest, I don't understand the problem with separate articles. I've been thinking about such a split ever since the infoboxes were added to the North and West Riding articles: because the infobox relates specifically to the 1889-1974 administrative county and not the Riding as a whole, which could cause confusion to the casual reader. Such a precedent appears to have been set by the way most towns and cities have two articles, one for the town/city and another for the borough (with a bizarre naming convention for the city boroughs to boot!) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that I think that gets the disambiguation inverted. If East Riding of Yorkshire is not about the 1996 entity, then at the very least it should be a full-blown disambiguation page, and then you are still left with the problem of where to put the other article. The thing is we could get to have really quite crazy numbers of articles if we aren't careful. I'm just suggesting a very limited split that will be made on principles that everyone can agree to: further splitting will be contentious. Part of the reluctance is the edit wars about this in the past : look at the fact that English unitary district of county of Herefordshire is a bluelink for evidence of the craziness of this. Morwen - Talk 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about a two-way split: East Riding of Yorkshire about the current UA and History of the East Riding of Yorkshire about the previous administrative/lieutenancy counties, with the historic Riding mentioned in both? (Let's face it, the meat of the content is about the local government arrangements, the existence of the historic Riding is covered in a sentence or so.) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- That works for me, and parallels existing things where we have History of Buckinghamshire having an infobox, etc. 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about a two-way split: East Riding of Yorkshire about the current UA and History of the East Riding of Yorkshire about the previous administrative/lieutenancy counties, with the historic Riding mentioned in both? (Let's face it, the meat of the content is about the local government arrangements, the existence of the historic Riding is covered in a sentence or so.) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that I think that gets the disambiguation inverted. If East Riding of Yorkshire is not about the 1996 entity, then at the very least it should be a full-blown disambiguation page, and then you are still left with the problem of where to put the other article. The thing is we could get to have really quite crazy numbers of articles if we aren't careful. I'm just suggesting a very limited split that will be made on principles that everyone can agree to: further splitting will be contentious. Part of the reluctance is the edit wars about this in the past : look at the fact that English unitary district of county of Herefordshire is a bluelink for evidence of the craziness of this. Morwen - Talk 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I follow. How about we have an East Riding of Yorkshire article along the same lines as the North and West Riding ones, covering the historic Riding itself and the former administrative/lieutenancy counties, and East Riding of Yorkshire (district) to cover the unitary district, with disambiguation links at the top of each article? Although, to be honest, I don't understand the problem with separate articles. I've been thinking about such a split ever since the infoboxes were added to the North and West Riding articles: because the infobox relates specifically to the 1889-1974 administrative county and not the Riding as a whole, which could cause confusion to the casual reader. Such a precedent appears to have been set by the way most towns and cities have two articles, one for the town/city and another for the borough (with a bizarre naming convention for the city boroughs to boot!) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- My idea is that we would split entities where the boundaries changed substantially and there was no administrative continuity. This would improve the encyclopedia as it means unconnected entities that happen to share the same name would no longer be treated in the same article. It would mean splitting Renfrewshire and Aberdeenshire (already done) and things like Flintshire, Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. We only have one article for the West Riding of Yorkshire in its various incarnations, and I consider it an anomaly that we have independent articles about two of the three ridings, but not the third. I'm envisaging an intro something like "The East Riding of Yorkshire is a historic subdivision of the traditional English county of Yorkshire. From 1660 to 1974 it was used as a county for the Lieutenancy, and from 1889 to 1974 it had a county council as an administrative county". But I'm being very cautious here, because I don't want to see this as a step down a slippery slope to having an article about every incarnation of every county. Morwen - Talk 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How does that look as a start? Morwen - Talk 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Since this is primarily about the unitary district and as such contains the {{Yorkshire and the Humber}}, I think it would be safe to remove the awkwardly placed {{Yorkshire}} template, which would probably be more at home in History of the East Riding of Yorkshire. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Although it has that template in two capacities (or rather there are two links from that template). Most of the problems with too many things floating around making it look ugly can just be solved with more prose. :) Morwen - Talk 14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Random project
Might be interesting to find out when the former Haltemprice UD was parished. From the ONS codes for the parishes: this appears to be after Beverley was parished: the parish codes are
00FB164 Wressle CP 00FB165 Yapham CP 00FB166 Beverley CP 00FB167 Cottingham CP 00FB168 Anlaby with Anlaby Common CP 00FB169 Bridlington CP 00FB170 Kirk Ella CP 00FB171 Willerby CP
Morwen - Talk 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Another random thing is : how does the northern border of the registration county compare with the modern district? Looking at a map of poor law unions it looks very close indeed. Morwen - Talk 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- And we could do with finding out some more about the development of the three resort towns (Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea) and their popularity. Where did people from West Yorkshire go on their holidays? the North Sea coast or to - Whitby and Scarborough seem to be more popular here - did any cross the Pennines? Morwen - Talk 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I grew up in Doncaster in the West Riding and we went on holiday mostly to Scaborough and Filey: but did also cross the Pennines for a day trip to Blackpool at least once (I don't remember ever staying there). I believe the nearest coastal town for quick spare of the moment car journeys was Cleethorpes, however. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- And we could do with finding out some more about the development of the three resort towns (Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea) and their popularity. Where did people from West Yorkshire go on their holidays? the North Sea coast or to - Whitby and Scarborough seem to be more popular here - did any cross the Pennines? Morwen - Talk 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The eponymous River Hull
"The eponymous River Hull drains the area north of Kingston" sounds like gibberish to me.