Talk:York

Economy section

Am I alone in finding the Economy section repetitive and in places incoherent (e.g. "Since the closure ..." - closure of what? Probably the railway works, but that's a couple of paras higher up)? It's as if someone shoved a whole lot of new stuff in without checking whether it was in a suitable place. I might get round to sorting this out and copy-editing, but not any time soon, so feel free... --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the 'largest employers' section last week, but someone undid the edits. Portakabin only employs 600 people in York. Only when combined with its parent company Shepherd would Portakabin be considered one of the largest employers. University of York now employs over 3,200 and should therefore be mentioned.RandallGhent (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I must own up I think it was me that reverted but the changes were not supported by the existing reference. If you can supply a reliable reference for the changes that you are providing then fine otherwise we will have to stay with the information as quoted in the reference we have. Keith D (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted the extra reference but cannot check detail as it is timing out at the moment. Keith D (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference provided does check out. The other ref is for Jan 2008 and York Uni has expanded lately.--Harkey (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New photo

Is fantastic, good job to whoever added it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate section

The text in this section is way out. It might be better to use the BBC reference as a basis for the climate chart as High Mowthorpe is not representative of the Vale of York as its closer to the Wolds.

The ref at [1] says:

Summer temperatures in York can get up to 32°C (90°F) during the day, although nights drop down to 15°C (60°F). During winter, York's climate averages 5°C (42°F), dropping down to -6°C (20°F) overnight. Snow sometimes falls in December and it may snow occasionally until March.

Shall I alter the section?--Harkey (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Book references

There are several references to books or publications given but there is no indication of the page number that the information can be found on. Has anyone got access to these books or publications and can complete the appropriate page details for the references? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ham

I suggest include information about York ham (cooked sliced ham) [2]. --Nukeless 13:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply York

I was looking to add SimplyYork.com to the external links section on the York page, but an editor has removed the link.

SimplyYork.com has been going a year now and unlike most dirctory sites it provides free links to the websites of any business in York, making it a good old comprehensive source when searching for restaurants, estate agents etc in the city. You also don't just get an address and phone number with website links only for the one or two companies that have paid.

I would invite another editor to repost the link if they too feel it would be a worth while addition and resource.

86.136.237.63 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Being just a collection of links to businesses it falls well short of our external links policy and so I would expect it to be removed from the article if reposted. Keith D (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I can respect an editorial decision for Wikipedia (even if I don't understand it) however I'd hope you'd provide true comment on our site. It is more than "just a collection of links to businesses", we have spent hundreds of hours qualifying sites to make sure there are hundreds of links to resources such as local weather, train times for specific local stations, cinema times direct from local cinemas, and countless clubs and societies and sites of special interest, really picking out the best of the web locally thus making it relevant. To quote an email in yesterday from the Princess Theatre in Torquay with respect to the Simply Torquay site; "Your site is lovely! easy to understand nice and clear...".

86.136.166.70 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if this attempt at qualifying the site was an original idea, but it's actually the very opposite. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what was meant by this last comment? The site is the result of a lot of hard work, and very popular, and is valued by a lot of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.166.70 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, and I'm happy for you, but Keith D explained the reasons above. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I accept, adding the site would cause some kind of editorial problem as its commercial...so now we are settled can we now take this conversation off the site? Would appreciate it if you could do that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.166.70 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 86.136.166.70 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be kept here for future reference. We'll have this discussion to reference. Rehevkor ✉ 15:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Future reference for what? The Simply sites represents a lot of hard work and it is peoples livelihood you are playing with...why try and hurt that? The comments made about our site weren't correct and so I've asked for it to be removed? I've dropped a line to wikimedia asking for this to be resolved, but I'm hoping this can be resolved between us, and so I'd please request again these are removed? Kind Regards

86.136.166.70 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Future reference for when someone else comes along wanting to add their site, on which they have worked very hard. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But that would be referred back to the editorial policy would it not, surely not comments about our site which arent correct? Again this is peoples livelihoods you are messing around with, why do that? It doesn't place Wikipedia in a good light by keeping on comments made which aren't true? I don't want to be in an argument, I'm just asking for some incorrect comments which could hurt our business to be removed from your website? Thanks in advance for any help with this.

86.136.166.70 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it saves re-hashing the same conversations again. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Where there are comments on this talk page which you believe are incorrect, then add your comments to correct the information (you've done so above, already, in fact). That's the Wikipedia way of doing things, not deleting past comments. PamD (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm left pretty cold by this, and my previous belief in the wikipedia editorial system has totally gone if honest. I don't see how if an editor makes an incorrect comment that is found to offend, that it doesnt get removed. On a personal level, I'd not want to spend my days being derogatory about other people's hard work, or do something which makes an impact on peoples livelihoods, I'm just sorry that there are people around that might want to do that, and its sad reflection in wikipedia that they can become editors of this website. I'd have to say if I'd known this in advance I'd not have wanted our sites linked from Wikipedia. I would have thought at the very least I was entitled to remove my own contributions, is that not the case?

86.136.166.70 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think some passing comments on a Wikipedia talk page will have such a detrimental effect on your business? Rehevkor ✉ 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's incorrect description by an editor puts one potential user off or one advertiser off the site then it has had a detrimental effect. It would be lovely to live in a world where nobody is influenced by comment but that is not the case, hence when the tabloids come out on the side of one or other polictical party it can decide an election regardless of policy. If comment had no effect, then there would not be a PR industry.

86.136.166.70 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a read of WP:TALK. The comments above were not intended as an insult on any level but were mealy a opinion and/or observation, so there's no policy that covers it's removal. If you choose to take offence to it then you've already done the right thing in correcting the statement. Further than that, the discussion will not be deleted. If you're left cold I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines before contributing (or removing contributions). It's just how things work here, it's nothing personal. Rehevkor ✉ 21:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What "incorrect description" do you feel so damaged by? You edited Wikipedia articles to promote your business, and editors removed it and were not gushing with praise for your website. OK, so what? A great benefit of Wikipedia is its transparent and open editorial process. It's not at all clear, then, that we should censor our internal discussion simply because you're now embarrassed at the luke-warm reception your website received... — Matt Crypto 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt we get enough great feedback not to worry about luke warm feedback as that will happen with any site, it's just an incorrect description that I'd hoped someone would have the sense to remove it together with this thread as its a waste of space on a page which could be used to debate so much more interesting information about York which is an amazing city. You guys dont have to make your living from Wikipedia, we do from our sites so I'm sorry if we appear sensitive. I don't know what you do but if you were surgeon and someone described you as just a guy who uses a knife, you might feel the need to say something. Anyway this is all getting silly and I really don't want to loose faith in the people that edit this site.

86.136.166.70 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to apologise to anyone who has started reading this thread as if you’ve got to this point then by now you’ve probably come to the conclusion that you’ve just wasted the last couple of minutes of your life. I know what you’re thinking, in that two minutes you could have read a classic poem, enjoyed some great art, listened to some moving music, or even called a love one and told them how you feel about them - but you read this and it’s indicative of the internet today, so much rubbish out there which hangs around for years and years, making it harder for people to find something which might actually prove of interest. I did ask for it to be removed but that was out of my hands…so just don’t waste your next two minute hey…

86.136.166.70 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt people read talk pages to find things of interest, unless you count drama. The article space is that way ----> Rehevkor ✉ 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeh hopefully the search engines don't pickup on these kind of pages...I thought your page was good by the way Matthew, very concise no delusions of grandeur… just enough to let people know you are an interesting guy and have a life.

86.136.166.70 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

A reduction or relocation of Images may be required as some are clashing with heading and info boxes/tables. Have tqeaked it with {{-}} in a couple of places, and moved some up on short paragraphs and one to the left as a fix (but not ideal). ( display is obviously effected by user settings and monitor choice, so may look fine to one editor and not others). But the general lay out with blocks of images in sections may need reviewing. Note the EL section looks rather large as well ? Are they all needed/valid entries ? --BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Connection to New York

If this city's name was influence behind New York's name, that should be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.246.2 (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that's true. New York took the name, it's not as if York gave it to them. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the history of New York i think you will find it was named after the Duke of York and Albany when the English reconquered the area from the Dutch and not directly from the city itself. Rimmer1993 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimmer1993 (talk • contribs)

GA Status

Looking at the boxes above, there was some talk at the start of 2007 about getting this article nominated for Good Article status, and it was felt that the infobox needed organising and some other tweaks to the text, then it could be put up for a peer review.

I've compared the infobox to the one for Featured Article Manchester, and made a couple of minor tweaks but otherwise it's pretty much identical, so it seems that our infobox is good.

One thing I'd like to alter is that the photo of Stonegate is a little lopsided, seems to be tilted slightly to the right - next sunny day I'll pop out with my camera and see if I can do any better.

Anyone have any other comments, or is it worth submitting the article? Since I first started looking at the article in 2006, it's come in in leaps and bounds and all here can be proud of their work! Brickie (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:York/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Notes:

Toponymy

• "The most widely accepted theory is therefore..." sounds very weaselly, even if it is the most widely accepted theory Done --Harkey (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• "The name 'Eboracum' became 'Eoforwic' to the Anglian rulers of the 7th century." I'm not sure what that means - "became to the rulers..."? Done --Harkey (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Two final sentences are unreferenced.

Post conquest:

• "William the Conqueror at once built two fortresses on mottes in the city, either side of the river - still visible." This sentence needs work. Done --Harkey (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern history:

• I'm not sure an external link in the middle of a sentence is appropriate. I'm not sure the name of the section is suitable either - it won't always be modern. Done --Harkey (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Local government:

• First three parts are unreferenced, as is the last paragraph. I'm not sure the first paragraph should stand on its own. Done
• "The Liberal Democrats have 20 councillors and in May 2007 they formed a minority administration, and an executive of 9 councillors and the Labour Party formed the Opposition with 18 councillors." Sentence is far too long, and all those ands do not help it flow well. Done
• National government/law courts/twin cities all unreferenced.

Location:

• "York lies within the Vale of York, a flat area of fertile arable land bordered by the Pennines, the North York Moors and the Yorkshire Wolds, at the confluence of the Rivers Ouse and Foss on a terminal moraine left by the last Ice Age" is one long sentence, please split it up or reword it so it flows better. Done

City districts and surrounding villages:

• Too listy - needs more prose there. Doing... --Harkey (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Harkey (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Climate:

• "In summer the average maximum temperature is 22 °C (72 °F) although some days can see highs of up to 28 °C (82 °F) but nights are significantly colder averaging minimum of 15 °C (60 °F), although these can consistently dip below 10 °C (50 °F) on colder summer nights." Two althoughs in one sentence, please reword or split. Done

Demography:

• Needs huge expansion... Done

Economy:

• Again, I'm not sure it is appropriate to have external links like that in the middle of prose. Done

Education:

• Mostly unsourced, with two citation needed tags. Done
• "The University of York also boasts..." sounds like something out of a travel guide... Done
• "specialising in more vocational subjects such as Horticulture, Agriculture, Animal Management and even Golf Course Management." Why are the subjects capitalised? Done
• "In January 2009 the school hopes to move back to the Oaklands site on Cornlands Road." Did they? Didn't they? Please update. Done

Road transport:

• Spelling of "mediaevel" ought to be consistent throughout. Done --Harkey (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• No reference for first paragraph.

Air transport:

• "Elvington's long runway means that it would be suitable for such use - indeed, the site is used as an alternate landing site for the Space Shuttle." Needs restructuring and a source. CUT Done --Harkey (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Local public transport:

• Second part is very listy. Done

Sites of interest:

• Only two references. Done More added.--Harkey (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Theatre:

• "York has a number of theatres, the Theatre Royal, the Grand Opera House and Joseph Rowntree Theatre." Is that all of them, or just some? The sentence isn't complete. Done --Harkey (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Section is unsourced. Done --Harkey (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Music/Media/Sports:

• No references, and media has a tag. Doing...--Harkey (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Harkey (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Noted York people:

• Should be put into prose, rather than a list. CUT Done --Harkey (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good so far, and is well-deserving of its B-class tag, but I'm sorry to say I don't think this is near enough GA quality.

• 1a - clear prose. I think it does this for the most part, but I have highlighted a few problems I spotted, and there are probably more I missed.
• 1b - again, mostly, but there are some listy sections, and odd paragraph cuts.
• 2a and b - there are numerous sections that lack any kind of sources, and there are a few citation needed tags. I don't believe it passes this.
• 2c - again, I don't know, because numerous parts are unsourced.
• 3a - possibly. I saw no mention at all of Treasurer's House, which I visited the other week, which was disappointing.
• 3b - I think this is ok.
• 4 - some parts sound as though they are from a travel guide - and there are/were cases of unnecessary usage of adjectives, which I've removed instances of when I saw them.
• 5 - passes this ok.
• 6 - I think the images are great.

So, this is a decent article, but I don't think it is quite ready for GA status quite yet. I notice there has been no peer review for this article - it really could do with a thorough copyedit from a third party, in addition to fixing the issues above. Good luck with it, Majorly talk 21:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Education section

A consensus is needed on York Education. Are only schools in York to be allowed, or schools whose catchment is York. If the former, surely moderators can't be selective based on which they think the most "notable" schools are? Is this a Wikipedia State?! It would be a good idea to place a policy on here, instead of moderators ganging up on contributors and flouting the 3 revert rules between them. Tomtolkien (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that as a rule of thumb, those notable to have their own articles on WP could get a mention in the section on this page, as per WP:BUILD. I don't feel we need red links just to prove a WP:POINT. For those schools outside of the city, evidence from a WP:RS should be used to determine that it is relevant to the city (i.e. the catchment area issue). As the article says, there are over 55 schools in the "City" - I guess those "historically notable" are important enough to get further coverage here (St Peter's for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdcollins1984 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Following on from GA review

I've started working my way through the various sections. Help with demography and ref checking would be appreciated, please.--Harkey (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)--Harkey (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would now like help/advice with the following, please.

• From Section 17 (External links) onwards seems to be rather "weighty". Too much of a good thing.
• Advice on who to include in the York#Noted York people section when I convert the list to prose.

Thank you--Harkey (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the noted York people, I would suggest writing about only: a) those people who are nationally well-known (and in the case of living persons, likely to remain well-known) b) People who are initmately associated with York (rather than just born there).

I would suggest the following people:

• Alcuin (b)
• Guy Fawkes (a)
• George Hudson (b)
• The Rowntree family in general (b)
• WH Auden (a)
• Frankie Howerd (a)
• Judi Dench (a)
• Martin Rees (a) and....
• Steve McLaren, if you are feeling generous.

For the external links, I would just cull the first two sections completely. The academic/media sites don't really add a lot. Maybe leave The Press in, but the others aren't necessary. The history/photos sections are useful for people wanting to find more about York, so I would leave them in. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll go for linking the people you mention in the body of the article. Generous er.. em.. :-) --Harkey (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review follow on

Comment in the peer review about the gallery was:

Photo gallery

MOS:IMAGES generally deprecates galleries unless some special reason exists to include one. I don't believe a gallery is needed here. You have many excellent images embedded in the text as well as a link to a gallery on the Commons.

so I have removed the photo gallery.--Harkey (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

History section comment was:

Quick comment: I think the history section is far too detailed for a summary style section. The article is over 90 kilobytes long, and moving some of the content to History of York seems appropriate. User:Jafeluv

In view of the importance of history and historic sites in York, I'm not sure I can agree with this. What do others think?--Harkey (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. So the History is going to have to be condensed. Pity because it has some interesting bits and it's all relevant to visitors and gives context to some of the historic sites.--Harkey (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 pennies: it seems a reasonable length to me as it stands. York is a historic city -- much more significant historically than as a contemporary city -- so it's not wholly inappropriate to have a correspondingly large section in the main article. Before History, I'd consider trimming "Transport", "Education", "Culture", "Sport" etc. — Matt Crypto 15:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've gone ahead with GA review with History section intact.--Harkey (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Former walled city?

In what way is "York ... a former walled city"? It is a walled city. What's meant by "former", and how many cities other than York that have retained their walls are "former walled cities"? Enquiring minds want to know. --GuillaumeTell 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NB there is also a Category:Walled towns, which includes Chester. --GuillaumeTell 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my attempt to clarify the fact that the walls are an historic defensive feature of York, rather than a current one, has obviously fallen foul of the sensitivities of enquiring minds. Please feel free, as ever on Wikipedia, to modify the wording and add York to Category:Walled towns. I shall not take offence.--Harkey (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed "former". I don't think that there are very many cities around these days whose walls still function as defensive features. Category:Walled towns is currently sparsely populated and I've refrained from adding York to it, at least for now. --GuillaumeTell 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I was trying too hard to think of readers in less developed/informed areas of the world who might get the wrong idea!!--Harkey (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gastronomy <> Betty's

The second half of the Gastronomy section is an advert for Betty's. While Betty's certainly warrants a (brief) mention, so do many other establishments. --Jameboy (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, it was not added as an advert. Bettys is an iconic tearoom of its era and a "must do" for many visitors to York.--Harkey (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Music section

The current section seems to exclude a lot of the music scene, especially those genres favoured by the under 50s. I'm wondering how contemporary music venues such as City Screen Basement Bar, Fibbers and The Duchess could be fit into the mix, whilst still maintaining the citation format. 144.32.126.14 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:York/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall, this article is in excellent shape! I can see that the comments from the previous GA review were taken well, and mostly used to improve the article substantially. So that makes the second review much, much easier! Here's how it stands up against the six GA criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article also matches up well with, and is overall agreement with, the guidelines of WP:UKCITIES. One possible suggestion might be to alter the article's order of sections slightly. For example, with US and north american cities, we're finding that it's better to promote the 'culture' section in the order a bit, usually right after the 'economy' section. The sections on 'government', 'education' and 'transportation' are usually best if included near the end of the article, as their mostly more infrastructure-related. 'History', 'geography', 'demographics' ('demography'?), and 'economy' are some of the most important sections, and should always be first (we're mostly in agreement here, except for the government part).

I also noticed a few sentences were commas should be added to help improve readability. I fixed some of them, but it might help to have someone go through it again and sprinkle a few more about. This is fairly minor though, and not worthy of holding up GA.

Overall, the article is in great shape and can be promoted. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

WildBot has identified a couple of broken piped links to #sections of article (see box above TOC on this page). I've changed Local government in England#Councils and councillors to Local government in England#Councils and mayors but couldn't decide what to do about [[Education in England#Qualifications|academic qualifications]], which appeared in the Demographics section - "Of those aged 16–74 in York, 24.6% had no academic qualifications". There's now no section #Qualifications in Education in England and there is no single section there that describes academic qualifications (which seems to mean everything from GCSEs at 16 upwards to PhDs and professional qualifications). I can't find another suitable article to point to, so, for now, I've simply removed the offending link. One possible solution might be just linking to Education in England, but qualifications are scattered around in the article so I'm not sure that linking would help much. Is there another article that could be linked to? I couldn't find one (and Qualification doesn't help - neither Professional certification nor GCSE is suitable). --GuillaumeTell 11:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Topo whatever

I humbly beg that we throw out this word, on the grounds that nobody ever uses it and very few (myself included) know, without looking it up, what it is meant to convey (some may claim that at least academics use it - I doubt it, to be honest). The Webster's definition is "the place-names of a region or language or especially the etymological study of them"; i.e., either the totality of the place names in a region or an academic activity, but NOT the derivation of any specific place name, which, I humbly suggest, is quite simply "etymology" (which is also, imho, high-fallutin' enough, but at least it's right!).Maelli (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you look at Toponymy, it says there: "Toponymy is the scientific study of place names (toponyms) ... Toponymy is distinct, though often confused with etymology, which is the study of the history of languages themselves ... According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "toponymy" first appeared in English in 1876; since then, toponym has come to replace "place-name" in professional discourse among toponymists". So "etymology" isn't quite right, but we aren't exactly professional toponymists (and Wikipedia, of course, isn't always a Reliable Source). Perhaps we could change the section-header to something like "Origin of the name "York" and put "toponymy" - with a link to the article - in the text? I have a feeling, however, that there may be lots and lots of other articles that have Toponomy as a section-header - London#Toponomy, hmm! Paris#Etymology, double hmm!! Maybe this should be taken up at WP:CITIES? --GuillaumeTell 10:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:UKCITIES indicates it can be either etymology or toponymy. Keith D (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lat long .... cinder lane is behind the railway station and outside the city walls.

53.958346,-1.080874 is far more generic central york for mapping purposes.