Talk:Ironstone mining in Cleveland and North Yorkshire

Requested move 22 March 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus on anything after nearly 2 months at RM. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ironstone mining in Cleveland and North Yorkshire → Ironstone mining in Cleveland, Yorkshire – “Ironstone mining in Cleveland and North Yorkshire” to “Ironstone mining in Cleveland, Yorkshire”Cleveland county and North Yorkshire was created in 1974, Cleveland county disbanded in 1996. Most content in the article contains information predating 1974.Cleveland is a historic name not to be confused with an administrative county that lasted twelve years with the same name. This article’s name and some content is therefore anachronistic. Regards, Chocolateediter (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 00:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case is should be Ironstone mining in the North Riding of Yorkshire and Cleveland should be nowhere. However; the area was known as Cleveland before the county was created in 1974 and most of the sources have Cleveland in them:
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."
 * The full list of sources is given (as not all mention Cleveland), in the interests of parity. Whilst it was undoubtedly in North Yorkshire; the ironstone area was mostly within Cleveland, with some additional mines in the Esk Valley. The article also states: "The list covers all the ironstone mines in the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, and as such, extends into parts of North Yorkshire that were not traditionally designated as being in Cleveland. Most British Geological Survey documents refer to the ironstone workings as a whole district; the Liassic Ironstones paper published in 1952, states that Cleveland refers to the tract of land south from the River Tees to the Vale of Pickering which includes the hills completely where ironstone may occur."


 * Cleveland is mentioned as it features in the sources and we are driven by our sources. I have no objections to a name change, but I think your rationale is wrong, as the term Cleveland for the area immediately south of the Tees is an ancient one, such as Broadacres, Holderness, etc. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, on re-reading this, I do understand what you mean, as Cleveland coupled with North Yorkshire could be misconstrued. However, it might need a third name, as Ironstone mining in Cleveland, North Yorkshire would suggest only the Cleveland area, whilst there were quite a few mines outside of that area. Hmm. The joy of all things (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked for a title/name change. You cannot rename an article without also moving it, and just arbitrarily changing titles when you have asked for a consensus is subverting the entire process. The ironstone mining also includes ares not in Cleveland. I have agreed that the current title is not fit for purpose (above), but no agreement on what it should be called has been reached. The joy of all things (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry I know I stupendously rushed that edit. I really shouldn’t have it was naughty of me, definitely naughty on this informative article.Why not just "Ironstone mining in Yorkshire" or "Ironstone mining in Northern England" it would give the article room to expand, maybe into ancient and modern era articles. I think all mines in the were in ancient Cleveland. Sorry again, PS karma caught up with me the Wikipedia app has a bug that cuts half the editing screen and sometimes locks it completely so I have had to retype this whole reply. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, on relisting, I would propose Ironstone mining in the North Riding of Yorkshire as Chocolateediter states that they were all in the North Riding of Yorkshire, the last one closing in 1964, ten years before the county shake and break-ups. The joy of all things (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * How about just Ironstone mining in Yorkshire? Avoids any problems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)