Talk:Middlesbrough Council

Population
This is just regarding the two articles of Middlesbrough Town and The Borough of Middlesbrough. According to Middlesbrough Town article, the population is 142,000 but the Borough of Middlesbrough article states 137,800? Is it that the info for the Town article is based on statistics for 2005/6 and the Borough of M'bro is still using the figures from 2001? dj_paul 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Middlesbrough town / borough
I have posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions regarding the present split between the articles Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough (borough) and invite comments. I note that the articles are mutually contradictory, in that Middlesbrough claims that it is larger than Middlesbrough (borough), but Middlesbrough (borough) identifies places outside Middlesbrough that are in the borough; but these places are places that Middlesbrough claim are in Middlesbrough. Please leave general comments there. Morwen - Talk 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the 2 articles should be merged since you can see most of the borough is urbanized. Blackwave...... (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest this article is moved to Middlesbrough Borough Council and the Middlesbrough article edited to reflect the change. MRSC (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been completed. MRSC (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Middlesbrough
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 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this article is just about the council that runs the borough and the other article is about the place itself. Keith D (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Keith. I think you are right in a way - but "the place itself" describes the whole of the borough (and a little bit beyond). It's not like a piece about New York City being just a small part of New York State; Middlesbrough - and especially as described - is the whole of the Unitary Authority. They are the same place. If, on the other hand, if it could be said that Middlesbrough didn't include, for example, places such as North Ormesby, Linthorpe, and places further afield, like Park End, Brambles Farm, and Marton, then there would be a case for having two separate articles. But then, I don't suppose I can vote for my own proposal. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 20:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - same reasons as Keith D - place and authority. What might be better is a minor clean-up of the Middlesbrough article summarising the type of authority with a, i.e.
 * tag linking to this article that details the Council more specifically, and remove any unnecessary local background/history, apart from a brief summary. That way the Boro article can focus more on the geography, history and locality, without fixating on governmental data so much, making it a little lighter reading, generally. It would be an easy matter to simply cut/paste sections from there to here, and vice versa, then neatly link - it also means less duplication and reduces the chance of one article contradicting the other due to someone editing one whilst missing the other. I didn't know both articles existed either until 5 mins ago. Us Boro lads.. ;) Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you would agree with cutting the Middlesbrough article down to Middlesbrough town centre, St Hilda, Ayresome, etc. - leave North Ormesby as separate, ... and Marton and Park End/Thorntree. We have to decide where Middlesbrough proper ends ... otherwise it'll just be the same as Middlesbrough Borough. Most suburbs have their own pages anyway.
 * Not really as this article should b specifically about the council and the operations of the council, such as councillors, elections etc. Once this has been extracted from the Middlesbrough article, leaving a short summary, then there needs to be a decision as to if we need two location articles one covering the Middlesbrough settlement at Middlesbrough and one covering the wider borough details that would sit at Middlesbrough (borough). Keith D (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to sign your posts with ~ or a bot gets angry ;) No I wouldn't agree to that; Middlesbrough is a county borough, not just a town centre. The "suburbs" are small areas, this isn't America where suburbs are massive blocks - some areas are only 1 or 2 square kms max. If we split them all off they'd just be a bunch of unread stubs which makes Boro seem worthless - which it is these days, but no point making a deal of it. Besides, some areas already have a stub, assuming there's anything worth mentioning. Middlesbrough ends where the map ends it and Council authority is no more, the borough boundary - grab an A-Z of Boro. Like I said, I suggest cutting the article down to its entire history, geography and local points of interest - move government/political info to this page. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this "Merge" business going anywhere? The merge templates have been up on the Boro/MBC articles for a month, I gather - but only a couple of responses to show any interest, both of which oppose a merge. Might as well remove them and proceed with a clean-up of the content, as that seems to be the general agreement. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your suggestions Marcus - you might as well now remove the templates and carry on with a clean-up. Zangar (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

2001 census population under estimate
I was looking into population figures for Middlesbrough on the ONS and came across this document. It states that in 2004 the ONS conducted a series of studies aimed at improving local population estimates on hard to count areas during the 2001 national census. One of these areas was the Borough of Middlesbrough. A report produced for the Local Authority of Middlesbrough showed it had become harder to enumerate the population since 1991 and it was at risk of a population under-estimate. It was revealed that two areas of the borough, Gresham ward and Southfield ward were considered to be at risk of localised under-enumeration. The report shows that after the study, Middlesbrough's population at the 2001 census was actually under-estimated by 5,816. The report shows a few different figures. At the start of the report it states that the official 2001 census for Middlesbrough was 134,847, but that was later found to be under-estimated by 5,816. This would take the total population to 140,633. However the final revised estimates located at the very bottom of the report show that the revised figure was 138,757 and that the original 2001 estimate was 132,941! Within the same report it shows two conflicting results so which is the true figure is beyond me. All that I know is this report shows the actual population of Middlesbrough in 2001 was not around 135,000 but close to 140,000. This would have put the urban sub-area at around 150,000 (with Ormesby ward). I would like to adjust the population to the correct figure however I would like to discuss first which of the revised results to use. Acklamite 01:56, 3rd November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acklamite (talk • contribs)
 * Personally I would leave as it is for now as most other places are on the original 2001 census release, also the ONS are in the process of releasing the 2011 census data when all of the articles will need revising, currently they have released the county data. Keith D (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)