Talk:Yorkshire/Archive 3

Yorkshire article
The article needs amending in a number of places in light of changes to WP article 'Historic Counties of England' principally section 'Recognition of Historic... ' and Eric Pickles announcement of 2013. It would be my assertion that the article recognise and provide link to 'The Historic Counties of England' position and related maps.Mikewhit (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What are the substantive changes to Historic counties of England that are relevant? Are you seeking to change the policy stated at WP:UKCOUNTIES that "we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries"? Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Dave, (OK?) I am at distinct disadvantages - I am unfamiliar with the workings of this forum, I don't know 'who' you are, I don't know who "we" are in the above policy statement and, have no information relating to the creation of the above statement to judge its' authority, its bases and, correctness or not.

I was born in Barnoldswick,in a house which did not survive the later demise of the mill, and I remember with distinct clarity 1974. Forgive me if I regard myself as a 'source' for this purpose:-) At the time, we, the residents of this area, were 'promised' by the government of the day that this change to the region did not, and was never intended to, change the county boundary. This 'promise' has since been reaffirmed more recently by Eric Pickles as Secretary of State, in, I think, 2013. This alone should be sufficient challenge to the 'policy'. The text of the Act may not, absolutely literally, reflect this but I think it is true that unless/until it has been challenged in Law it remains open. I am working with a quite old, broken, microsoft tablet. In order to preserve the 'discussion forum' I intend to create a more detailed document in MS Word and attach it.Mikewhit (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dave, During research I noted dissimilarities in content of various WP pages. (Yorkshire, English Counties, Counties, Barnoldswick, probably others). The 'Yorkshire' page makes present tense references to 'Historic County', offering a map, and also offers some differentiation relating to 'Historic' 'Ceremonial' and 'Administration' boundaries. For Yorkshire, this contradicts your previously stated policy?

Earlier contributions on talk pages, from WP members, appear to be of similar opinion - is there need to identify and differentiate? I would offer, for Yorkshire as a special case, a simplistic statement (of fact?) at the beginning of the Yorkshire article. This would replace some of the existing text, thereby not increasing article length. Included with suitable preamble; """Historic Boundary, following approximately the geographical boundary of antiquity, Administration Boundary, may be changed in accordance with Central and Local Government needs, Ceremonial Boundary, under influence of the Lieutenancies Act"""

This would also allow for links to related pages?Mikewhit (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure what you're asking for or what changes you're advocating, but "we" in the page I quoted means "the Wikipedia community". I didn't write it, and it's not "my" policy, though I happen to agree with it. To my eyes, the lead of the Yorkshire article, which is supposed to be a brief explanation of the subject in question, covering the main points (which are then expanded below in the article), conveys the situation concisely and accurately. The 1974 boundary changes are mentioned, but further explanation is given further down the article (with appropriate links to the Local Government Act 1972 article). In my opinion, lengthy detail about the minutiae of the 1974 changes (and the views of their detractors) is not critical to the understanding of a reader who wants a quick overview of Yorkshire. The arguments of the Association of British Counties and similar bodies should not be dismissed, but neither should they be given undue prominence. Wikipedia's aim is to write an accessible, readable encyclopedia, not to act as a platform for advocates of fringe theories at the expense of a clear understanding of the subject. That said, I see no reason not to link to the article on the 1972 Act in the lead, and I will add one now. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that I was involved in a similar discussion concerning one of your edits above (see "Yorkshire muddlings"). Your involvement in Wikipedia so far has apparently been concerned exclusively with advocacy for the continued existence of the historic counties. By your own admission, you're not familiar with Wikipedia and its policies: it might be worth reading Single-purpose account or similar before proceeding. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have read the SPA article.

Yes, it is true that, to date, I have only been involved with specific issues related to Historic County of Yorkshire, and, more precisely, the WP articles involving Yorkshire. Everybody begins with one. Taking one item at a time; Firstly, with regard to the SPA - I began with edit relating to the Barnoldswick Article because, most of the people in this region and elsewhere in Yorkshire are very aware that Barnoldswick is located within the historic geographic boundary of Yorkshire, and not geographic Lancashire. To them, it is simply incorrect. I still consider that my edit of that article was balanced and factual. To my memory, it was also more concise than the current presentation.

Secondly, in my eyes the lead of the Yorkshire article is neither concise nor accurate. It contains numerous references to Historic County of Yorkshire, in terms that represent current existence, and even presents a map. Nowhere does it claim that the Historic geographic boundary has been abolished / no longer exists. It is not at all clear.

Third, Previous discussion on the subject, involving other 'wikipedians', shows understanding that the existence of Historic (yorkshire) boundary is not in doubt, and suggesting amendment. To paraphrase one entry, "It was a boundary, there is no evidence to show its removal, therefore, it remains" I can attach pictures of - new - signage if you wish.

Finally, For Yorkshire, your suggestion that I am upholding the position of the Historic Counties society is true, because, the historic boundary is in current use locally and elsewhere in Yorkshire. It even has a political party, with locally elected representatives, 'attached' to it. (The Yorkshire Party). For Yorkshire, upholding the policy of denial is simply not tenable, and may not be so even with citation.

Summing up, I suggest you (re)open this thread to the others of "the we". The group may choose to amend the policy to exclude Yorkshire, amend Yorkshire pages to accurately reflect, move on. I am now aware that Yorkshire does not have a seperate 'ceremonial county' please disregard that element in prior text.Mikewhit (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Dave, I have digested the stated policy (which is not a true policy but is stated to be a guideline).

The policy is, within itself, clearly contradictory in that it restates the group opinion / position that the Historic Boundaries no longer exist, then, it states, quote, """In England and Wales, where the historic county boundaries are different to modern boundaries the article should discuss these differences, and not be split into new "Historic county of Exampleshire" articles.""" Unquote.

In relation to the Yorkshire page, the current entry does not conform to the guideline. I am, and have been, all along, asking for nothing more than this paragraph requires. The edit that I made to Barnoldswick page was nothing more than this paragraph requires.Mikewhit (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Mikewhit, you are correct regarding the need to change the way we handle UK counties. The problem affects many more articles than just Yorkshire though, so here is not the best place to discuss necessary changes. You are also correct that historic counties do, of course, still exist: the UK COUNTIES guidelines that state otherwise is nothing more than a a well intended piece of muddled personal opinion, not backed by the evidence, that has caused endless editorial problems for many years. The necessary changes are quite simple but, as already stated, here is not the place to go into detail. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Roger 8, As you see from discussion I am a newbie😄. I understand the position re chat forum. Please advise way to proceed.Mikewhit (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't agree that the WP:UKCOUNTIES policy is "a well intended piece of muddled personal opinion, not backed by the evidence". It has been discussed many times (see WT:UKGEO and search the archives for "historic counties"), the arguments – including those presented here – have been discussed time and time again, and the consensus, every time, is in favour of the stated position. If you wish to test whether this consensus still exists, or argue the case for a change, that's the place to do it, not here. Personally, when I moved to Abingdon-on-Thames in 1979 it never occurred to me to think I was living in Berkshire...because anybody without an axe to grind accepts that Abingdon is in Oxfordshire. Anybody answering "Berkshire" to the question "In which county is Abingdon?" would be considered misleading by 99% of the population, including the inhabitants of the town, who rely on Oxfordshire County Council for their schools, libraries, social services, highways, waste disposal, etc. and never have anything to do with West Berkshire Council or its defunct predecessors. That said, if someone wanted chapter and verse, the historic information should be, and usually is, there in any affected articles. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Dave,
 * Yorkshire is not Berkshire, fortunately for us both. I dare say there will be different responses to the question almost county by county - I have no doubt that Devonians will fight tooth and nail to avoid change to Cornish, and vice versa.


 * You mention grinding and axes - the main point, surely, is that the entry is incorrect - it would be incorrect and deserving of amendment even if it were Old Sarum with nobody to object.


 * The required amendments are relatively minor. I would point out that you are vigorously defending one section of the policy document, thereby denouncing as false / invalid another section of the same document. I really need to understand the logic - please tell me how you chose between them?


 * Maybe, the rethink needs to be around the global aspect of the policy - clearly, one size does not fit all.


 * The page under discussion is Yorkshire, nowhere else. The discussion is the content of that specific page, hence, under WP guidelines this is the correct place to discuss it.


 * It appears that The County pages are entirely seperate with different groups of contributors. I would seriously consider that for many pages, some input from personal experience is necessary.


 * There are more important issues here, including failure (still) to find consensus. Please see new section for proposal of a specific and targetted way forward.Mikewhit (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be focusing on just this page which is built around the WP:UKCOUNTIES consensus - you need to gain consensus changes to that top level guidance as a first step as that applies to all of the UK counties not a specific one. We should NOT be changing this article in contravention of that guidance. Keith D (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Keith D, which also answers MikeWhit's earlier request to me. Admitting my own shortcomings, I cannot operate the WP system as quickly as some other editors can, so I hesitate trying to set up the required process to get a guideline change to the counties problem. Maybe someone else can help? A frustration of mine is that I have seen these discussions many times on various county sites but there is never a central forum and the arguments get lost, so can we first please all be set up in the UKCOUNTIES article where I think this discussion should take place. I do have some ideas for change but I do not want to start discussing them unless that discussion takes place somewhere that might lead to change. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think, with the progress at the next topic, we have moved to a place we can restart the conversation back to main focus - the Yorkshire page. Dave, Roger, Keith, can we agree to archive the input to this point and start over? If agreed, will somebody please do the archiving - I don't know how:-) Mikewhit (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This conversation should continue here . The debate will be about changing the existing practice, or not, of dealing with UK counties. The original discussion many years ago that led to the current situation, directly and indirectly, is here . See here for guidelines on the process to follow for proposing a consensus change. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

HELLO EVERYBODY.
 * Sorry to,shout., but I have just been to the source of the policy, which is at, WP:UK Geography. Here is direct copy from the talk page, beginning with government statement, the relevant text of the policy, as stated within:

− 	In regards to traditional counties, official statements made by the United Kingdom government should be respected. The most recent clarification on the Local Government Act 1972 was made in 11 July 1990, by the man who was the Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities at the time. Effectively, as minister of local government, the most reliable source in regards to such as issue. He made clear the traditional counties existence and the 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, with the direct statement. − 	“ 	"I can confirm that the government still stands by the statement ..... that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties. The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities." ” — Michael Portillo, Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities. 11 July 1990.[1]

In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established policy that we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties no longer exist. As this would contradict the government of the United Kingdom's most recent statements and that of future King of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles of Wales who in in late 2001 made it clear that the traditional counties are "still" in place and are "extremely important".

I think we can close the policy/guideline part and get on, but note, it is guide and not policy. Mikewhit (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I was unclear. The WP:Counties is a guide. The fact of the continuance of the Historic Boundaries is not, it is undeniable. Including Berkshire. Mikewhit (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to change the text at WP:UKCOUNTIES. I don't know how to cite source for this change, could one of you please do this so it doesn't get reverted? Mikewhit (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC) With hindsight, I have reverted that change. I did so because I realised that I had not verified the source of the text presented above to a sufficient extent. Mikewhit (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am still happy with mu opinion that the guideline containing "still" as opposed to "no longer" is flawed and requires revision, on the correct page. Mikewhit (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I also believe we can still proceed with the guideline in its current state. Quoting the relevant paragraph of text;

"In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. Unless (using consensus) a good reason is made not to, the article should describe any administrative and ceremonial changes differences within one article, including any difference in the statistics between them. In England and Wales, where the historic county boundaries are different to modern boundaries the article should discuss these differences, and not be split into new "Historic county of Exampleshire" articles.

Even taking the view that Historic boundary no longer exists, the final sentence is clear. Mikewhit (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to dealing with UK counties
Please check and comment here, if anyone is interested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sunjeev Sahota
Sunjeev Sahota has been added as a novelist related to Yorkshire but their article has no mention of Yorkshire mainly Derbyshire. Has anyone any knowledge about their connection to Yorkshire? Keith D (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that too when I edited the new material, noting that he was Derbyshire-born. One of the references mentions that he lives in Leeds. I can see the value in representing the immigrant community in Yorkshire but I'm not sure he's the best (or best-known) example. Not my area of expertise. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

YORKSHIRE </ref http://county-wise.org.uk/counties/yorkshire/
Yorkshire is the largest county of them all by far. It stretches from the North Sea coast deep into and over the Pennine Mountains, and from the River Tees to the Humber and further south inland. It encompasses empty moorland and crowded conurbations, high fells and low plains. It is a county with a strong character and identity of its own. Yorkshire is divided into three ridings, whose boundaries meet at the walls of the ancient city of York. York is in the middle of the shire. It was a great city even in Roman times (the co-capital of Britannia). It is a delight of mediæval streets, and at its heart its huge and delightful cathedral, York Minister.

The East Riding: The East Riding lies along the coast of the North Sea and the Humber. It is low-lying country in contrast to the other ridings, rich agricultural land. In the centre are the Yorkshire Wolds, an undulating chalk plateau which never rises above 900 feet. Holderness is a flat, broad triangular land between the sea and the Humber. It comes towards a point and a narrow whip of land ending at Spurn Head. The coast of the Humber estuary is flat, windy ground. The Humber is a great commercial gateway, and at its heart the City of Kingston upon Hull, usually known just as Hull, a large port and industrial city. North of Hull, Beverley is a quieter town with the famous Beverley Minster. The coast describes a smooth line along Holderness and a smooth sandly curve up to Flamborough Head and beyond the lofty chalk cliffs up to Filey Bay. The gentle Derwent valley forms the boundary with the North Riding.

The North Riding: In the eastern part of the North Riding are the hills of the North York Moors. The Cleveland Hills in this area plunge down to the sea at Whitby, home of Whitby Abbey, fishing and bracing holidays. The Cleveland coast is marked by the high cliffs that give it its name, Boulby Cliff being one of the highest in England. Wooded valleys, the wykes, tumble down from the high moors to the sea. In between pretty fishing villages such as Robin Hood’s Bay and Staithes nestle under the cliffs. The mouth of the Tees, at the very northern bounds of Yorkshire, is an industrial centre. The main town being Middlesbrough, a port and factory town that grew from nothing in the nineteenth century but from which now a small conurbation has grown, stretching down to the seaside town of Redcar. The industry on the Tees took wing from the coal of County Durham and the iron ore mined in the northern hills of Cleveland. The Tees marks the boundary with County Durham. The western part of the Riding is in the Pennines, with wild, often breathtaking scenery. Here (in the Lune Forest in Upper Teesdale) Mickle Fell stands at 2,591 feet, the highest point of Yorkshire. Southward are the Yorkshire Dales, rightly renowned for their beauty. In Swaledale are the old town of Richmond and the immemorial garrison town of Catterick. In Wensleydale runs the River Ure, noted for waterfalls, the forces, and delightful villages. In the upper part of Wensleydale is Hawes, home of the infamous Wensleydale Creamery. Lower down are the haunting ruins of Jervaulx (or Ure Vale) Abbey. Between the Pennines and the North York Moors is the Vale of York, a broad, low fertile land fed successively by the Swale, the Ure and the rivers of the West Riding and running down to York and the Humber plains.

The West Riding: The West Riding is the biggest of the three. It consists of a largely urban south and a rural north, though the division is not clear cut; in among the industrial towns in the south of the riding are many picturesque villages giving the quintessence of the ordinary Briton’s understanding of Yorkshire, including Haworth – home of the Brontë sisters. Leeds is the commercial and financial centre of Yorkshire. Leeds is an ancient town but its rapid growth is only since the industrial revolution, building itself first on wool manufacturing but then with all industry. Bradford has grown with it. South of these two great cities are many other industrial towns, the whole area knotted in A-roads and motorways. South of the Leeds and Bradford area is another major city; Sheffield. Sheffield is built on steel and the coal underneath which powers it mills. Sheffield has been famous for its steel since the middle ages but the nineteenth century saw explosive growth, the city climbing unchecked over the steep slopes of its seven hills and spilling over into Derbyshire. Doncaster, another industrial town, lies north-eastward. Away from all this the West Riding shows its best parts. Some of the loveliest of the Yorkshire Dales are in the West Riding, including Nidderdale and Wharfdale. In the northwest the Riding scales the Pennines, including the peaks of Ingleborough, Pen-y-Ghent, and Great Whernside. The West Riding stretches out to Sedbergh, only fifteen miles or so from the west coast. Craven is a distinctive area of limestone hills. It is popular among cavers. The Bowland Forest is a high moorland plateau from which becks flow both east and west. Harrogate grew as a spa town, still popular with genteel visitors. Ilkley too is a popular spot, albeit better known for the apparent goings on on Ilkley Moor according to the song. Ripon is a modest city with a fine cathedral, one with remarkably early foundations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.41.246 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Population & tags
Hello, I have tagged the "Cities and towns" section for update & context. (This also applies to "Notable towns of Yorkshire" section which probably should be moved down a level to match "Cities and towns" section or a sub-section of it.) The context tag is to indicate what the statistics apply to settlement or wider area for those that are districts as well and to give the year the statistics apply. The update tag is to make consistent with the change in the reference in the template which has been updated to mid-2019 statistics. May be we should change the template to update automatically from the statistics templates rather than only the reference. May be we should also apply this to the article figures as well so that they are automatically updated when changes are made. Keith D (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find this section strange – why is it necessary to have a table of the top 20 populations, and also the lists of cities and towns (for which the population figures do not match). Also what defines notable, as Bridlington is in the top 20 table but not on the notable list. For context perhaps a prose summary/summaries may be helpful for explaining the how, why and when of these settlements – like Ripon being a city despite is small size, yet Middlesbrough is still a town, the impact of industrial revolution on the growth of and city status of Leeds, Bradford etc. and what is notable about the places, e.g. that Northallerton is the county town. EdwardUK (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the issue guys? I mean this is petty honestly. Regardless of the so called issues. They are all in Yorkshire. They are all the largest cities and towns. You telling me to address what? Are you saying they arent Yorkshire? Or what I live in Batley and we are classed as West Yorkshire. Along with North South and East Riding. They are Yorkshire. I've only added the cities because they are important Leeds is the largest to Ripon being the smallest. I've seen these types of lists on other pages. Like Greater Manchester and Lancashire. So what is wrong with adding these cities. I seriously can't see the issue. Please enlighten me. I've seen other sources not relevant but they are. I'm a Yorkshire native and know what I'm on about. RailwayJG (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the section is presented without any explanation of where the figures where generated from and when. Also the source for the figures has changed, yet the figures have not changed. (The removal of the template has removed the source so the section is now unsourced.) We need to have a statement saying when the figures where generated and a source that matches that. Also all of the figures need to be from the same source so that a valid comparison is being made. There is also a problem of the extent of some of the places could be taken as settlement or wider metropolitan area, we need to be clear exactly what the figures refer to. Keith D (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay now your talking a lot more sense then before. The population was based on the current population recorded on the articles for each city and town. The figures are from either 2011 census or the 2018/19 estimated figures. Not the wider metropolitan borough or districts. The settlements you mention aren't listed. What are are major centres of boroughs like Barnsley Doncaster Rotherham Huddersfield Dewsbury Batley Halifax Beverley Harrogate Skipton and Keighley for example. Middlesbrough too. They are the population figures from the articles. Not made up ones. If you have a minute. Look at the list and the population of each town and city. If you wish to remove figure then I'm not against that. What I'm against is possible removal of the list of cities and towns as they are important to note. Especially given that Yorkshire has seven cities which no other county does. Only one closest is the West Midlands with Stoke Lichfield Wolverhampton Birmingham Coventry Hereford Worcester. RailwayJG (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The section does not satisfy any of the key requirements of verifiability, consistency and clarity. Each list entry needs a citation. The population figures should all be from the same date, and from what I can see not all of these match the figures in their respective articles. As in my previous comment, I think an a introductory paragraph would be helpful to explain the section, where it could state that the figures are for just the city and not the metropolitan/municipal borough, or that for York it is the council area, which includes surrounding villages, rather than just the urban area of the city. I have no problem with having a section for towns and cities, but it should be clear for a reader to understand it. EdwardUK (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason they do not match the linked articles is because of the auto updating in each of the articles, which is why I raised the problem in the first place when the reference, that existed, changed without corresponding changes to the figures. Should we change the figures here to auto update as per the articles, if we use the reference and date from the templates all should be OK apart from may be an ordering problem if places switch round in the order. Keith D (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Do what you all feel is necessary. If you wish to add the borough populations or so. I won't hold anything against it. I am fine with that. So no hard feelings incase you thought there was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is a useful section to have but I'm not bothered about having borough populations, just for it to say what the figures do refer to. Auto-update seems like a good idea if the alternative is having to remember to do it manually. Would putting the information in a table enable it to be sorted by name or population – or would auto-update templates cause problems with sorting – and assuming this would be in line with the current manual of style for accessibility. A table could also allow for selected historical census figures to be included, for example additional columns for 1851, 1901, 1951 and 2001. EdwardUK (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

/-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)
 * 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)
 * I have tried to fix this, but for some reason it still shows up as "Yorkshire (/ˈjɔːrkʃə, -ʃɪər/; abbreviated Yorks)" - I've removed the 'r' from both pronunciations but the second still shows it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:87ff:9b00:b1cb:14f3:69af:ad5a (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well apparently this is illegal since it's been corrected and I was sent a message warning me not to change it. Are we allowed to add a note with the correct pronunciation? Because the current IPA transcription is not accurate, it's the American pronunciation really which makes no sense on an article about a county in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:87ff:9b00:b1cb:14f3:69af:ad5a (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't the American pronunciation. Our basically means "pronounce this as [ər] if you're a rhotic speaker and as [ə] if you're non-rhotic." See WP:DIAPHONEMIC, Help:IPA/English for a more detailed explanation. Nardog (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial flags of counties
Flags of the four administrative counties have been added to the articles, I know they are unofficial and have attempted to keep removing them how can this be stopped. To see some of the flags to look out for I put them on North Yorkshire article. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The East Riding one is an official one. Keith D (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes to lede
I removed a statement about Yorkshire's "green cities" from the lede as I didn't feel it was a significant feature of Yorkshire or unique to Yorkshire cities and worthy of such a prominent place. Until a recent edit, the sentence referred to "the open aspect of some of the major cities" which wasn't really supported by either of the citations, which were more about sustainability and green initiatives than any "open aspect" to the cities in question (Bradford and Sheffield respectively). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Administration - duplication
First paragraph of 'Modern' duplicates last of 'Historic' - delete it? Mdrb55 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting the problem. I have combined the 2 paragraphs, placing under the historic heading. Keith D (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Greenest in England claim
The claim made in the introduction that Yorkshire is "widely considered" to be among the greenest in England is not supported by the evidence provided. It is a point of view. There are a lot of green counties in England and many could be considered to be greener than Yorkshire - Gloucestershire and Devon come to mind. I have changed the wording to reflect this. If evidence can be found that Yorkshire is indeed widely considered in this way then happy to put the claim back in but it is not common knowledge. -- Vince (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The evidence provided for this claim is not correct as it is referring to green in the environmental sense not in the sense of having green hills etc. I think it is unencyclopedic to claim that it is "widely considered" to be among the greenest in England. Last time I removed this the edit was reverted so I am not inclined to do it again. Vince (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Unspoilt countryside
This sentence is presently within the lede: " Within the borders of the historic county of Yorkshire are vast stretches of unspoiled countryside. This can be found in the Yorkshire Dales and North York Moors and with the open aspect of some of the major cities." 'Unspoiled countryside' is a difficult phrase due to its subjectivity - there is plenty that we might all value in the two national parks named (and indeed in the small part of the Peak Park within Yorkshire) but what is 'unspoilt'? Certainly not natural as most of the British uplands have been devastated in terms of their natural ecology. And linking it to the 'open aspects' of some Yorkshire cities seems quite odd - one of the references quotes Bradford - it makes no sense to link Bradford with unspoiled countryside' in this way. Don't get me wrong, as a former resident of Yorkshire, I can think of few finer parts of the world but text in the lede in particular needs to make sense and be verifiable. cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This claim has two references. I do not think the sentence needs removal. However, I think it needs some rewriting. The word "unspoiled" is a somewhat romantic term. I suggest replacing it with "unurbanized" or maybe even just deleting the word "unspoiled" without replacing it. The entire phrasing of the sentence does not have an overly encyclopedic tone. "Within the borders" and "vast stretches" are fine, but not good, at least in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. See also my comment in the "Greenest in England claim" Vince  (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi all. This talk page is getting rather unwieldy and has "numerous resolved or stale discussions" as they say. There seems to be a slightly complex setup for manual archiving which has not been done for a while, and would need minor attention before re-use. I only really know how to set up archiving when I lazily use the auto-archiving gizmo which I am loth to do on top of an existing setup that looks like someone has or had plans for it. No-one will die if this is not sorted out but it would be quite nice if a grownup felt like intervening so that I do not need rescuing from my own incompetence ... cheers DBaK (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ... or I can just boldly go ahead and do something, and if you don't like it you can undo or redo it. I'm assuming from the response that that would be OK. DBaK (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Longest... process... ever. Be bold! Seasider53 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Yorkshire a County?
Yorkshire according to a historian is a region not a county. Yorkshire had three ancient, legally recognised counties, the Anglo-Viking East, North and West Ridings which people are rightly proud of and still exist as ceremonial and historic entities. Yorkshire has a population of 5.4 million making it a major English Region. And you can’t have logically a County within a County. North Yorkshire is in fact England’s largest County by area. So by calling Yorkshire a “County” you immediately undermine and confuse that fact. 2A02:C7C:AE8D:4F00:A17F:6768:82A9:9F1F (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition of snooker to Sport in Yorkshire
Is it worth adding the fact that Yorkshire hosts the Snooker World Championship at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield each May. The biggest tournament in snooker hosted in the county and yet it does not get a mention. 2A00:23C8:4F12:5901:AD26:B658:295D:F5AB (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The second biggest competition in the sport - the UK Championship - is also hosted in Yorkshire at the Barbocan Centre in York in November each year. This should be added too. 2A00:23C8:4F12:5901:AD26:B658:295D:F5AB (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

God's own country
Should this be given such a prominent position in the lead? The only other reference in the article is to a film of the same name. Also, there seems some 'dispute' over whether it is God's own country or God's own county. See Rupples (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:UKCOUNTIES does suggest mentioning 'notable nicknames' in the lead, and 'God's own count[r]y' for Yorkshire might be the most famous of all. Besides the film it does get some use in the media, e.g. 'Yorkshire Day: How God’s Own County celebrated Yorkshire Day' A.D.Hope (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Was a county"
I do not believe historic counties of England are "abolished", at least the UK Gov says they weren't. If we're following this rationale, because England has no government, "England was a country"?

Also the flag should be re-added. But if anything, if it is still used then that should be prioritised, i.e. "Yorkshire is a cultural region of England, which was once a county".  Dank Jae  23:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:UKCOUNTIES is the relevant guideline, and it's very clear that the historic counties no longer exist and that the articles about them should use past tense. There's no room for manoeuvre, really. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thought that is about having separate articles?  Dank Jae  23:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of the guideline is, but it also covers what should be in the articles. The section on the English historic counties is called 'Former counties of England' and the relevant section reads:
 * Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead's opening sentence states Yorkshire continues to exist as "a cultural region" and "geographic frame of reference" yet I cannot see in the cited BBC source these two phrases used. The only part of the sentence supported by the source is "historic county". Rupples (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The guideline is quite clear that they do exist, but not with their former boundaries. Have fun. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Still WP:UKCOUNTIES does state Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Continued use of the name of the county can be explained in the "Legacy" section. for "former counties of England". Didn't see that.  Dank Jae  02:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are to follow WP:UKCOUNTIES, I believe it states this article has to be cut up to its abolition in 1889(?), with only some parts moved to "legacy", so a likely massacre of the article. Anything modern will have to be deleted unless relevant to the county's name? So the "cities", "1950s–present: Divided", a chunk of "1500s–1900s: Industry", re-do all of "Economy of the county", large chunks of "culture", almost all of "sport", a chunk of "politics and identity" and some others.  Dank Jae  02:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, logically that would seem to be the case. But shouldn't WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and WP:VERIFIABILITY trump the UKCOUNTIES guidelines, if they appear to conflict? For example, what sources do we use to state Yorkshire was abolished in 1889 or 1974 or whenever? Rupples (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, guidelines are to manage disputes, and sources can range, although I wonder what sources were used to push that they no longer exist? WP:ADHERENCE, ofc some small exceptions can be made, but the guideline makes it quite clear rather than vague.  Dank  Jae  02:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Yorkshire defined only as a former county? Some online dictionaries, but by no means all also define Yorkshire as an area of northern England. Here's a selection: Merriam-webster . Collins Cambridge, Dictionary.com  Oxford Learners  Longmans  The Free Dictionary  Maybe we should include a wider definition in the lead? Rupples (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it can be added, but at the same time, most placenames and former counties can be used as undefined "areas" or "historical regions", this article seems clearly set on the historic county.  Dank Jae  13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no correct answer - everything about this is confusing and contradictory. Following a definite position of 'fact' can result in illogical statements. Therefore, the only way to manage the problem is to create a guideline that does not take a definite stance but instead notes that there is no correct answer, but for the sake of handling the problem WP will, for example, refer to HCs in the past/present tense, or add the pre-1889 counties to the infobox, or whatever else. The problem has always been about these rigid guidelines that were created by less than competent editors 20 years ago, or highly intelligent editors who have over thought the problem and ended up with a unworkable solution. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:HISTORICAL and WP:PGCHANGE discuss how to proceed, if you believe a guideline should be written, you are free to propose such, although it is more easier and understanding to do it in sections.
 * I see a case for it to be changed a bit, especially as recently more emphasis has been put on historic counties, but at the same time, it would cause overlap and duplicate articles. However, as the guideline stands, and quite clear, I guess for now it has to be considered.  Dank Jae  13:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely the lead can say that Yorkshire is an area of Northern England. A county in its own right until 1889 (when it was divided between three Ridings for administrative purposes), it retains a strong local identity as a unit for many purposes.[4] Would that work? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Usually we can quite definitively say that a county became 'historic' in 1889 or 1974, when it ceased to be used for administration, but Yorkshire is more complicated as the ridings took over administrative functions very early; they each had their own quarter sessions and (after 1660) lord lieutenants, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, if we describe Yorkshire as mainly an area rather than a county, would that make WP:UKCOUNTIES invalid here? In modern day use do sources refer to Yorkshire as more of an area, that was temporarily an administrative county? Or clearly just a former county that no longer exists?  Dank Jae  17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My instinct is that we probably can't justify calling Yorkshire an 'area' or 'region' as most sources refer to it as a 'county', but it's worth a proper check. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Yorkshire Society states that Though frequently used, it is not strictly correct to describe Yorkshire as a County and that The Yorkshire Society calls it a "region" but it could also be a province or, given its history, a kingdom. Fellow encyclopedia Britannica  refers to Yorks as merely a "historic county." In my view, historic counties are largely meaningless because, despite the cultural links a settlement may have to a historic county, in a thousand years, it's possible that every settlement in England changes ceremonial county a thousand times. With the counties which solely exist as ceremonial units, like Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, we still refer to those places as "counties" because they are largely still relevant for many de jure purposes, such as Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service and Bedfordshire Police, not to mention the fact that local and national sources continue to refer to settlements in those ceremonial counties as, e.g., "Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire"  and "Luton/Bedford, Bedfordshire" . And compare that to "Leeds, West Yorksire"  and "Sheffield, South Yorkshire." . I'd support something on the line of JMF's proposal. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit bold and had a go at reorganising the lead to treat Yorkshire as an 'area' first and an historic county second. I do think we're on slightly shaky ground in terms of terminology, but I also don't see a better way of squaring things given we have to treat the historic county as defunct but Yorkshire is still very much alive in the public consciousness. Let me know what you think. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gets my approval. Makes common sense. Ties in with some of the dictionary definitions. In any case the name Yorkshire is included as the main part of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I would say Yorkshire is in WP:COMMON use as the name for the combined area of North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. It also has the advantage that we don't need to "massacre" the article as @DankJae said above, which would have been the case if Yorkshire was only specified as an historic county. Expanding the definition of Yorkshire allows the guideline to be applied sensibly; references to the county can still be in the past tense. Rupples (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad we can avoid a "massacre", but if this article is no longer as much on the historic county, do we need to follow WP:UKCOUNTIES as much?  Dank Jae  15:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate, perhaps with examples? Rupples (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that should apply UKCOUNTIES when discussing the historic county, which I imagine will mainly be in the current 'lead', 'history', 'administration', and 'politics and identity' sections, but elsewhere we can treat Yorkshire as an 'area' and so use the present tense and include events after 1974 (or whenever the county became 'historic'). A.D.Hope (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're defining this as mainly the area first, and do not need to cut it, we're obviously not following UKCOUNTIES, by not treating it as much of a county but an area. Such references to specifically the former county can be past tense, but most of it referencing just "Yorkshire" can now be present tense.  Dank Jae  15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're essentially saying the same thing. If nothing else it would be inconsistent to refer to Yorkshire as a current county when Westmorland, Middlesex, Sussex, etc. are still former counties. Sussex could probably be treated similarly to Yorkshire in terms of still being an 'area', though. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we look to be on the same wavelength. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmorland
 * Apparently Westmorland was a "county", but Yorkshire folk always want things to suit them. If Westmorland was county, then so was Yorkshire. And if Yorkshire is a county, then Westmorland is. It's that simple. And if they both are counties, then what does that makes all historic counties, especially the ones that got butchered and still exist as modern day "ceremonial" counties. Hypocrites! 82.33.38.15 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is quite careful not to describe Yorkshire as an historic county rather than a current one – the second paragraph uses 'was' rather than 'is', for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * I have changed the Westmorland page to "is a historic county", because if it "was a county", and Westmorland only existed as a historic county, then that's not logically accurate in and of itself, or consistent with this page. 82.33.38.15 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back. Westmorland no longer exists according to WP:UKGEO logic, so 'is a historic county' isn't accurate. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, 'is a historic county' is a bit of a tautology; if we called them 'former counties', which is really what they are, the contradicton would be more obvious. The use of 'area' in this article is a bit of a workaround for the fact that Yorkshire still exists as a sort of cultural region despite no longer being a county. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict but a very similar idea] A significant part of the problem is an artefact created by our naming convention. I don't think anyone could quarrel with "Historically, Westmorland was a county until the 1899 reorganisation", whereas our naming gets confused with usages like "Grasmere is a historic village near Ambleside". I don't have a clever solution, unfortunately. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

An absurd change. Perfect example of "policy"-following over sense. If we editors are a tiny minority of site users, those that draw up these tedious and arbitrary "policies" on hidden pages are a tiny minority of a tiny minority. I'd say put it back the way it was -- it's lasted for many years in that state. Yorkshire is a historic county -- any man in the street will tell you that, if not just a plain county. Indeed the British government will. --Inops (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While I do empathise with the argument about it being a tiny number of editors setting out the guidelines, those guidelines and article content are based on at least some degree of consensus. If however, a guideline is leading to an "absurd" situation then there's always the option to gain consensus to work round or even disapply the guideline in specific cases by using the WP:IGNORE policy. To do this, one needs to set out a compelling argument that other editors support and this would need to have a strong basis. The British Government source shouldn't be dismissed, but it's not the sole valid source or consideration. Rupples (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

...and parts of Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cumbria, and County Durham. Lancashire? LANCASHIRE?? This means WAR!. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the green passage quoted by @JMF should be removed from the lead and the second sentence revised to say something along the lines of "It largely comprises . . .". All that's required in the lead is the Yorkshire parts, which form the vast majority of the area. Detail on areas, perhaps open to disagreement over what constitutes Yorkshire are best left to being described/explained in either the geography, history or administration sections. Rupples (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the infobox is accurate then Yorkshire lost at least 4000km2 to the surrounding counties in 1974 (mostly Bowland, the area around Serbergh, and Teesdale, at a guess), so I don't think we can justify saying that the historic county 'largely' corresponds to the four ceremonial counties with 'Yorkshire' in their name. The current wording avoids the issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems unwise and unnecessary to put that detail in the lead. Leave it to the body. IMO. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't consider a list of the current ceremonial counties which occupy the area of the historic county to be an unnecessary level of detail. The fact there are eight counties might give the impression the section is overly-detailed, but it isn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead reword
I've just reworded the Sussex article intro, inspired by the Scottish Highlands and Lowlands articles. I am asking if I can do something similar to this one, since the hidden note says to ask if you want to do so. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There has just been quite a lot of rewriting to the Yorkshire lead section (see further up on this talk page and article history), which has just settled, and that hidden note is quite old. What exactly would you propose changing? Rcsprinter123   (spiel)  20:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Highlands are more akin to Northern England than Yorkshire, so not sure of that comparison. I am fine with the current lead here, pending whether the past tense issue would rise again. Although I do see "region" used to describe Yorkshire (excluding the Humber).  Dank Jae  22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Northern England has 3x population of Scotland so it is expected to have its own subdivisions, 3x as much. Chocolateediter (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , 1. moving the term historic county to a new history paragraph • 2. Focus on nature in the first paragraph rather than a sentences on bordering counties which is repeated into the second paragraph • 3. History paragraph created • 4. Keep paragraph starting with Yorkshire Day pretty much the same, maybe re-order those sentences • 5. Remove population and area since it is old very old data that is more commonly found in demography. Chocolateediter (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood a couple of things:
 * The current wording of the lead sentence is the result of the discussion above, so it currently has consensus and shouldn't be significantly changed.
 * The counties in the lead paragraph are the counties which currently cover the historic area of Yorkshire. The counties in the second paragraph are the counties which bordered the historic county.
 * The current lead is something of a blend between an historic county article and a region article, and shifting it more toward one or the other causes issues. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8 mentions of -shire; Lancashire, as well as 5 mentions of Yorkshire in the second sentence + the 1st word and the 1 in the last sentence. The second paragraph is just as bad with county and shire. It is really pushing the words county and shire down your throat over region so balance is not your best argument.
 * Old data on the infobox is making it unnecessarily long, Yorkshireman and Yorkshirewoman don't seem to be the best demonyms, pretty sure Yorkshire lad and lass and Tyke are more common.
 * I know if we as editors work on a lead that we get attached to it. We're not on a ceremonial county article here so the template and guidelines of those don't need to be followed and Yorkshire should be more like an between of the Scottish Lowlands or Northern England due to its scale.
 * Can I see the link the original discussion on the use of former because with the phrase "We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries " it links to a wiki-wide guideline that does not mention anything to do with it (a common troupe of people pushing their knowledge of a guideline corrupted by Chinese whispers and monkey see monkey do). Yorkshire became "a former county" before any other so it would be under different government acts, the ridings became counties so I'm saying technicality. The 2013 government act recognising and encouraging historic counties as current is clearly ignored since the guidelines were written before it and nobody is brazen enough to change it then wonder why it keeps coming up constantly. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I start ranting so read til you get bored then reply. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there are improvements to be made to the infobox and the rest of the article, but other editors seem to be broadly happy with the lead at the moment.
 * On '-shire', it's a bit unfortunate that the suffix is repeated so often, but there's not much that can be done about it. Yorkshire is big, it bordered seven historic counties and its historic area is covered by eight ceremonial counties, most of which contain '-shire' in their names. It's also part of the county name, and that's naturally going to be mentioned a lot. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I agree the opening sentence has a degree of consensus from those who took part in the discussion. Secondly, the lead as a whole is supposed to be a summary of the salient features written in the body of the article and to my mind doesn't achieve this; it concentrates on borders with other counties. @Chocolateediter makes in effect the same point. I do however appreciate why this has likely happened — there was a dispute on how Yorkshire should be defined, so it wasn't clear what should be in the body. Now this has hopefully been resolved, the lead should be expanded to include elements of history, mention of the national parks and cities etc. Rupples (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of an exaggeration to say the lead concentrates on borders with other counties; that information is contained in the first sentence of the second paragraph. It's conventional to mention bordering areas in the lead of articles about geographic areas – compare United Kingdom, Scotland, or North Yorkshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It lists the 4 instances of Yorkshire counties, it lists the 4 ceremonial counties with bits of Yorkshire and it goes into the second paragraph to list the 7 historic counties it borders.
 * I look to Northern England as I remembered it has solved that issue. They is simply too much to put in the lead that it should be in article, might look up templates which might explain it in a better way for the mean time I'll add a definition header under the lead. Can I please re-add my edit in and move the lists to definitions for now til I have found a good template for them (that geo location one that goes in the compass direction doesn't show on phone app so I am not going to use it) Chocolateediter (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you don't seem to be acknowledging the main thrust of my argument, which is that the lead as now written fails to adequately summarise the article content. Rupples (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What should be included which isn't currently? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chocolateeditor's inclusion of the national parks. The Yorkshire Dales is in the infobox as the main image; also the Dales and Moors cover a large area of the county/region. From the history section I'd pick out the Danish/Viking connection, maybe mention Roman significance, although that seems to be more centered on York. Mention of the woollen trade and coal mining, maybe steel and the areas of the county/region where they were dominant. Description of rural in the north, built up/urban in the south/west and name the major cities. All in all, something along the lines of the lead you rewrote on County Durham. Rupples (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe include Yorkshire cricket. Rupples (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a general rule I'd say Yorkshire-wide things could have a place in the lead, but if they can be covered in the contemporary ceremonial county articles they're probably better there. So the cricket is worth a mention, but the national parks are a better fit for North Yorkshire.
 * There is a History of Yorkshire article, so this article's lead doesn't necessarily need to mention it, but then again many ceremonial counties have history articles but also give a brief summary in the county article lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the version as of now: "Yorkshire is a cultural region of England, on the nation’s east coast." It's not accurate to use a generic term like cultural region when readers know it to be, and the top of the infobox also says, "historic county". Drawing attention immediately to the coast when it's so much more than that is problematic. I don't even want to read the rest. Rcsprinter123  (shout)  20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, multiple reversions of the lead are not constructive. Chocolateediter's rewrite doesn't seem to have support, and tbh I too don't think it's an improvement, so do not support its retention. Rupples (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have a lot of time for Chocolateediter and know they edit in good faith, but multiple reversions rarely helps. I'm sure we can talk it through. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh oh well some things work better in some places and not in others. So remove cultural region and coast got it. Reversions happen with bigger changes. Some of it was full of typos, I needed to get into the zone so the worst bit was going to be the top before my head got into it.
 * Please bother to read it Rcs, so many arguments happen by prejudging the start and not bothering with the rest. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's now back to what it essentially was before, making the initial discussion a waste of time?
 * In the end, WP:BRD can apply, no one can force their lead when it is under discussion, I believe the earlier one should be put back or a formal proposal made on a selection of leads. Open to all ideas, but the main argument prior is for "area" / "region" whether it be cultural or not, be the main subject than "historic county".  Dank Jae  22:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should probably have a wider discussion about what belongs in the lead (and the article). I'm not opening one at 11pm UK time though, shall we do it tomorrow? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, as the constant overriding of leads is not getting helpful.  Dank Jae  23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, leave for now. I wouldn't have thought a single editor can overturn what seemed to have consensus. However, perhaps a second look is warranted where a number of editors perhaps unaware of the original discussion express discontent with the recent changes. Rupples (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a go at improving things - in particular it felt odd that over half the lead was obsessing about historic boundaries but there was no geographic overview. @A.D.Hope has now put pack in "...and parts of Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cumbria and County Durham" to the first paragraph. In my view this is the tail wagging the dog; the lead should be summarising the most important facts and simplest overview for the casual reader just trying to get a sense of Yorkshire in general. More detailed discussion about evolution of the boundaries can (and does) follow later in the article, which I've also tried to clarify.
 * Listing these counties so prominently also introduces the perception that we think there's an objectively correct definition of the historic county, but that requires you to choose an arbitrary date when you fix what you're deeming the historic county to be, which is inherently subjective. The county boundaries did fluctuate over time - by way of a couple of other examples not caught by those extra counties now listed in the lead, until 1886 Yorkshire included part of Misson, now in Nottinghamshire, and until 1889 Yorkshire included part of Crowle, now in North Lincolnshire. This is all better discussed in the definitions / administrative history sections further down the article, not in the lead.
 * I would therefore prefer to have the first couple of paragraphs of the lead not try and list every modern county covering part of the historic county, and just focus on the four modern Yorkshires - the wording I had was "...which was historically a county. It gives its name to four modern ceremonial counties: East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, which together cover most of the historic county." The "most of" signposts that those four together don't perfectly align with the historic county, and I would argue that's the appropriate level of balance for the lead. Stortford (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't cover the evolution of the county boundaries, but the first paragraph covers Yorkshire's location within the UK. It lists the eight ceremonial counties which cover the bulk of the historic county. I'm very keen to avoid implying that the four ceremonial counties with 'Yorkshire' in their name correspond closely to the historic county borders, as they do not. 'Most of' isn't accurate enough wording to convey that.
 * I've had another go at writing that section, and have come up with 'The area includes the ceremonial counties of East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, which are all part of the Yorkshire and the Humber region, and parts of all of the the neighbouring counties.' The list of neighbouring counties is contained in an explanatory note. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think that's worse. Whether you mean it or not, saying "the area includes... parts of all the neighbouring counties..." implies that the "area" is unambiguously taken to mean the historic county (at whatever date you're deeming that to be). Stand back and put yourself in the position of a reader unfamiliar with the area who hears of a place called Yorkshire and looks it up - going straight into saying it includes (present tense) parts of neighbouring counties is considerably more confusing than helpful. My suggested wording of saying that it was a historic county and gives its name to a group of four ceremonial counties covers the two main ways of defining it, without presuming to imply that either of those definitions is universally accepted or unambiguously correct. Further down the article is the place for setting out the differences more clearly, not the lead.
 * By my calculations, 93% of the area of the shrieval county as it was in the 1961 census (so before creation of Teesside County Borough) is now within the group of four ceremonial counties. I fully expect the proportion of the population would be even higher, as the 7% of the land area that's different is mostly pretty sparsely populated. I think "most of" is therefore fair - we could perhaps give it a bit more emphasis and say something like "most, but not all of", but I'd really rather remove the footnote you've now added and not make such a point in the lead of trying to square the circle of which counties now administer every bit of the historic county. Stortford (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be best to break this down. To address your first point, the term "area" is a compromise to allow Yorkshire to be spoken of as a present-day cultural region without implying that it's still a county. The borders of this area do match those of the historic county in general, but aren't fixed to a particular date. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would get rid of the note as not helpful, I would also loose the region and the largest urban area. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you'd explain your thinking. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, the note serves no real purpose; it just muddles things. Also agree with Keith about losing the region & urban area, so have removed them. Reads clearer now. Rupples (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears there is more support for not including the list of non-Yorkshire counties either in a note or the lead, than there is for inclusion, so my edit is reflecting this. Rupples (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed any reference to ceremonial counties until we can resolve this dispute. Again, it would be helpful if you could explain your thinking beyond 'it just muddles things'. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For my part, I could accept something like:
 * It gives its name to four modern ceremonial counties: East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, but also includes parts of all of the surrounding counties.
 * The note would be reinstated – there's no harm in it, and I wouldn't expect readers to know which counties currently contain bits of Yorkshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarise the current situation re Yorkshire as set out in the third paragraph of the Definitions section, starting "since when . . .". The note should not be reinstated; other editors who have expressed an opinion oppose its inclusion. Rupples (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that section in particular needs to be summarised in the lead; why is it relevant that four counties contain the word 'Yorkshire', but not that there is a region called 'Yorkshire and the Humber'?
 * If the ceremonial counties are going to be used to define Yorkshire then we should mention all of them, not just the ones with 'Yorkshire' in the name, whether in a note or the body text. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The regions are virtually defunct, only used for presentation of statistics - not a major thing to go in the lead. Elsewhere we sometimes use the other regions' geographic names to help locate a place, but "Yorkshire and the Humber" doesn't give much help to someone who doesn't known where Yorkshire is.
 * Conversely I think the fact that there are four modern counties with Yorkshire in their names is significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead - I'd be interested to know if there's consensus from other editors on that. The fact that parts of the historic county aren't within the four modern ceremonial Yorkshires is a much more nuanced point for unpacking elsewhere in the article - a footnote is inadequate to do that job, yet is quite a distraction to the flow of the opening of the lead. My wording was carefully constructed to avoid suggesting that either the historic county or the group of four ceremonial counties are the only way of defining the area. Your desire to list all the modern neighbours which ever included parts of the historic county sends the message that the historic county is the only "true" definition.
 * I'd be happy with Rupples' suggestion of broadly using the wording from the Definitions section – perhaps add a second sentence to the lead of:
 * There are now four ceremonial counties with Yorkshire in their names, being East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, which together cover most of the historic county.
 * Stortford (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The regions are widely used on Wikipedia when describing the location of English places, and changing that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
 * If we're not going to use the ceremonial counties to explain where Yorkshire is, then the best place to put the information about them is the end of the third paragraph, at the end of the section about the county's administrative history. I'd prefer my wording – which is based on yours – with a footnote listing the counties. Footnotes aren't a distraction to the flow of the text, at least no more than citations are.
 * The historic county is the 'true' definition, as far as this article is concerned; its primary topics are the historic county and the current cultural region, which has more or less the same boundaries. The current ceremonial counties are relevant in that they show the name 'Yorkshire' is still used in local government, but they don't define the area covered by the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have put a sentence about the modern ceremonial counties at the end of the third paragraph of the lead, with a somewhat more carefully worded note - hopefully you can accept this as a compromise. I disagree that the historic county is the true definition for the purposes of the article - it is 'Yorkshire' however that is defined, and as there are multiple ways of defining Yorkshire we need to bear that in mind and be careful to keep things neutral. A 'cultural region' doesn't have precise boundaries (and I don't think you're suggesting there's anywhere outside the historic county or four ceremonial counties which identifies as culturally Yorkshire) so let's keep it objective by restraining ourselves to the more verifiable historic county and four ceremonial counties. The consensus which emerged some time ago was to describe Yorkshire as an area rather than a county. I don't think that's the same as saying that the foundation of the article is some subjective definition of the 'cultural region'. Stortford (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)