This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Regions of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Subdivisions of England. |
Given that Thomas Hardy's Wessex is Dorset, are people really objecting that the southwest isn't enough like Thomas Hardy's Wessex? That seems implausible. john k 05:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It ought to be dead easy to find people in Hansard or other such source criticising the South East and Eastern regions. But I couldn't. I think we need to restrict ourselves here to cited criticisms, because it's easy to come up with thousands of possible objections ourselves (to any set of boundaries). Morwen - Talk 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the following sentence:
Ofcom propose a phased change to the telephone numbering plan with a wide area code (020, 021, 022 etc.) used for each government office region. [1]
The supporting document appears to be an (undated) discussion document from several years ago. The 2006 Ofcom UK Numbering Plan makes no mention of reorganising numbering on a Regional code basis. Sceptic 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
See also UK telephone numbering plan which seems authoritative on area codes Sceptic 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The template box displays London, but the link is to Greater London. Make up your mind Londoners! -- Jay( Reply) 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think one of the critiscisms of this policy, is that these regions do not represent historical/ cultural regions such as Yorkshire, Cornwall, Lancashire, Northumberland etc. As with the 1974 local govt act with arbitrarily divided up or bound together historic counties to make them more manageable, this act is about bureacracy rather than true regional identity. Could someone find some sources for this, or at least look into it. I'm going to have a go, but I think it's mostly going ot be based on articles in newspapers. 217.196.239.189 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So do we have any scholarly sources for
What did the Maastricht Treaty have to do with it? Well, it created the Committee of the Regions, but I don't see how the government office regions of England have anything to do with that Committee : are the UK members on it supposed to represent each of the regions? There are 24 UK members, 2 for each of the 12 regions of the UK : the list here doesn't indicate which region people are supposed to be representing. Any idea? I can't find stuff in Hansard. Morwen - Talk 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Could the article be expanded to explain whether or not the government regions are coterminus with the constituencies for the European parliament? I am sure readers will be confused by the constituencies having the same names as the regions, and could benefit from some explanation of the apparent coincidence. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Since 1999, the nine regions have also been used as England's European Parliament constituencies"
Sorry—it was there all along. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote 'There has been a call by the counties of Derbyshire, Cheshire, and parts of Linclonshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire to form a new region, to be named the North Midlands. This region is currently under governement discussion, but the counties have alread set the ball rolling, by describing their counties region as The North Midlands.' wether this is true I do not know. London UK ( talk) 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that the current regions were roughly decided back in the days of Cromwell. I think it is a myth, but perhaps someone has some information. (Definitely not the heptarchy....) – Kaihsu 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thought which occurs to me - did the definition of these regions have any origin in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms or England? If you compare the maps, there is a clear likeness between the regions and the likes of Mercia, Wessex, Strathclyde, Northumbria etc.
By design? Or an unintentional connection that grew out of natural cultural boundaries? Hmmm.
Cnbrb 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have incorporated the discussions in the two sections above into the article. – Kaihsu ( talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In the pages of England regions f.e. East of England is write that It includes the ceremonial counties. Because the regions is about local government I think it should consist metropolitan or nonmetropolitan county (district + UA)? Can somebody describe this think for (not Englishman] me? JaT ( talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My home county, the Isle of Wight is missing off the map showing the the regions of England. Can anything be done to put it in? Edgarb1 ( talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This article needs updating to take on board the abolition of the regional assemblies. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have updated this page - but with the new administration planning to abolish leaders boards, another update may be needed in the next few months. Dn9ahx ( talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be some very enthusiastic supporters of English regions on Wikipedia. Quite why statistical regions that nobody relates to need to be given so much prominence is anyone's guess.-- 80.42.208.250 ( talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of "Headquarters" to the list of regions. Although the Government offices have (had?) "headquarters", the regions themselves are (were?) more than that. For example, although the Government Office for the South West was based in Bristol (with an office in Plymouth), the Regional Assembly (and the equivalent later secretariat functions) was based in Taunton. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead of the article Regions of England defines the scope as “The English Regions are currently the highest tier of sub-national entity of England, used by central Government for statistical purposes. They are defined as first level NUTS regions ("NUTS 1 regions") within the European Union. They have also, until 2010, had an administrative role in the implementation of UK Government policy, and as (mostly indirectly) elected bodies.” By way of background, it also has a bloated history section. The part that deals with the history post the accession to the EEC (as it was then) is largely all right. However, everything before this date is irrelevant to an entity that has no proper existance outside of NUTS and Eurostat. Suggest that Historical and alternative regions of England is the appropriate place for this stuff. I propose to delete the pre EEC history. I also propose to rename the article to NUTS 1 statistical regions of England to correspond with its eponymous category and with similar NUTS 1 article in the EU. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now re-edited the article, to update it and to refresh the structure. I haven't removed any text of substance, but have re-ordered some of it for clarity and to give a clearer chronology. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the article from Regions of England to Regional administration in England, for clarity. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
I have read through your discussions and also taken a look at the article in question. I feel that you both make good points, however it is my personal belief that the 'side' of this discussion occupied by Ghmyrtle rings most true with me. A major factor in this belief is that as an encyclopaedia, an article has to be where the reader would look for it. Whilst at present it could be correct to have a title including NUTS 1, I believe, in general, that the average reader will in fact be looking for the present NUTS information alongside the historical information under a generic title. I hope my opinion has been of use. THis has been removed from the 3OC noticeboard.— Philip.t.day talk 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Diverse ideas were presented in this discussion, and no consensus emerged. Additionally, after reading the discussion and the article as a noninvolved reviewer, it seems to me that "Regions of England" is as good a title as any for the current article content. With additional changes to the article, the next move proposal -- maybe to this name, or maybe to some other name -- might succeed. Orlady ( talk) 03:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Regions of England →
Regional administration in England — Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC) The article does not cover "Regions of England" in a general sense - it only covers the administrative arrangements for the nine specifically defined regions into which England has been divided for Government purposes, most importantly between 1994 (though their origins go back to the 1930s, at least) and March 2011 - for example, covering their use for
regional assemblies and
Government Offices. The identification of those regions with EU statistical regions through
NUTS (a particular concern of one editor, see talk page) can be addressed either within that article, or has now been addressed at
a separate article.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
08:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
What pomposity. All that's needed is the date.
It used to be Yorkshire & the Humber, then became Yorkshire and the Humber...but now it is Yorkshire and The Humber. It has been for around 10 years. Capital T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 ( talk) 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is nonsense. It says they had an administrative role, then that they no longer have this role and then says they are administrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 11:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of "largest city" information added in these edits. Firstly, the information is unsourced. The use of "city" is debatable in the UK context - we have List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, and the quite different List of cities in the United Kingdom. And, even if the ONS "major urban area" definition is used, there will I'm sure be arguments over whether, for example, Brighton should be included for the South East or South Hampshire (Southampton / Portsmouth)... etc. Perhaps we should just include a link to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#List of urban areas by Metropolitan area and Region. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Regions of England. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Regions of England. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The page states "The London region has a directly elected Mayor and Assembly." - this is incorrect.
The London region is comprised of the City of London and Greater London. The latter has a directly elected mayor and assembly - not the former. 'Greater London' and the 'London region' are not the same.
The text 'London region' in page statement above links to Greater London.
I propose updating the statement to: "Greater London, which makes up a majority of the London region, has a directly elected Mayor and Assembly"
Lighthouse3050 ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
They is a striking resemblance to this website I think it is a copy of this article: [5] Chocolateediter ( talk) 13:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm putting this discussion here, as it affects the pages North East England, North West England, South East England and South West England, and I don't think four separate discussions would be helpful (though I have put notices on each talk page). In essence, these pages are wrong as to what the official names of the regions are, as they currently treat "England" as being part of their official names. It isn't, and they should be "North East", "North West", "South East" and "South West" respectively. This is evidenced by the original enacting legislation which conferred the names, but can also be seen in the UK Gov's official statistics. Plus the majority of people do not include "England" as part of the name unless it's for disambiguation reasons, which makes this a case of WP:COMMON, too (contrasting with the style of these four articles, which meticulously use the supposed full names throughout - clearly going above and beyond disambiguation).
I'm certain that this misunderstanding has come about because the former EU Parliament constituencies were officially called " North East England", " North West England" and so on, but those constituencies were based on/contiguous with the regions, but weren't formally the same thing (similarly to how the Isle of Wight (UK Parliament constituency) is not the same as the ceremonial county of the Isle of Wight). It's pretty obvious why the EU needed to disambiguate them, too.
As such, I think we should probably move the pages to "North East (region of England)", "North West (region of England)", "South East (region of England)" and "South West (region of England)" respectively, and should update the articles accordingly. The main article (i.e. this one) seems to be pretty good on this front already, but in some ways that's even worse, as we're currently just being inconsistent across different articles. Theknightwho ( talk) 04:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
North East England is one of nine official regions of England
North West England is one of nine official regions of England
South East England is one of the nine official regions of England
South West England is one of nine official regions of England
FWIW I agree with the OP on this. It's arguably a somewhat pedantic point but if we strive for accuracy then it's a valid change to make. At the very least, I never tell anyone I live in "South East England" - if I'm referring to that area I would say "the South East of England" or just "the South East" - and I think that's true of most people. So the current names are neither the official GOR names nor the common names. Waggers TALK 12:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
the best answer would be to change the wording of the text to fit the current article title - rather than changing the article title to fit the current wording, either, given that they're currently the same. Theknightwho ( talk) 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand, the names of these regions don't work that way, just as Birmingham, Alabama doesn't treat ", Alabama" as part of the name, despite it being at the page Birmingham, Alabama. It is not informal to say "North East", and "England" is given only where it is necessary for clarification.Theknightwho ( talk) 15:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware that I’m only allowed to have a single opinion and must stick to it no matter what. Given that you seem fixated on the issue of the article title, when that was never the whole point I was making, it feels far more like you’re interested in feeling right than genuinely building consensus at this stage. Theknightwho ( talk) 10:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This suggests that the regions no longer exist, so the article (like that about metropolitan counties) should be written as an historical one. If local authorities have set up region-based organisations, Wikipedia can have entries for these, but there are no English regions in any meaningful, current sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:DD15:2186:E814:1DF6 ( talk) 14:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Regions of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Subdivisions of England. |
Given that Thomas Hardy's Wessex is Dorset, are people really objecting that the southwest isn't enough like Thomas Hardy's Wessex? That seems implausible. john k 05:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It ought to be dead easy to find people in Hansard or other such source criticising the South East and Eastern regions. But I couldn't. I think we need to restrict ourselves here to cited criticisms, because it's easy to come up with thousands of possible objections ourselves (to any set of boundaries). Morwen - Talk 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the following sentence:
Ofcom propose a phased change to the telephone numbering plan with a wide area code (020, 021, 022 etc.) used for each government office region. [1]
The supporting document appears to be an (undated) discussion document from several years ago. The 2006 Ofcom UK Numbering Plan makes no mention of reorganising numbering on a Regional code basis. Sceptic 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
See also UK telephone numbering plan which seems authoritative on area codes Sceptic 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The template box displays London, but the link is to Greater London. Make up your mind Londoners! -- Jay( Reply) 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think one of the critiscisms of this policy, is that these regions do not represent historical/ cultural regions such as Yorkshire, Cornwall, Lancashire, Northumberland etc. As with the 1974 local govt act with arbitrarily divided up or bound together historic counties to make them more manageable, this act is about bureacracy rather than true regional identity. Could someone find some sources for this, or at least look into it. I'm going to have a go, but I think it's mostly going ot be based on articles in newspapers. 217.196.239.189 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So do we have any scholarly sources for
What did the Maastricht Treaty have to do with it? Well, it created the Committee of the Regions, but I don't see how the government office regions of England have anything to do with that Committee : are the UK members on it supposed to represent each of the regions? There are 24 UK members, 2 for each of the 12 regions of the UK : the list here doesn't indicate which region people are supposed to be representing. Any idea? I can't find stuff in Hansard. Morwen - Talk 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Could the article be expanded to explain whether or not the government regions are coterminus with the constituencies for the European parliament? I am sure readers will be confused by the constituencies having the same names as the regions, and could benefit from some explanation of the apparent coincidence. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Since 1999, the nine regions have also been used as England's European Parliament constituencies"
Sorry—it was there all along. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote 'There has been a call by the counties of Derbyshire, Cheshire, and parts of Linclonshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire to form a new region, to be named the North Midlands. This region is currently under governement discussion, but the counties have alread set the ball rolling, by describing their counties region as The North Midlands.' wether this is true I do not know. London UK ( talk) 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that the current regions were roughly decided back in the days of Cromwell. I think it is a myth, but perhaps someone has some information. (Definitely not the heptarchy....) – Kaihsu 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thought which occurs to me - did the definition of these regions have any origin in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms or England? If you compare the maps, there is a clear likeness between the regions and the likes of Mercia, Wessex, Strathclyde, Northumbria etc.
By design? Or an unintentional connection that grew out of natural cultural boundaries? Hmmm.
Cnbrb 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have incorporated the discussions in the two sections above into the article. – Kaihsu ( talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In the pages of England regions f.e. East of England is write that It includes the ceremonial counties. Because the regions is about local government I think it should consist metropolitan or nonmetropolitan county (district + UA)? Can somebody describe this think for (not Englishman] me? JaT ( talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My home county, the Isle of Wight is missing off the map showing the the regions of England. Can anything be done to put it in? Edgarb1 ( talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This article needs updating to take on board the abolition of the regional assemblies. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have updated this page - but with the new administration planning to abolish leaders boards, another update may be needed in the next few months. Dn9ahx ( talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be some very enthusiastic supporters of English regions on Wikipedia. Quite why statistical regions that nobody relates to need to be given so much prominence is anyone's guess.-- 80.42.208.250 ( talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of "Headquarters" to the list of regions. Although the Government offices have (had?) "headquarters", the regions themselves are (were?) more than that. For example, although the Government Office for the South West was based in Bristol (with an office in Plymouth), the Regional Assembly (and the equivalent later secretariat functions) was based in Taunton. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead of the article Regions of England defines the scope as “The English Regions are currently the highest tier of sub-national entity of England, used by central Government for statistical purposes. They are defined as first level NUTS regions ("NUTS 1 regions") within the European Union. They have also, until 2010, had an administrative role in the implementation of UK Government policy, and as (mostly indirectly) elected bodies.” By way of background, it also has a bloated history section. The part that deals with the history post the accession to the EEC (as it was then) is largely all right. However, everything before this date is irrelevant to an entity that has no proper existance outside of NUTS and Eurostat. Suggest that Historical and alternative regions of England is the appropriate place for this stuff. I propose to delete the pre EEC history. I also propose to rename the article to NUTS 1 statistical regions of England to correspond with its eponymous category and with similar NUTS 1 article in the EU. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now re-edited the article, to update it and to refresh the structure. I haven't removed any text of substance, but have re-ordered some of it for clarity and to give a clearer chronology. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the article from Regions of England to Regional administration in England, for clarity. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
I have read through your discussions and also taken a look at the article in question. I feel that you both make good points, however it is my personal belief that the 'side' of this discussion occupied by Ghmyrtle rings most true with me. A major factor in this belief is that as an encyclopaedia, an article has to be where the reader would look for it. Whilst at present it could be correct to have a title including NUTS 1, I believe, in general, that the average reader will in fact be looking for the present NUTS information alongside the historical information under a generic title. I hope my opinion has been of use. THis has been removed from the 3OC noticeboard.— Philip.t.day talk 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Diverse ideas were presented in this discussion, and no consensus emerged. Additionally, after reading the discussion and the article as a noninvolved reviewer, it seems to me that "Regions of England" is as good a title as any for the current article content. With additional changes to the article, the next move proposal -- maybe to this name, or maybe to some other name -- might succeed. Orlady ( talk) 03:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Regions of England →
Regional administration in England — Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC) The article does not cover "Regions of England" in a general sense - it only covers the administrative arrangements for the nine specifically defined regions into which England has been divided for Government purposes, most importantly between 1994 (though their origins go back to the 1930s, at least) and March 2011 - for example, covering their use for
regional assemblies and
Government Offices. The identification of those regions with EU statistical regions through
NUTS (a particular concern of one editor, see talk page) can be addressed either within that article, or has now been addressed at
a separate article.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
08:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
What pomposity. All that's needed is the date.
It used to be Yorkshire & the Humber, then became Yorkshire and the Humber...but now it is Yorkshire and The Humber. It has been for around 10 years. Capital T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 ( talk) 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is nonsense. It says they had an administrative role, then that they no longer have this role and then says they are administrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 11:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of "largest city" information added in these edits. Firstly, the information is unsourced. The use of "city" is debatable in the UK context - we have List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, and the quite different List of cities in the United Kingdom. And, even if the ONS "major urban area" definition is used, there will I'm sure be arguments over whether, for example, Brighton should be included for the South East or South Hampshire (Southampton / Portsmouth)... etc. Perhaps we should just include a link to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#List of urban areas by Metropolitan area and Region. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Regions of England. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Regions of England. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The page states "The London region has a directly elected Mayor and Assembly." - this is incorrect.
The London region is comprised of the City of London and Greater London. The latter has a directly elected mayor and assembly - not the former. 'Greater London' and the 'London region' are not the same.
The text 'London region' in page statement above links to Greater London.
I propose updating the statement to: "Greater London, which makes up a majority of the London region, has a directly elected Mayor and Assembly"
Lighthouse3050 ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
They is a striking resemblance to this website I think it is a copy of this article: [5] Chocolateediter ( talk) 13:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm putting this discussion here, as it affects the pages North East England, North West England, South East England and South West England, and I don't think four separate discussions would be helpful (though I have put notices on each talk page). In essence, these pages are wrong as to what the official names of the regions are, as they currently treat "England" as being part of their official names. It isn't, and they should be "North East", "North West", "South East" and "South West" respectively. This is evidenced by the original enacting legislation which conferred the names, but can also be seen in the UK Gov's official statistics. Plus the majority of people do not include "England" as part of the name unless it's for disambiguation reasons, which makes this a case of WP:COMMON, too (contrasting with the style of these four articles, which meticulously use the supposed full names throughout - clearly going above and beyond disambiguation).
I'm certain that this misunderstanding has come about because the former EU Parliament constituencies were officially called " North East England", " North West England" and so on, but those constituencies were based on/contiguous with the regions, but weren't formally the same thing (similarly to how the Isle of Wight (UK Parliament constituency) is not the same as the ceremonial county of the Isle of Wight). It's pretty obvious why the EU needed to disambiguate them, too.
As such, I think we should probably move the pages to "North East (region of England)", "North West (region of England)", "South East (region of England)" and "South West (region of England)" respectively, and should update the articles accordingly. The main article (i.e. this one) seems to be pretty good on this front already, but in some ways that's even worse, as we're currently just being inconsistent across different articles. Theknightwho ( talk) 04:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
North East England is one of nine official regions of England
North West England is one of nine official regions of England
South East England is one of the nine official regions of England
South West England is one of nine official regions of England
FWIW I agree with the OP on this. It's arguably a somewhat pedantic point but if we strive for accuracy then it's a valid change to make. At the very least, I never tell anyone I live in "South East England" - if I'm referring to that area I would say "the South East of England" or just "the South East" - and I think that's true of most people. So the current names are neither the official GOR names nor the common names. Waggers TALK 12:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
the best answer would be to change the wording of the text to fit the current article title - rather than changing the article title to fit the current wording, either, given that they're currently the same. Theknightwho ( talk) 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand, the names of these regions don't work that way, just as Birmingham, Alabama doesn't treat ", Alabama" as part of the name, despite it being at the page Birmingham, Alabama. It is not informal to say "North East", and "England" is given only where it is necessary for clarification.Theknightwho ( talk) 15:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware that I’m only allowed to have a single opinion and must stick to it no matter what. Given that you seem fixated on the issue of the article title, when that was never the whole point I was making, it feels far more like you’re interested in feeling right than genuinely building consensus at this stage. Theknightwho ( talk) 10:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This suggests that the regions no longer exist, so the article (like that about metropolitan counties) should be written as an historical one. If local authorities have set up region-based organisations, Wikipedia can have entries for these, but there are no English regions in any meaningful, current sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:DD15:2186:E814:1DF6 ( talk) 14:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)