This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sunderland 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, 2 |
Sunderland is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Sunderland:
|
Material from Sunderland was split to History of Sunderland on 5 November 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
(Now deleted.) No infinitive soender is currently listed in ang.wiktionary. 99.237.143.219 ( talk) 17:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The population of Sunderland in this article is wrong, Sunderland takes in the area of Washington which is part of the city of Sunderland. Therefore the total population of the city is 275,506 and not 174,286. Please can this be changed as it is providing a lot of problems and having adverse effects for the City.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.42.197 ( talk) 17:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Your right, the City of Sunderland has a population of 275,506. However, this article is about the 'core settlement' of Sunderland if that's a good way to describe it, the former county borough or modern day ONS Urban Subdivision (USD). Yes, I guess the population figure could be changed as it's the wider borough that's been given city status, rather than just USD that this article is about. Although, locals wouldn't really consider places like Washington, Houghton le Spring etc as part of the settlement itself especially due to greenbelt and the A19 being between these settlements, but obviously they are part of the wider city. I guess there are two definitions for Sunderland.-- 2.26.154.4 ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why not just "Sunderland"
The Newcastle Upon Tyne page ( /info/en/?search=Newcastle_upon_Tyne) doesn't have the defunct county name in its title.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.56.150 ( talk) 20:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sunderland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
==WikiProject Cities==
Rated B
|
Last edited at 12:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sunderland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Kbb2: Wouldn't the medial schwa drop be covered by H:IPAE § Note 32.? It seems to me that /ərl/, /ərn/ and /ərm/ in most cases are reduced to syllabic /əl/, /ən/ and /əm/ respectively. For instance, LPD gives the UK pronunciation as /ˈsʌnd ə lənd →-əl ənd/, while CEPD gives only /ˈsʌn.dəl.ənd/. -- maczkopeti ( talk) 08:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It is wrong to say that this name originated as late as the 1980s. I well remember my Dad taking me to a Sunderland-Newcastle derby match in either 1966 or 1967 (when I was 5 years old) and explaining to me on the train (from Newcastle to Seaburn) that the people who supported Sunderland were called, in his words, 'mackems and tackems' which he explained was because they said 'mak' and 'tak' instead of 'make' and 'take'. There was no animosity in this whatsoever and my Dad and Grandad, along with many other Geordies, were in the habit of going to see whichever team was playing at home despite being firm Newcastle supporters. You could argue that shortening this to just 'Mackem' might be more recent, but this shortened form was certainly used in the 1970's. Maybe people from Sunderland didn't embrace it until later... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.4.31 ( talk) 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This general explanation is widely known, but I note that the source cited (a page on a website authored by David Simpson, about whom we do not have an article) actually attributes the grant to King Aldfrith (who succeeded his half-brother Ecgfrith in 685) and presents the "separated by the river" meaning as only one of three "possible" explanations, the others being (a) that the parcel of land in question was "sundered" from a larger landholding, and (b) that the coastal area in question was broken up or "sundered" by wooded valleys.
(I note in passing that we also state in this article:
Bede was born in 672/3, so if the latter is the correct interpretation he was using a name that supposedly originated at least 12 years after his birth and 3 years after he had moved from Monkwearmouth to help build the new co-monastery at Jarrow.)
Another explanation perhaps equally plausible is that the name could have meant "Southern land", (i.e. land on the South side of the River Wear?): in modern Danish "Sønderjylland" refers to the southern half of the Jutland peninsula. Even if the coming of the Danes en masse to North-East England in the 9th century (see Danelaw) is too late for an origin, it might have reinforced an existing name which in Old English/Anglo-Saxon would not have been very different, as the Angles themselves had come from Denmark (as was) as recently as the 5th and 6th centuries.
This last is of course speculation, or Original Research, on my part (and I do not assert that only one origin of the name is possible, as multiple ideas can coalesce), but I suggest that it, as well as the three explanations above, should be looked into more deeply, and that additional and/or possibly more authoritative Reliable sources would be desirable.
In any case, the current situation is that our lede currently gives only one of the three possibilities mentioned in the source cited, and names a different king.
FWIW, here is the full entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names by A. D. Mills (OUP 2nd Ed 1998, page 333):
{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 ( talk) 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two sub-headings of 'Metro', one standing alone under Transport and one under Rail. I propose merging these two sections into one under the Rail heading. - Aelfgifu ( talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Not clear to me that the experience of The Blitz in Sunderland is worthy of a stand-alone article – at present the Sunderland Blitz is only five sentences which could be easily reduced to two and included in the history section here. A redirect could be used to the Sunderland history section. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know this was touched on in 2017, but I'd like to discuss the topic properly and propose that City of Sunderland be merged into this article.
Outside of the History and City Government sections, the vast, vast majority of that article's content is already present in this one, and in fact much of it seems to have been copied and pasted - there are several identical sentences such as "Sunderland has two local newspapers: the daily evening tabloid The Sunderland Echo, founded in 1873, and the Sunderland Star—a free newspaper." Merging would therefore be fairly easy, would knock out a lot of duplicate content, and would not excessively lengthen the Sunderland article.
Five years ago @ Spacemartin argued that a merger would create an imbalance as Washington, Hetton and Houghton would still have their own articles despite also being part of the City of Sunderland borough. This is true, but in my view this makes sense; those are three smaller towns to the west of Sunderland populated by self identified Mackems, and their being part of the City of Sunderland is due to the fact that they are peripheral towns of Sunderland. To use an analogy, we have no City of Newcastle upon Tyne article, because that article's purpose is served by the Newcastle upon Tyne article. However, there is additionally a Jesmond article and a Gosforth article, because those are areas of Newcastle notable in a different context to the city at large.
Martin also cited the existence of both the London and Greater London articles as precedent for keeping the City of Sunderland article. However, I disagree with that sentiment for the reason that (and as a proud Northumbrian it pains me to say this) London is a far more notable and important city than Sunderland, and London's political structure is therefore much more deserving of its own article than Sunderland's. A better comparison would be Newcastle, and as I have said, there is no City of Newcastle upon Tyne page - if Newcastle, a larger and more important city (sorry Sunderland) has no City Of page, and with the two cities sharing essentially the same political history since 1970 as two boroughs of Tyne & Wear, it seems silly that Sunderland would have one.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, I'd appreciate some input from others. JayAmber ( talk) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
You likely forget that the towns of Houghton and Hetton have their own town councils and were towns way before the City of Sunderland was formed. Washington was founded as a new town around the same time as Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Telford and Newton Aycliffe. These towns are notable and not just mere suburbs of Sunderland. There are plenty of city articles like City of Salford (Swinton, Eccles, Pendlebury, Salford and Walkden) all those are towns in the city of Salford and also Salford being the main city area. Another is City of Wakefield, City of Bradford, City of Leeds, City of Lancaster (Lancaster, Heysham and Morecambe) & City of St Alban's. These articles cover the towns and cities like Sunderland's do.
As for your comment about the self identifying and saying London is more important then Sunderland and Newcastle. Your making it out as an opinion of your own then factual. Yes London is the capital and has the largest settlements no arguments then. But Newcastle is the most populous city in North East England and Sunderland is an important port city. As well as the fact Newcastle upon Tyne is famous for Geordie accents and Sunderland has many landmarks like Newcastle.
The City of Sunderland is a seperate entity to Sunderland for two simple and verifiable reasons...
1: it covers the surrounding towns, villages and suburbs of the city where some have parish councils of their own and Washington being the place where George Washington once lived I believe or visited which gave it its name have to check that.
2: almost all those were in County Durham and seperate from Sunderland until they were moved with the city into Tyne and Wear along with Gateshead and South Shields.
I would oppose merging the articles as the towns are notable but some of the comments and reason you mention are quite to me your own thoughts then reasonable facts using words like Sunderland is not important and London is more notable aren't reasons to merge the article DragonofBatley ( talk) 09:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I split history to it’s own article and added a reduced history to this article. Chocolateediter ( talk) 20:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
K Chocolateediter ( talk) 00:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC) DragonofBatley ( talk) 09:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sunderland 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, 2 |
Sunderland is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Sunderland:
|
Material from Sunderland was split to History of Sunderland on 5 November 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
(Now deleted.) No infinitive soender is currently listed in ang.wiktionary. 99.237.143.219 ( talk) 17:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The population of Sunderland in this article is wrong, Sunderland takes in the area of Washington which is part of the city of Sunderland. Therefore the total population of the city is 275,506 and not 174,286. Please can this be changed as it is providing a lot of problems and having adverse effects for the City.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.42.197 ( talk) 17:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Your right, the City of Sunderland has a population of 275,506. However, this article is about the 'core settlement' of Sunderland if that's a good way to describe it, the former county borough or modern day ONS Urban Subdivision (USD). Yes, I guess the population figure could be changed as it's the wider borough that's been given city status, rather than just USD that this article is about. Although, locals wouldn't really consider places like Washington, Houghton le Spring etc as part of the settlement itself especially due to greenbelt and the A19 being between these settlements, but obviously they are part of the wider city. I guess there are two definitions for Sunderland.-- 2.26.154.4 ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why not just "Sunderland"
The Newcastle Upon Tyne page ( /info/en/?search=Newcastle_upon_Tyne) doesn't have the defunct county name in its title.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.56.150 ( talk) 20:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sunderland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
==WikiProject Cities==
Rated B
|
Last edited at 12:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sunderland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Kbb2: Wouldn't the medial schwa drop be covered by H:IPAE § Note 32.? It seems to me that /ərl/, /ərn/ and /ərm/ in most cases are reduced to syllabic /əl/, /ən/ and /əm/ respectively. For instance, LPD gives the UK pronunciation as /ˈsʌnd ə lənd →-əl ənd/, while CEPD gives only /ˈsʌn.dəl.ənd/. -- maczkopeti ( talk) 08:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It is wrong to say that this name originated as late as the 1980s. I well remember my Dad taking me to a Sunderland-Newcastle derby match in either 1966 or 1967 (when I was 5 years old) and explaining to me on the train (from Newcastle to Seaburn) that the people who supported Sunderland were called, in his words, 'mackems and tackems' which he explained was because they said 'mak' and 'tak' instead of 'make' and 'take'. There was no animosity in this whatsoever and my Dad and Grandad, along with many other Geordies, were in the habit of going to see whichever team was playing at home despite being firm Newcastle supporters. You could argue that shortening this to just 'Mackem' might be more recent, but this shortened form was certainly used in the 1970's. Maybe people from Sunderland didn't embrace it until later... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.4.31 ( talk) 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This general explanation is widely known, but I note that the source cited (a page on a website authored by David Simpson, about whom we do not have an article) actually attributes the grant to King Aldfrith (who succeeded his half-brother Ecgfrith in 685) and presents the "separated by the river" meaning as only one of three "possible" explanations, the others being (a) that the parcel of land in question was "sundered" from a larger landholding, and (b) that the coastal area in question was broken up or "sundered" by wooded valleys.
(I note in passing that we also state in this article:
Bede was born in 672/3, so if the latter is the correct interpretation he was using a name that supposedly originated at least 12 years after his birth and 3 years after he had moved from Monkwearmouth to help build the new co-monastery at Jarrow.)
Another explanation perhaps equally plausible is that the name could have meant "Southern land", (i.e. land on the South side of the River Wear?): in modern Danish "Sønderjylland" refers to the southern half of the Jutland peninsula. Even if the coming of the Danes en masse to North-East England in the 9th century (see Danelaw) is too late for an origin, it might have reinforced an existing name which in Old English/Anglo-Saxon would not have been very different, as the Angles themselves had come from Denmark (as was) as recently as the 5th and 6th centuries.
This last is of course speculation, or Original Research, on my part (and I do not assert that only one origin of the name is possible, as multiple ideas can coalesce), but I suggest that it, as well as the three explanations above, should be looked into more deeply, and that additional and/or possibly more authoritative Reliable sources would be desirable.
In any case, the current situation is that our lede currently gives only one of the three possibilities mentioned in the source cited, and names a different king.
FWIW, here is the full entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names by A. D. Mills (OUP 2nd Ed 1998, page 333):
{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 ( talk) 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two sub-headings of 'Metro', one standing alone under Transport and one under Rail. I propose merging these two sections into one under the Rail heading. - Aelfgifu ( talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Not clear to me that the experience of The Blitz in Sunderland is worthy of a stand-alone article – at present the Sunderland Blitz is only five sentences which could be easily reduced to two and included in the history section here. A redirect could be used to the Sunderland history section. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know this was touched on in 2017, but I'd like to discuss the topic properly and propose that City of Sunderland be merged into this article.
Outside of the History and City Government sections, the vast, vast majority of that article's content is already present in this one, and in fact much of it seems to have been copied and pasted - there are several identical sentences such as "Sunderland has two local newspapers: the daily evening tabloid The Sunderland Echo, founded in 1873, and the Sunderland Star—a free newspaper." Merging would therefore be fairly easy, would knock out a lot of duplicate content, and would not excessively lengthen the Sunderland article.
Five years ago @ Spacemartin argued that a merger would create an imbalance as Washington, Hetton and Houghton would still have their own articles despite also being part of the City of Sunderland borough. This is true, but in my view this makes sense; those are three smaller towns to the west of Sunderland populated by self identified Mackems, and their being part of the City of Sunderland is due to the fact that they are peripheral towns of Sunderland. To use an analogy, we have no City of Newcastle upon Tyne article, because that article's purpose is served by the Newcastle upon Tyne article. However, there is additionally a Jesmond article and a Gosforth article, because those are areas of Newcastle notable in a different context to the city at large.
Martin also cited the existence of both the London and Greater London articles as precedent for keeping the City of Sunderland article. However, I disagree with that sentiment for the reason that (and as a proud Northumbrian it pains me to say this) London is a far more notable and important city than Sunderland, and London's political structure is therefore much more deserving of its own article than Sunderland's. A better comparison would be Newcastle, and as I have said, there is no City of Newcastle upon Tyne page - if Newcastle, a larger and more important city (sorry Sunderland) has no City Of page, and with the two cities sharing essentially the same political history since 1970 as two boroughs of Tyne & Wear, it seems silly that Sunderland would have one.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, I'd appreciate some input from others. JayAmber ( talk) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
You likely forget that the towns of Houghton and Hetton have their own town councils and were towns way before the City of Sunderland was formed. Washington was founded as a new town around the same time as Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Telford and Newton Aycliffe. These towns are notable and not just mere suburbs of Sunderland. There are plenty of city articles like City of Salford (Swinton, Eccles, Pendlebury, Salford and Walkden) all those are towns in the city of Salford and also Salford being the main city area. Another is City of Wakefield, City of Bradford, City of Leeds, City of Lancaster (Lancaster, Heysham and Morecambe) & City of St Alban's. These articles cover the towns and cities like Sunderland's do.
As for your comment about the self identifying and saying London is more important then Sunderland and Newcastle. Your making it out as an opinion of your own then factual. Yes London is the capital and has the largest settlements no arguments then. But Newcastle is the most populous city in North East England and Sunderland is an important port city. As well as the fact Newcastle upon Tyne is famous for Geordie accents and Sunderland has many landmarks like Newcastle.
The City of Sunderland is a seperate entity to Sunderland for two simple and verifiable reasons...
1: it covers the surrounding towns, villages and suburbs of the city where some have parish councils of their own and Washington being the place where George Washington once lived I believe or visited which gave it its name have to check that.
2: almost all those were in County Durham and seperate from Sunderland until they were moved with the city into Tyne and Wear along with Gateshead and South Shields.
I would oppose merging the articles as the towns are notable but some of the comments and reason you mention are quite to me your own thoughts then reasonable facts using words like Sunderland is not important and London is more notable aren't reasons to merge the article DragonofBatley ( talk) 09:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I split history to it’s own article and added a reduced history to this article. Chocolateediter ( talk) 20:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
K Chocolateediter ( talk) 00:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC) DragonofBatley ( talk) 09:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)