Talk:Newcastle upon Tyne/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Newcastle upon Tyne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

As in "Newcastle University is now one of the UK's leading international universities." 31.49.9.138 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea, that's been there ages - replaced with some more quantifiable definitions (Russell Group etc) Bob talk 22:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Calculated in WGS84 ellipsoidal distance, Newcastle City Centre (latitude 54.9757 or 54° 58′ 32.52″ N) is in latitude (i.e. due north-south) 77.976 km or 48.452 miles further south than the centre of Copenhagen (latitude 55.676111 or 55° 40′ 34″ N). If the latitude in the article is used (55.0077 or 55° 0′ 27.72″ N), the distance is 74.414 km or 46.239 miles.

Holy Island of Lindisfarne is at precisely the same latitude as the centre of Copenhagen.

Calculated in WGS84 ellipsoidal distance, Newcastle City Centre (latitude 54.9757 or 54° 58′ 32.52″ N) is in latitude 40.216 km or 24.989 miles further south than Sweden's southernmost point (latitude 55.336944 or 55° 20′ 13″ N) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Sweden#Extreme_points. If the latitude in the article is used (latitude 55.0077 or 55° 0′ 27.72″ N), the distance is 36.654 km or 22.776 miles.

Alnwick (latitude 55.4134 or 55° 24′ 48.24″ N) is in latitude 8.512 km or 5.289 miles further north than Sweden's southernmost point (latitude 55.336944 or 55° 20′ 13″ N). The latitude of the southernmost point of Sweden occurs on the extreme northern part of Coquet Island and in the extreme northern part of Amble. Warkworth, Northumberland is further north than the southernmost point of Sweden.

Newcastle upon Tyne shares latitudes with the towns of Svendborg, Vordingborg, Aabenraa, and the Island of Bornholm in Denmark; furthermore, with the "city" of King Cove mainland Alaska.

Distances calculated using Charles Karney's Online geodesic calculations using the GeodSolve utility, https://geographiclib.sourceforge.io/cgi-bin/GeodSolve: "GeodSolve (version 1.49) performs geodesic calculations for an arbitrary ellipsoid of revolution. The shortest path between two points on the ellipsoid at (lat1, lon1) and (lat2, lon2) is called the geodesic." "GeodSolve is accurate to about 15 nanometers [0.000015 of a millimetre] (for the WGS84 ellipsoid)". Charles Karney: "The accuracy of 15 nanometers that I quote is for paths up to half-way round the earth."

See "European Latitude Paradoxes" https://www.howderfamily.com/blog/european-latitude-paradoxes/ "There is a part of England that is further north than a corner of Sweden, and conversely there’s a part of Sweden further south than some of England." "Indeed, the residents of Berwick-upon-Tweed are among the lucky few who live at a higher latitude than some Swedes. People of Sweden who live further south than England’s Berwick-upon-Tweed include the nearly 300,000 residents of Malmö." Sulasgeir (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed how much information has been added recently about Newcastle as a bicycle-friendly city with a growing cycling infrastructure. This is indeed to be welcomed, but as a non-cyclist but keen walker I was surprised to find how the word "walk" in a page search generated little more than the name of the suburb of Walker in the south-east of the city. A few years ago I was introduced to the beautiful riverside path enabling walkers and hikers to go on foot all the way from the Newcastle Quayside all the way to Wallsend with a backdrop of trees converting the urban panorama into a rural scene. There are many more resources for people who enjoy travelling on foot in Newcastle, the more obvious being the Town Moor and Jesmond Dene, but there is also a maze of former waggonways traversing the city where walkers can get off the pavement and on to a track where they can explore the hidden Newcastle. I am no expert on Newcastle as a walking city as well as a cycling one, but perhaps somebody who knows the byways of this city better than I do might step into the breach and share?Helmardine (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent good faith IP edits have overcrowded certain sections of the article with pictures, resulting in one IP correctly placing a dirty tag on the article. In good faith, I have removed a tree picture to remove the over crowding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarra78 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I reworded the last paragraph of the lead to clarify that Newcastle upon Tyne was not removed from Northumberland for all purposes in 1400. It was given county corporate status (also termed as "county of itself" as a description of the corporation's powers) in that year, which granted it administrative independence from the rest of Northumberland. This is akin to the later county borough status, and in the modern day unitary authority status. This is described in the following from Vision of Britain^[1] (emphasis mine):

The status of 'county' was given at various times to a number of cities and towns in England and Ireland. The territory of each of these units was irregular in size. These administrative units were separated from the county in which they were situated and more exactly they were called corporate counties or counties corporate...

Newcastle upon Tyne remained part of Northumberland for non-administrative purposes, chiefly among them for Lord-Lieutenancy.

Newcastle having county corporate status ("county of itself") and being part of Northumberland are not mutually exclusive:
The opening line of the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (public domain and therefore widely available online) says^[2] (emphasis again mine):

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, a city and county of a city, municipal, county and parliamentary borough, and port of Northumberland, England, 272 m. N. by W. of London, on the North-Eastern railway.

More pointedly, one of the references used to claim it was no longer part of Northumberland for any reason says^[3]

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, a borough, port, and market-town, a county of itself, and the head of a union, on the northern bank of the river Tyne (10½ miles from its mouth), locally in Castle ward, S. division of Northumberland..

The current online edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the city as thus^[4]

Newcastle upon Tyne, city and metropolitan borough, metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear, historic county of Northumberland, northeastern England. It lies on the north bank of the River Tyne 8 miles (13 km) from the North Sea.

and

In 1400 King Henry IV created Newcastle upon Tyne as a county corporate (a town with the administrative status of a county).

This is not reflected in the below sentence:

Newcastle was part of the county of Northumberland until 1400 when it became a county of itself.

which I changed to:

Newcastle is within the historic county boundaries of Northumberland, but was granted county corporate status in 1400, giving it administrative independence.

User:Jarra78 has reverted saying that as the citations say Newcastle was a "county of itself", this warrants the first version.

The contention seems to a literal reading of the phrase "county of itself", which is an alternative name and administrative jargon for county corporates. Given county corporate status was an administrative status, this is somewhat akin to saying Newcastle hasn't been in Tyne and Wear since 1986, because the county hasn't had any administrative role since then. This is the same for Northumberland, post-grant of county corporate status.

I feel my proposed text better reflects Newcastle's status post-1400, and its relation to Northumberland. --Inops (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The citations (all secondary sources) and premise literally match. Newcastle was separated from Northumberland in 1400 and become a "County of itself". It literally states that. To state something else is delving into POV, subjectivity and a corruption of the objective premise citation match.Jarra78 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained above (in the bold text), it is not as straightforward as you're claiming: A Topographical Dictionary of England, which is referenced currently to your sentence, doesn't see a contradiction in saying Newcastle was "a county of itself" and part of Northumberland. That's because county corporate status did not remove it from Northumberland for other purposes. Contrary to your framing, to ignore those elements of the source is to corrupt the source, by selectively quoting it. County corporate status was administrative -- that's not all of what a county was. See for example, this description of Lieutenancy (which is military)^[5]:

But all the other cities and boroughs [referring to the city of London and Haverfordwest] that were and are "counties corporate," and all the liberties, franchises, boroughs, and cities that were exempt from this or that county jurisdiction, were nevertheless presently regarded, if not already so regarded in 1689, as falling, in respect at least of the military jurisdiction of the Lord-Lieutenant, within one or other of the "counties at large."

To say, without qualification, that "Newcastle was part of the county of Northumberland until 1400" is incorrect. --Inops (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect... Something else, Newcastle really did 'separate' from Northumberland. As did Berwick. But lets pretend they did not. Lets go by the POV rules by wiki... So we are going by the POV rules..., and we are going by the secondary source rules... The citations (all secondary sources) and premise match... They are valid. Example, the premise is "Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400, and was made a 'county of itself'". The citations, all show exactly, that Newcastle did indeed separate from Northumberland in 1400. The citations also show that Newcastle was made a 'county of itself' -- exactly. They state exactly that, there is no ambiguity here. This validation is not my POV. This validation is not your POV. It is the view of two secondary sources. Two historians/writers from days gone by. If you changed that premise and citation match, it would become corrupted and a POV. Wikipedia does not do POV...Jarra78 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You've again not addressed any of my points. It is evidently your point of view, given you're ignoring the same source that says the city is in Northumberland. It's tantamount to quote-mining, and ignores the complexities I've presented above. I'll reiterate: Newcastle formed part of Northumberland for non-adminstrative purposes, as shown above. --Inops (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a more contemporary example of my point from The Northumbrians by Dan Jackson (2019) (page vii):

Northumbrians are those people from the two historic counties of Durham and Northumberland (which included the City and County of Newcastle) as they existed from the Middle Ages until 1974, a territory that roughly covers the Bernician heartlands of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria

. --Inops (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Included" is past tense. Before 1400 Northumberland included Newcastle. With respect, I have addressed everything. We are talking about the citation and premise pair that is verified by two secondary sources... The premise is "Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and become a County of itself". The citation text explains how Newcastle and Northumberland separated... The key bit of the text is also quoted which states Newcastle and Northumberland separated. The citation states "that Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and become a county of itself." Everything separated... Northumberland were kicked out. It is clear this is verified... If you bend the citation to your premise, this would corrupt the citation and premise. This would result in a 'failed verification'.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification)Jarra78 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Read the rest of the sentence: "included" is past tense in reference to 1974. The creation of the "City and County of Newcastle" is what you're arguing separated Newcastle from Northumberland, so how would --following your logic-- Northumberland include the "City and County of Newcastle" for anytime of the county corporate's existence?

"Everything separated... Northumberland were kicked out": that's exactly my point that you haven't addressed. It wasn't -- Newcastle remained part of Northumberland for non-administrative purposes, including lieutenancy, as explained above. Your wording ignores that.

Regardless of them not addressing that, which warrants my wording alone, your "pair" are thin support for your point

* A Topographical Dictionary of England (which is tertiary like Encycl. Brit. above, not secondary) says it's a "county of itself" and also a "S. division of Northumberland" (directly contradicting your interpretation), so the quote about "separation" is obviously contextual to administration

* "'The Corporation: Grants and charters', in Historical Account of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne" is a study of the history of Newcastle's county corporate status, so "separation" from Northumberland in that case is correct, but again contextual (to administration)

We are not wed to these citations. Dan Jackson's quote is explicit and contradicts your view that county corporate status contradicts Newcastle's inclusion in Northumberland.

Newcastle is within the historic county boundaries of Northumberland, but was granted county corporate status in 1400, giving it administrative independence.^[6][7][8][9]

One could present the citations like that. --Inops (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I get what you are saying but you are wrong Inpos. What you are presenting is a verification failure... Imagine you had a premise of "Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and became a county of itself" and you put it on wiki without a citation??? It could be taken down... Now imagine you had a premise of "Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and became a county of itself" with a citation?^{[10][11][12][8]} Further: imagine you verified the citations. Imagine the citations were all clear. After verification, imagine the citations explained clearly, "Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and became a county of itself"... In effect, you would have a conclusive verification. It is clear you can conclude: it is verified that Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and became a county of itself — with evidence, with clear verifiable secondary sources. To argue anything else goes against verifiability.Jarra78 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. Either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you are wilfully ignoring it. The sources you're saying are "clear" in support of your view are not. That is what this thread is about. One of them *directly contradicts your reading of it*. The others are your own reading of the old local government jargon "county of itself". Looking through the history of this article it seems you've enforced this wording for years, despite it being a shaky premise. The sentence (and the citations used) I've proposed above is perfectly verifiable. --Inops (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. What is the encyclopaedic premise? The premise is, ""Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and became a county of itself"" It is clear, after verification, all the citations^{[10][11][12][8]} verify the premise. The citations all verify that ""Newcastle separated from Northumberland in 1400 and became a county of itself""Jarra78 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle is not in Tyne and Wear. This county ceased to exist in 1986. It is now simply Newcastle upon Tyne, or to us, just Newcastle. 82.132.186.46 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You had better tell Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive that they have the wrong name despite covering the whole metropolitan county of Tyne & Wear. Ditto Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service who will be equally upset to know they have been using the wrong name since the council was abolished in 1986. The council was abolished, but not the county. Read the lead section and nowhere does it say Newcastle is governed by Tyne & Wear Council anymore, just that it was part of the Tyne & Wear metropolitan county when it was formed. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused! Isn't Newcastle the capital city of Northumberland? Britannica has this: "The historic county of Northumberland includes the entire unitary authority and the metropolitan boroughs of Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside in the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear". However, it looks like this county (Tyne and Wear) was abolished. I see that Newcastle became a county in 1400, but it looks like it lost that status later. I find reference to Newcastle as part of the "ceremonial county" of Northumberland. Do people of Newcastle think of themselves as coming from Northumberland? Some clarification is needed here. Is there someone from the area who can do that? Rwood128 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: the ceremonial county of Tyne & Wear still exists, but it has not been associated with a local authority since 1986, when T&W County Council was abolished and its five boroughs (Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead, Sunderland) were made unitary authorities. Tyne & Wear does still have its own Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff however. JayBeckerNCL (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I live in North Tyneside, which like Newcastle upon Tyne is a metropolitan borough within the county of Tyne and Wear. If Northumberland currently has a capital, it will be the market town of Morpeth where the county hall of Northumberland County Council is situated. I don't think of myself as coming from Northumberland in the same way as Mancunians probably don't think of themselves as coming from Lancashire. Among the residual associations between Newcastle and Northumberland are the names of the city's pedestrianised "main street", Northumberland Street, and Northumbria University. Helmardine (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Newcastle upon Tyne has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The city was expanded in size in 1904 by the annexation of two nearby suburbs: Benwell and Fenham (1901 pop.: 18,316) and Walker (1901 pop.: 13,336).

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh edition (1911). 2601:14A:4500:5BA0:E43F:41D8:83FD:A78C (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Where should this be added? Is this the exact text that should be used? Bsoyka (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry but that’s inaccurate completely. I understand your help but it’s messing with tourism as A member of NIP (Newcastle International Airport) it effected tourism and confused quite a few people, so please just leave it be :) As a native too I’m well aware that all them suburbs exist in Newcastle Upon Tyne for sure. Contact me for a chat if want, but just leave it be :) RezzaLindsay (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ps: I didn’t mean to come off harsh, just saying, I’m a newbie aswell, so chat would be appreciated :) RezzaLindsay (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Newcastle upon Tyne has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7E:3C84:4000:9C92:E791:E27E:E83B (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC) To add more and update more photos, for Newcastle Upon Tynes page.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry I’m new to this and a native, so is it possible you could show me, manually or not :) RezzaLindsay (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As the article is semi-protected, it isn't possible for new or not-logged-in editors to make contributions. Your account needs to be four days old and have made at least ten edits to other articles. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM which will explain more. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are so many editors hell bent on constantly changing the lead summary? Newcastle is in Tyne and Wear regardless of opinions. To not mention it confuses the readers to where it is. And Northern England is not an official region. We have north west and north east England.

Newcastle is in North East England look at these links Northern England & North East England. Newcastle is in the corner of North East England. Northern England is not an official Eurostat region.

The lead mentions it's county and pre Northumberland county before 1400. That be better placed in a governance tab.

Newcastle has many churches and it's cathedral by the actual castle that give the city its name is important to be in the lead.

So I think a consensus should be reached on the lead. It's just a free for all and if it persist. Page protection might be in order if it keeps persisting.

@Eopsid:, @Crouch, Swale: or anyone thoughts? It's becoming disruptive this editing lead is for the article overall.

DragonofBatley (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

To add the cathedral is the mother church of the Newcastle Diocese and covers to as far as Cumbria Northumberland and County Durham. It's an important landmark and the original cathedral of the city. So it deserves a place in lead photos over a theatre only saying DragonofBatley (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:UKNOWGOV the county should be mentioned even if its not the historic county and regions generally aren't mentioned in text. This article may need protecting again if its constantly being edited against conventions/consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Chronic attention by socks of User:Politialguru. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just had a crack at editing the lead to a more accurate stance with Tyne and Wear in lead and removing Northern England to North East England. As it covers a larger area then Newcastle itself. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Newcastle upon Tyne has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“Newcastle was historically part of the county of Northumberland until 1400, when it became a county in its own right seperate from Northumberland”

The word “separate” is misspelled. 81.109.0.231 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

While I like four of the lead images on the article as of today 6 April, the final image of the riverside exhibition is both weak and repetitive. It's not a strong image, it doesn't show the essence of the riverside, which is the amazing view of the bridges and city skyline in the first image. Why not show one of the universities, or the civic centre, or central station, or some of our great city's (in)famous nightlife with a picture of The Gate? St James' Park? The Chinatown arch? Grainger Market is spectactular following the roof upgrades. Two river views are unnecessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the collage needs a bit of size tweaking but Civic Centre and Grainger Street have been added. St James Park already in lead and kept photos of the castle, RC Cathedral and Skylines. But feel free to feedback below DragonofBatley (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll tag @Chocolateediter: who reinstated the old one with not many photos like the one I did. If they would like to discuss with us @10mmsocket: and other editors like @John Maynard Friedman:, @Crouch, Swale:, @Eopsid:, @Rscprinter: and any other editors. Let us build a concensus on the lead collage for Newcastle just like on Manchester. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Every time I look at this Newcastle collage I get reminded that we haven't moved any forward. Should we decide on the pictures, how many and what they cover. If I get consent to I'll try to do a good one. If we have to decide can we start the ball rolling again please. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there any places of note or interest for Newcastle worth adding or changing? I would keep the following landmarks in the lead:

• Newcastle Cathedral
• Newcastle Castle
• Newcastle Civic Centre
• Grainger Street

and

• Tyne bridges

DragonofBatley (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• All 4 are probably important so should probably be in a montage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

All good. No disagreement from me. However, it's worth noting that the Newcastle Cathedral in the photo is the catholic one near the station, not the actual cathedral. Show the correct one, or show both. Otherwise I stand by my earlier suggestions to consider St James' Park, Grainger Market, The Gate and the Chinatown Arch. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Some general rules I follow:

1. Consider if a photo is used on other articles, swap it out of either if you prefer it on the article as pictures can easily be over used
2. avoid putting the name of the settlement in the caption and lead apart from the top
3. 6 to 8 pictures/not too long
4. recently taken (2010s/2020s)

My view on the collage:

1. keep the quayside picture or have two pictures, one for the Millennium and one for the Tyne Bridge and a quay one with neither. Best to just have the quayside picture with bit of both bridges on.
2. the stadium frontage or the interior showing the city's views, I prefer the exterior but it might too good that it would be best on the main picture of St James' Park article so interior with views of the city.

• Grainger: if they is a Grey's Monument picture, it should be full length, zoomed in enough and be contrast to the sky so that it is clear. If not the Grainger Market exterior or interior. I wouldn't have just the street but maybe persuaded.
• I don't like the civic centre that much. If it must maybe have it outside the infobox.
• The castle should really be a must, after a bit of thinking the Keep is a way better representation than the Black Gate.
• If you put one cathedral on, you would have to do both so just do neither.

1. The Gosforth building doesn't represent the racecourse that well
2. The aerial view photo outside the infobox is naff.

The composition could be; line 1, Quayside with bridges; line 2, Castle Keep and the Black Gate; line 3, Gray's Monument and Grainger Market; line 4, stadium and racecourse; line 5, the CoE cathedral and RC cathedral.

Turnbull's warehouse could be in geography showing the city's incline or in the city centre article, it's a nice colourful picture but might be an obscure view without any very notable landmarks. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed a slight new editor changed the entire lead collage with no explanation and clearly didn't read the talk page. So I've reverted back to the one before for further discussion. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the St James' Park article and moved my mouse pointer into the blue link of Newcastle upon Tyne and what came up was an image of St James' Park instead of an image of the city. Oroborvs (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter: My two cents, if you want a bit of inspiration, here's a very old montage from years back. I do really like the photograph on it which gets both the logos of the Metro and the University in, though it does need cropping. Newcastle Racecourse should not be included in the montage; it feels out of place and is just not noteworthy enough. If you want a bit of greenery from a bit further out, I bet there's a photograph of the skyline from the Town Moor somewhere. With the Castle, I agree that a picture of the Keep is more important than the Gate – this one gets used a lot, but that just means it's decent. As for the riverside, I really do like this photograph; it gives the Tyne Bridge more prominence than the Millenium one, and you still get a good view down the Quayside. --Voello _talk 22:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)