Talk:Tyne and Wear

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. North East England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

MPF, can we have some kind of evidence for how many inhabitants want a return to the old counties? I imagine there must be a poll or a newspaper article or something. You're probably quite right, but "many" makes me nervous -- "some" I can live with assuming several Wikipedians agree (they could be the "some") but "many" requires, for me, a little higher standard. I hope you don't mind. Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wouldn't say it's many. I've never actually heard of anyone here (I live here) saying they want the old borders back. It's usually said by people on the Internet who are into the whole historical counties niche, and don't live in Tyne or Wearside. I would say most support the status quo from my experience and just wish for more democratic accountability and funding in our Councils. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 07:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in calling it "propaganda", but as a resident of Newcastle I feel that the Tyne is not regarded as that much of a boundary. Newcastle, North Tyneside and Gateshead people tend to think of themselves as Tynesiders or Geordies, whilst Sunderland people are Mackem/Wearsiders (South Tynesiders don't seem to know what they are!) I really don't get the sense of any desire to re-instate a boundary that hasn't existed for thirty years. This contrasts with situations like the Yorkshire East Riding or Rutland, where there undoubtedly were (ultimately succesful) campaigns to see the old counties re-instated.

Grinner 09:23, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Some" people may want a return to old counties, but more don't, work and lifestyle showed the Tyne was an artificial boundary, one reason for the change of 1974, and the recent Newcastle/Gateshead city of culture bid is probably the most public expression of this. Sunderland never really bothered much with County Durham since the fifties And recent referenda showed parts of East Durham wanting to join Sunderland, more opinion polls show Sunderland wanting to join Durham. Perhaps a regional assembly will end the debate the boundary and on cultural and historical ties – or maybe just transfer it to an administrative versus a traditional Kingdom of Northumbria--garryq 10:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Newcastle too, and in the circles I move in (particularly birding), there's a very strong desire to want rid of T&W; e.g. Newcastle birders do almost all their birding in Northumbs (inc Newcastle & N Tyneside), and don't cross the river very much at all (just to twitch the occasional foreign rarity, and if they do, are as likely to be heading for Yorks or Norfolk, as Durham). This obviously ties in with Northumberland & Durham being the official ornithological recording areas. In using 'many', I didn't use 'most': 'many' just means a substantial number, not necessarily a majority. I think 'some' is too weak for what I see. It is fair to say 'many do, many don't'. The very fact that the City of Culture bid was rejected is also noteworthy - I remember lack of popular support (apparently much greater in Liverpool) was one of the reasons cited for its failure; local politicians and media wanted it, but the public didn't pay it much more than lip-service. I also remember some survey results from when the Metro Centre was commissioned - in Walker & Byker, over 60% of older women had never once crossed the Tyne in their lives. Finally, remember the furore when it was suggested building a new stadium for NUFC in Gateshead? Comments like "and Manchester United are going to build a new stadium in Liverpool?" were widespread - MPF 00:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Man U play in Salford not Manchester.94.194.21.227 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My circles seem different. Moreover, the insularity of birdwatchers is hardly and argument. Nor is the idea that they are as likely travel to Yorkshire as much as Durham. I assumed the reason for the travel was the bird, not the existence of any county boundary, watsonian or otherwise.

Unless you mean to say that foreign birds are more likely to be seen outside Northumbria, thus acknowledging that the Tyne as a boundary is an artificial creation because the kings could not trust the earls north of the river,. That of course means that Tyne and Wear is the beginnings of the return of the region to its traditional boundaries ---garryq 14:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are many Mackems who want to re-instate County Durham, and there was even a movement (albeit small) to create a City County of Wearside which included several east Durham mining towns as well as Durham City and the adjacent areas along the Wear, with the exception of Durham City there support was actually quite high.

Mackems have a stronger affinity to Wearside as opposed to County Durham, but the majority would switch back given the choice, you just have to see where Wearside tax has been spent since the County switch, it pisses alot of Mackems off. Gazh 09:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support parts of Durham such as in the east joining Sunderland and thus the county. I think that would be nice and the way forward for this undoubtly distinct region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 07:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

Good point re. the City of Culture bid. I think this is very relevant in proving that the Tyne is more a linking factor than a boundary. I'm interested in the polls you speak of in East Durham. I can certainly see that places like Peterlee would feel a loyalty to Sunderland. Is such a move on the cards with the re-organisation of the current two-tier councils that would come about if we voted for a regional assembly? 128.240.229.7 10:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I made a summary of the draft options recommended by the boundary committee at the bottom of Administrative counties of England. There are no plans to change any of the Tyne and Wear boroughs... However, the final options will be released next week, and who knows what might be in those? Morwen 10:53, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

After the consultations I wrote about the 2 recommendations are to leave the Tyne and Wear districts as they are and create similar districts in Durham, or to get rid of Durham's districts,and leave Tyne and Wear as is. --garryq 14:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the north-to-south order of the boroughs! - MPF 01:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've just looked through the other Wikipedia entries for the Metropolitan Counties, and numbering them by geographic (eg. north-south or west-east) rather than alphabetically does seem to be the norm

Grinner 09:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Grinner, I've just checked the map of Greater Manchester is simply an anti clockwise list. Tyne and Wear's is clockwise, but by changing Newcastle from 1 to 2 and Gateshead from 5 to 1 the list is alphabetic, which links with a sensible listing of the boroughs in the body of the article - and there is no such list in Greater Manchester, that was my reasoning.--garryq 15:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why stick to north south? it throws out the list of places in the main article.

and the "North south" order is east from Newcastle, south to sunderland and north to Gateshead. Not logical. North south would be Newcastle to Gateshaed and then back to NorthTyneside south to Sunderland. Is it just co-incidence that MPF's strange order seperates the former Northumberland from the former Durham districts? If anybody wants to adopt the old map, which is also clockwise in numbering, then they should also change the lists of towns and of places of interest so that these are purely alphabetical within the county, as happens on other metro county pages. --garryq 15:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing loyalty is not an indicator of football association's presence in Newcastle. They are private organisations, not required to follow any boundary – hence Berwick upon Tweed play in the Scottish Football League and Cardiff City in the English. The map and lists were inconsistent. No need for the other lists on the page to be alphabetical, but not towns & places of interest. Indeed positive disadvantage to those trying to locate a borough. The link between Newcastle and Gateshead goes back several centuries when Newcastle first tried to annex the borough. The "traditional boundary" is financial, not cultural. The king's income from a royal monopoly in Newcastle and the Bishop's from the Palatinate – which was also an administrative convenience and financial saving for the Royal treasury. Tyne and wear is one of those counties which have no overall name for its inhabitants, rather like County Durham, equally hundreds of thousands of "Middlesexonians" or Midsaxons are Londoners, the so called traditional county was ignored long ago. --garryq 14:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly; there is a marked loyalty among many in Newcastle & North Tyneside to Northumberland (and to Durham south of the Tyne). Organisations are not required to follow boundaries, but they choose to do so following the desire of their membership. And there is a cultural boundary along the Tyne, whatever you may say, as witness the outrage at the suggestion of siting a new NUFC stadium in Gateshead.

Listing North to south is also very helpful in indicating the historical situation.

I would be grateful if you would restore my edits at least in part, at the moment the page is now strongly POV pro-Tyneandwearian and should show the other side equally as well. I admit I was a bit too strongly POV the other way at times, but now the balance has swung too far in the opposite direction - MPF 16:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its valid to infer opposal to Tyne and Wear as an entity from sports boundaries etc. It is quite possible to not feel particularly bothered about Tyne and Wear, or even to regret the abolition of the county council, yet still think there's no point altering the boundaries your cricket team plays in. Nobody advocates changing the cricket teams to match the administrative counties. Morwen 17:32, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

County loyalty to NL and D'ham most certainly does exist in the birding community in the area, and is strong, particularly among the more active members of the community. I see no reason at all why cricketers would be any different. I'm curious why you are so keen to deny that dislike of T&W as an entity exists. - MPF 19:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I am happy to agree that dislike exists. But I'm concerned you may be counting apathy as dislike. Morwen 20:20, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting a bit, which I hope is going to satisfy your neutrality dispute. I don't think we should throw words like 'many' around unless we have numbers to back it up; on either side. Morwen 20:33, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; it looks better now, though I still think 'many' is OK to use, as it just means 'a goodly number', not a majority. I think it would be fair to use 'many' for both sides of the debate: even if it is just 5% pro, 5% agin, and 90% couldn't give a toss, 5% of the population is still 'many' people to my mind. 'Some' to me belittles the number a bit too much. Garryq mentioned a poll higher up this page showing Sunderland wanting to join Durham as well as the vice versa example on the article; does anyone have any details of it? - though polls like this can be misleading either way, as people often vote on perceived benefits (better services or lower taxes) on the other side, rather than the principle of to what people they consider themselves. I also think that the lack of grassroots public support for the culture bid being a reason the judges turned the bid down is worth mentioning (can anyone find the exact details?) - MPF 00:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

MPF As I said above the original listing was not north south anyway, and as far as outrage at moving NUFC to Gateshead. Irrelevant There was outrage at moving Ayresome Park to the Riverside, a new Wembley and, to stick to Tyne and Wear, at moving from Roker Park a few minutes west to the Stadium of Light. I do not take the latter as proof of a desire to abandon Sunderland as a single authority. --garryq 18:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny dislike of Tyne and Wear exists. Election canvassing has shown me that, but also shown it to be much less than imagined. and as far as cricketers loyalty to NL and Durham is concerned. NLs 4 grounds are in Newcastle, not to deny the existence of T&W but because that is where the supporters have always been. to be NPOV I mentioned the opinion, although the Durham to Sunderland was actually part of the electoral commission studies. I'll get the formal details. --garryq 00:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I remeber the outrage about suggestions that NUFC move to Gateshead, also more recently we have seen Newcastle Brown Ale's impending move to Gateshead, again much outrage. The question is would the the outrage of been any less have the move had these move been to say, North Shields? I reckon not - the thing that caused the problem is the movement out of Newcastle, not the side of the river.-- Grinner 09:13, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Also, if the birding community is so wedded to the traditional counties are observations made on Holy Island included within Durham, being as this a "detached part" of that county? Or is loyalty to the traditional counties only partial?-- Grinner 09:13, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

If I can resurrect this ancient discussion, it occurs to me that part of any dislike for Tyne & Wear (and probably moreso for North/South Tyneside) may stem from the possibility that it may sound a little unimaginitive and municipal to some people; if the planners had dredged up some historical (or at least historical-sounding) names to use instead, I'd guess people may feel more affinity. Okay, "some people" might just be me, but I thought it was worth mentioning!
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the unpopular former counties of Cleveland and Avon? Joe D (t) 12:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah, just like them! :D Well, it was a thought: I don't like their overly functional-sounding names, and probably never will; but now that you mention it, I suppose it might be seen as an attempt to endow them with more legitimacy with potentially rather contrived naming, which might not be quite such a good alternative after all.
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd mention this - there's a category, [[Category: Wikipedians in Tyne and Wear]], and so far I'm the only one in it. This can't be right (I live in Berlin as it is), so please add yourself to it if it applies to you. ProhibitOnions 23:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a new wikiproject called WikiProject Tyne and Wear. A project needs at least 5 willing members to go ahead and there are already four but anyone who is interested is free to put there name down as there is no limit to the amount of members there can be, for links and more info please contact me on my talk page.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have the current electoral strengths to amend the TyneWearpoll.PNG image. Maybe Conservatives could be spelled properly too this time. Bless 'em there aren't many in the county, we could at least get there name right. --82.22.139.25 11:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a discussion on sorting parts of the whole region at talk:North East England Chocolateediter (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve moved business information from North East England to Tyne and Wear. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]