Talk:Newcastle upon Tyne

The intent of this edit is not entirely clear but it appears to be a poorly laid out, confusing, slightly altered repetition of parts of the local pronunciation that is already given. It does not appear to be an improvement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I agree. I don't understand why it needs to be added given how long the existing version has been in place for. What was incorrect about the original version? 10mmsocket (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The edit added the variant UK pronunciation /ˈnjuːkæsəl/ (as opposed to /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl/) in a concise way. This is in fact different from the local pronunciation /njuːˈkæsəl/ in that the placement of stress is different. Morever, the newly added variant is included in the source already cited. 88.108.162.25 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

But surely that's exactly what is says there right now - (UK: /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl/ NEW-kah-səl, locally /njuːˈkæsəl/ (listen) new-KASS-əl) I don't understand why you needed to make any change 10mmsocket (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I get the difference - directly from personal experience as I spend up to four months every year in Tynemouth - but I simply don't understand how what you added to the standard English pronuncation made any difference to what was already there. Your new version UK: /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl, -æ-/ NEW-kah-səl, -⁠a-, and the old version UK: /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl/ NEW-kah-səl. What is the point of the ae and a on the end of the two versions? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The new version was commmunicates that the second vowel sound may be pronounced /æ/ rather than /ɑː/ without gaining primary unlike the local pronunciation in which it is both pronounced /æ/ and gains primary stress. 88.108.162.25 (talk)

Even if that is the case (a quotation from the source would be useful), it was laid out in a confusing manner, with individual vowels peppered in amongst the existing full pronunciations, with no clear indication as to what vowels they were an alternative to. If it is verifiable, the pronunciation should be laid out in full. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

So you're saying I should add the full alternative pronunciation rather than the more concise alternative (using a shorthand used on other articles)? And what to you constitutes it being "verified"? 88.108.162.25 (talk)

By UK pronunciation I take it to mean a standard accent as opposed to local accent considering the local would still be a part of general British English. I remember previous revisions of this article using the initials "RP" (referring to Received Pronunciation) used to describe the broad "A" pronunciation. Considering it is the accent traditionally regarded as the standard British accent, as opposed to local accents, and does tend to use the broad "A", as in father, in words like "castle", I would like to suggest using those initials to describe this pronunciation if this is what is meant. Tk420 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, cf. WP:NOTDICTIONARY and feel free to note me as at least one editor who thinks this should be left to the city's Wiktionary entries. There is no important difference to any of these pronunciations and there's absolutely nothing noteworthy or helpful being provided by adding it. Anyone who can read the article can already pronounce the city's name and the violently British bit about introducing a y sound into the word "new" is just bog-standard British English: near universally done by those who do it already and ignored by those who don't, including the people who typed out the respell form. — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

With this edit, Editor 10mmsocket reverted my edit with this edit summary: Revert deletion of web archive url status parameters which break references. The summary is an incorrect statement. My edit should be restored.

Compare these two {{cite web}} templates taken from the article; one with, and one without, |url-status=dead. First with:

{{cite web|url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|title=Global city GDP 2014|publisher=Brookings Institution|access-date=18 November 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605135349/http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|archive-date=5 June 2013 }}

"Global city GDP 2014". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 5 June 2013. Retrieved 18 November 2014.

and now without:

{{cite web|url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|title=Global city GDP 2014|publisher=Brookings Institution|access-date=18 November 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605135349/http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|archive-date=5 June 2013 }}

"Global city GDP 2014". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 5 June 2013. Retrieved 18 November 2014.

The renderings are exactly the same.

When a cs1|2 template has |archive-url=, the value in |url= is presumed to be dead unless otherwise declared to be live for the which use |url-status=live.

My edit should be restored.—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

What? Did you not read the page history? I did revert only minutes after I made the change. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Did you not read the page history? Of course I did. I must have done else I wouldn't have links to our individual edits. Your self-revert came while I was writing the above and had no further need to look at the article history.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please add a hyperlink directing to England. 87.52.108.81 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles for other English towns and cities appear to leave "England" unhyperlinked. Helmardine (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't seem to be true. London, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, etc. all have it linked prominently at the top of the article or in the lead infobox, as they should. — LlywelynII 11:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:OVERLINK - "obvious" topics are not linked-to. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

See WP:READER and WP:IAR. There's a specific reader asking for a helpful link and we shouldn't be refusing to provide it.

That said, instead of biting the newbie and citing WP:FOFF at them, you could've just pointed out that England already is linked in the infobox. — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the first archive, there's a specific editor who made it (presumably) his mission to mangle all the mentions of the city by removing its hyphenation. I get that the guy has his own issue; I get that the city, like English speakers generally, doesn't really know how to handle hyphenation and doesn't usually bother; but the article should at least include it in the running text as an alt form. Aside from all the sources who you can't help but already note used it, it was the more common English form into the 1940s and remains a major alt form of the city's name. No one is proposing a move but we should stop humo[u]ring that one guy's peeve and note an extremely common and perfectly acceptable English usage in our article on the place. — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in the article on the city's previous problem with lead poisoning and historical importance for its diagnosis and treatment. See, i.a.,

• Rainhorn, Judith (2021), The Colour of Controversy.

with the most important bit being on pages 8 and 9: "Similar statements were made in Britain, where the growing white lead industry in Newcastle-upon-Tyne caused waves of illness and even death among women workers: Dr Charles T. Thackrah had early on denounced the serious intoxications linked to the use of lead in industry and described the main symptoms allowing the disease to be diagnosed and patients to be distanced from the source of poisoning (1831), as had Henry Burton, who stated that a greyish coloration of the gums was an unmistakable symptom of lead poisoning, then known as the "Burtonian line" (1840)." — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply