Talk:Regions of England

message: 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)
replies: text: It is nice to have a source for a truism, but it isn't essential. I am reinstating the deleted material as you damaged the balance of the article by making it imply that the things you happened to find in Hansard are more important than the things you didn't. CalJW 06:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This section needs to be rewritten. For example: Opponents of regionalism argue that instead of decentralising power from London, the new tier of government will simply take power away from county councils. Not quite sure how this is a criticism as the whole point of regionalisation is that the county council will be totally abolished! MRSC 09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: Not convinced. I've read in several places that OFCOM wants to put in region based WACs but cannot make changes until there is enough demand in each exchange. In fact I remember now, they have even reserved the migration plan and do not allocate numbers that would conflict. I will have a dig around for something else to back it up... MRSC 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good hunting... More than happy for it to go back in if you come up with something more concrete. Also are you sure that Ofcom's regions match the govt. office boundaries? Sceptic 18:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I note the Scotsman article, but I'm still not convinced this is anything to do with EU regions. The latest Ofcom consultation document does not mention EU regions. Sceptic 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ofcom

message: 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)
replies: text: That link is correctly formatted. The region is called London, not Greater London. However, it consists of the territory of the Greater London administrative area. MRSC 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greater London

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe a short sentence should be placed at the top of the article to make clear that this article refers to the government's administrative regions as defined by the NUTS classification and pointing to the article Historical and alternative regions of England for alternative definitions of English regions. Sceptic 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not authentic regions 

message: 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)
thread_title: European parliamentary constituencies

message: 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)
replies: text: Also if this was true then there would be only three counties in the East Midlands (Rutland, Northampshire and Leicestershire). These would probably become part of the West Midlands and we are back the way we are two midlands but not East or West but North and South. London UK  (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North Midlands

message: 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)
replies: text: Rule of the Major-Generals; Historical and alternative regions of England#1655-1657. – Kaihsu 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cromwell 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like coincidence, with a little inevitable geographical determinism (places next to each other are often but not always in the same region).  The differences are in fact substantial, except for the border of Wales based on Offa's Dyke. --Rumping (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxon roots? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consist of regions 

message: 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)
replies: text: It took two years, which is disappointing. --  axg ◉ talk  20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Isle of Wight 

message: This article needs updating to take on board the abolition of the regional assemblies.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Headquarters" 

message: 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)
replies: text: The introductory paragraph does not summarise the article well.  It needs to point out that regional boundaries have been used for Government purposes in England since at least the 1930s, and have earlier historical antecedents.  The history section is not "bloated" in any way, but the writing could be improved.  The "pre EEC history" is not "irrelevant" - what is (largely) irrelevant is the reference to the EEC, given that regions have been used both before and after accession for various UK government purposes.  The fact that the regions are currently used as NUTS 1 regions in the EU is a small part of the whole story.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the above user is missing the point: it's not that two stories need to be contained into one article, it's that there are two stories. The NUTS story needs to stay here, per the lead scope definition. The other story - that of ancient Britain, King Arthur and who knows what else, needs to go elsewhere. It deals with an historical topic and so have suggested that  Historical and alternative regions of England or something similar would be a suitable resting place. The EEC reference, far from being irrelevant, is in fact the driving force behind the whole article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter nonsense.  The lead did not even refer to the NUTS designation until recently.  By "history", I meant history up to 31 March 2011, the date until when the regions of England were used as units of central UK Government administration and government (that is, through Government Offices, regional assemblies and their replacements).  The regions of England had a process of historic development, regular use for Government administration in various forms from the 1930s until last week, and are now also NUTS regions.  It is preposterous to suggest that the NUTS designation is, ever has been, or should be, the focus of this article - though clearly, as a continuing function, it should be mentioned in the lead.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: PS: Why not simply create a new article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England, along the lines of NUTS 2 statistical regions of the United Kingdom?  My objection is to your idea that the text of this existing article is somehow irrelevant.  It isn't.  Quite possibly there is some overlap with Historical and alternative regions of England, but that can be addressed, and there could even be some merits in merging this article with that one - under the title of this article.  If that is what you are actually trying to achieve, it seems a somewhat perverse and aggressive way of doing it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to create a new article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England: this is that article. It serves its function perfectly. All it lacks is a proper name. I agree that the text of the existing article is not irrelevant: only the amorphous pre-history bit is irrelavant. On the other hand, it would be very relevant to "Historical and alternative regions of England" or something siomilar. The maps only refer to current realities. None of the regions in the maps corresponds exactly to an historic region of kingdom. The article is precise, bureaucratic and current. The other stuff is imprecise, non executive and historical. For this reason, the two should not co-exist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that you are approaching this from entirely the wrong end.  I am unclear what your motivation is here - is it simply to remove from the record all traces of the regional government in England that applied before April 2011?  Surely you can see that there is a great deal more, of encyclopedic value, to be written about the 'Regions of England' than simply the fact that they are still NUTS regions?  There needs to be an article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England.  Why not write that article and link it to this one?  But it is by no means clear to me what you are now suggesting.  Do you think all of the 'History' section should be moved to Historical and alternative regions of England (because in your view it is "amorphous... imprecise... historical"), or only part of it?  (I have no idea what you mean by using the word "non-executive", or indeed "bureaucratic".) What do you think should happen to the 'Powers and functions' section of this article?  Finally, what do you mean by the words "the two should not co-exist"?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, thanks for moderating the tone of your contributions. Secondly, have you had a look at Mercia by way of example? It has lots of good stuff about a former region (though it would never have so described itself). It even has a section saying how it roughly comprised the modern NUTS 1 regions of West midlands and East midlands. It is a member of the :Category:Petty kingdoms of England which contains lots of other such regions, or, more accurately, "petty kingdoms" per the category name. It seems clear to me that the first few paragraphs of the current article's History section should be deleted and moved into one or more articles of this category or "Historical and alternative regions of England" or something similar. Everything else in the article points to its use for Eurostat purposes as EU regions. The other paragraphs, the maps all point to this. It is inappropriate for the article to be hijacked for other purposes. There are plenty of articles that deal with ancient regions of England: this is not that article. As such, its name should reflect its function. By non executive, I mean that the fluff about ancient petty kingdoms has nothing to do with current admininstration, either at a central government (the "Executive") or a local government level. Only NUTS fulfill that function. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The regions of England were used as units of government and administration, in various forms, from the 1930s until 2011.  That has very little to do, directly, with ancient kingdoms like Mercia.   You say: "Everything else in the article points to its use for Eurostat purposes as EU regions."  No, it doesn't.  It discusses their role in UK (and EU) government and administration, of which designation as NUTS regions is just one small part.  The introduction currently highlights the fact that, currently, the regional boundaries are those of NUTS regions, but they do continue to be used for many other purposes as a legacy of the fact that, until a week or two ago, they existed as administrative areas.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming proposal 

message: I have moved the article from Regions of England to Regional administration in England, for clarity.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarity!  This is hilarious. You revert the name. I object. You suggest that I start a discussion, which I do. Discussion is ongoing. You then unilaterally change the name to something completely different that was not even suggested in the discussion. What chutzpah! I'm going directly to arbitration on this.  Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue about how the NUTS 1 statistical element is addressed, in this article or in another article, is a separate matter to that addressed by my text edits or my WP:BRD proposal to change the article name - "completely different" as you say.  The article text is now much more clearly focused on regional administration in England - hence my reference to clarity.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Editors visiting this page might be confused by your suggestion that I reverted the name.  You were the one who changed the name "Regions of England" (which existed since 2002) to a wholly inappropriate and partial other name - which I then reverted.  What I now suggest is that the article name be revised and clarified, for the reasons set out below.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The article is not about the "Regions of England", in general.  It is, specifically, about regional administration in England.  The title "Regions of England" was unspecific.  There are many "regions of England" - "the Lake District", "the West Country", "the Midlands", "the South", "the North", etc. etc. etc.  This article is not about those regions.  It is about the nine regions which have been used for Government administration in England, in particular between 1994-2011, and their historical background.  The title "Regional administration in England" is specific, and refers to administration through those regions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it back to its original location until a consensus can be reached or arbitration sorts the issue out. The whole "region thing" in England is very confusing now - last year I spent time writing pages for each LALB only for them to lose legal status two months later! Dn9ahx (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  "Confusion" is precisely what I am trying to avoid!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  I will now propose a move to Regional administration in England, at WP:RM.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yorkshire and The Humber 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair point.  I've now clarified the wording.  Better?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: had an official administrative role within UK Government. While they no longer fulfill this role, they continue to be used for administrative purposes

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Largest cities" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Regions of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808115208/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2007/press_79_07.cfm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2007/press_79_07.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218005902/http://www.gos.gov.uk:80/ournetwork/675481/ to http://www.gos.gov.uk/ournetwork/675481/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080219014022/http://www.egovmonitor.com:80/node/16178 to http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/16178
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124215735/http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/press_13_10.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/press_13_10.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Regions of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821200926/http://www.cor.europa.eu/en/presentation/national_delegations.htm to http://www.cor.europa.eu/en/presentation/national_delegations.htm#
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greater London Mayor - not London Region mayor 

message: They is a striking resemblance to this website I think it is a copy of this article:  Chocolateediter (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty clear they've copied this from Wikipedia (and not the other way round), but they haven't complied with the terms of Wikipedia's licence, which requires them to credit Wikipedia as the source and to release their page under the same (or very similar) licence. -- Dr Greg  talk  14:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: 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)
thread_title: nine regions had officially devolved functions within government. While they no longer fulfil this role