Talk:Sunderland

message: (Now deleted.) No infinitive soender is currently listed in ang.wiktionary. 99.237.143.219 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxon etymology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population of Sunderland  

message: Substituted at 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
replies: text: The discussion may now be found at Talk:Sunderland (disambiguation). – wbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Wouldn't the medial schwa drop be covered by H:IPAE § Note 32.? It seems to me that ,  and  in most cases are reduced to syllabic ,  and  respectively. For instance, LPD gives the UK pronunciation as , while CEPD gives only . --maczkopeti (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is covered by that note. My mistake. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to Bryan Talbot's Alice in Sunderland (which examines both the history of the area and Charles Dodgson's links with it), "The nickname . . . dates from the days of shipbuilding. In the accent and spelling used by Carroll in Sylvie and Bruno, the phrase is "There's those who mak' em and those who tak' em"." This suggest that it was in use at least before 1900. I've also seen the phrase in the form "We mak'em, you tak'em." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mackem nickname 

message: :"In 685, Ecgfrith further granted Biscop the land adjacent to the monastery on the south side of the river. As the river separated this land from the monastic community, it was henceforth referred to as the "sunder-land", . . . ."
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:
:"Indeed, Bede later wrote that he was "ácenned on sundorlande þæs ylcan mynstres" (born in a separate land of this same monastery); here, "sundorlande" translates literally as "separate land" but could refer to the village of Sunderland."
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):
:Sunderland, usually 'detached estate',
:OE sundor-land: Sunderland Cumbria.
:Sonderland 1278. Sunderland Tyne &
:Wear. Sunderland c. 1168.
::However, the following has a
:different origin: Sunderland, North
:Northum. Sutherlannland 12th cent.
:'Southern cultivated land'. OE sütherra + land.
{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation of "Sunderland" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why 2 Metro sections? 

message: 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)
replies: text: * Merge as nominator. JayAmber (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Echoing what  says this is not a special case and is quite easily replicated elsewhere. As said before using criticism of people in towns not identifying with Sunderland and calling Sunderland and Newcastle not important cities is not a good reason to merge these articles. Renaming might be better solution but I don't see nothing wrong with it as is. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I think renaming the article would definitely be a preferable alternative to the current situation, but even then I think that the City Of article would need to be vastly trimmed to remove the duplicate (and in places copy pasted) content from the Sunderland article. My thinking is, once all the information that's better suited to, and already present on, the Sunderland article is removed from the City Of article, what's left is a stub bordering on failing WP:GNG, and that's why I proposed the merger to begin with. JayAmber (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm familiar with the history of the Metropolitan Borough / City of Sunderland and of Tyne & Wear, and I'm also not disputing that Hetton, Houghton and Washington are notable in their own right, as is Sunderland itself. I didn't say Sunderland is not important, I said London is more important, and as a result has a more complex and unique political structure. That is a fact. I live in Newcastle, Sunderland is far more important to me personally since I go there quite regularly whereas I have only been to London, like, three times ever. But it's not about me or my opinion, it's about whether or not the contemporary political structure of the City of Sunderland has received significant enough coverage in reliable sources to deserve its own standalone article rather than a dedicated section in the Sunderland article, and personally I don't believe it has. JayAmber (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose They are different things. "City of (name)" is an article about the local government and its jurisdiction while "(name)" is an article about the human settlement. The human settlement might be bigger or smaller than the local government area. Sometimes, several local government areas form a human settlement, sometimes, several human settlements form a local government area, they are not always the same. For example, Sydney and the City of Sydney are not the same thing. See the difference? 2001:8003:913E:5D01:CE2:D59D:BE62:D674 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal - 'City of Sunderland' 

message: I split history to it’s own article and added a reduced history to this article. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , please use the Copied template on the talk page for material that was moved. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Split [[History of Sunderland]] on November 2022