Talk:Gateshead

message: Is the name of the town pronounced Gates-head or Gate-shed, or something else?
:Gates-head or Gates-heed. The pronunciation is slightly different in Geordie (what isn't! :) ) and hard to describe as I'm not a language scholar but Gy-ate-sud is close (said quite quickly, the dashes are to separate parts of the word not to signify pauses). IainP (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If anyone is still interested, the pronunciation is Gāts'hĕd' (Gaates-head). But as IainP says, its different depending on what level of Geordie accent it's spoken in, Gāts'hēd' (Gaates-heed). johnwalton (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: I have never heard of this idea though I suposse every part of  Great Britain claims part of the Arthurian legend but Gateshead?? Penrithguy 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a very quick Google on this and could find nothing at all linking the two IainP (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Historians can't even agree on the evidence for a historical Arthur, so there is going to be little consensus amongst them as to the location of Camelot. Therefore I am going to remove the sentence regarding Camelot.  It may be that this is a local legend, in which case an inclusion could be made by someone with the appropriate knowledge. --zider_red 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateshead = Camelot? 

message: Any chance of some info regarding population, density, age and ethnic make-up etc.? 86.0.203.120 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: There is also no mention of Saltwell Park. Everyone sees Gateshead as dark and dingy place, need to brighten the place up. How about adding a Parks/Outdoor places section? Could add watergate park, chopwell wood, derwent country park. 
Ingaz 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, feel free to add one. Bob talk 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saltwell Park

message: Hello Gateshead editors,
Just a note that the article would not only benefit from the WP:UKCITIES standard, but also by having a "static image" within the infobox. There are many great photographs of many great Gateshead landmarks in the article, why not put one in the infobox? Examples of this are at Runcorn, Stalybridge, Stretford, Oldham, Wheathampstead, Porlock and many many more. Hope that helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout and images 

message: I would like this article to have something regarding Gateshead Indoor Market. It was a staple of Gateshead Town Centre for 29 years, before it closed on the 11th of this month. I have no idea where in the article it would be suitable though.
Perhaps Gateshead Town Centre's decline could be mentioned as well. (Approximately 3/4's of the places retailers have closed in the last 2 years  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateshead Indoor Market 

message: A comment was made a while back (further up the talk page), and I would like to bring it up again. This article is about the TOWN of Gateshead. NOT the borough, why does it list the population of Gateshead borough (190,000) and not the town of Gateshead. Also, places such as the Metro Centre are not in the town, they are in the borough. Surely the population figures should only be for the postcodes NE8-NE11? SJI - 23 January 2008
:Agreed. Other places in England tackle this well. See Salford/City of Salford as an example. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gateshead TOWN

message: The supposed quote from Dr Johnson is an old chestnut that always seems to find its way into anything written about Gateshead - what the Aussies call 'crying stinking fish'. There's no evidence for it, so I've removed it. In any case Johnson wasn't travelling with Boswell; he met him in Edinburgh, after spending about a week in Newcastle. 
Priestley was completely ignorant about Tyneside where he arrived in a rainy November, with a heavy cold. Bear this in mind. 
See my site www.myersnorth.co.uk
I've also re-written the Tourism scrap, which was inaccurate.
Bandalore (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Johnson

message: Not that I wish to labour the point here, but, as has been pointed out for years (or so this page indicates), quite a bit of this article actually relates to parts of what is now the 'MB of Gateshead', rather than the town of 'Gateshead'. Just from the history section; Joseph Swan lived in Low Fell, which was part of Gateshead Fell, not Gateshead and the Norman battle referred to  was also on Gateshead Fell (according to F Manders authoritative account), not Gateshead. Then in the geography section there are mentions of the QE Hopsital (Sheriff Hill, not really 'Gateshead'), Team Valley (not really Gateshead either), Windy Nook (and again) and the idea that Pelaw is sometimes considered part of Gateshead is unreferenced (for good reason: it is pretty much nonsense!).
This happens a lot in the article and I'm loath to start a flaming war by taking these things out, but they do really need to be addressed. If they can be supported, then great, but if not, some proper editing is required.Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateshead? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Gatesheadfamily 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gatesheadfamily 2.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gatesheadfamily 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Since my last message (above) this article still contains a raft of material relating not to the town of Gateshead at all but rather to the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead. As no-one seems willing to correct this, and numerous other issues with what is an important NE England article, I am going to make considerable changes to the article once I go down to Gateshead Central Library to do a little research. Does anyone else want to volunteer to lend a hand- this is going to be a big old task and it would be better done collaboratively I think. Anyone interested please ping my talk page... Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Volunteers Required

message: This article relates mostly to the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and I plan to start making major edits to it, but would like to see if I can get a consensus first on where the town of Gateshead starts and ends, because areas such as Felling, Deckham, Dunston etc are not and have never been part of the town of Gateshead.
I think the area in and around today's Gateshead Town Centre is about right and so propose to use the Gateshead Council ward of Bridges as the terms of reference for this article. Does anyone think this is a bad idea and, if so, I am very much open to others. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateshead Boundaries- Request for Consensus 

message: Gateshead is now a city. It has been given the title of city despite its lack of a cathedral. Hence the description town of Gateshead is false!! 130.88.168.183 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your evidence that the Queen as granted it city status? Keith D (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateshead: Is now a city 

message: Now, I know this will raise alarm in some quarters.  
However, I think the significant coverage of the following incident is worth including the incident in Wikipedia, because: 
* it has been widely reported throughout the UK (&, I don't doubt, worldwide) in all media, and
* it's ultimately a 'feel good' story, & one of which Gateshead & UK residents & the public beyond the UK (with 1 or 2 possible exceptions) can be very proud, in view of the overwhelmingly generous public response, started in Gateshead & helped throughout the world.
So, who'd like to add a paragraph to the Gateshead article?  I'm sure hundreds of WP editors would support the addition (with some dissenters).  The facts:  
Alan Bates is a 67-year-old disabled pensioner.  He was thrown to the ground from his wheelchair, outside his house, then robbed of his pocket contents.  The fall broke Alan's collar-bone.  Alan was born with growth impediment (he weighs little, & is a mere 4' 6" tall) & sight-impairment. 
Local beautician Katie Cutler, from Greenside, Gateshead, decided to set up the ‘Alan Barnes Fund’ page on the Go Fund Me website.  She intended to raise £500 to show Alan that real people cared, but in fact raised more than £250,000, with donations from Gateshead & indeed around the world. 
His name is Alan Barnes, not Bates.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.16.131 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  £250,000+ raised for mugging victim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gateshead. 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/20110605064741/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_12.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_12.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080327073929/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=224 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=224
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080609011624/http://www.yourtrinitysquare.co.uk:80/trinity-square-development.asp to http://www.yourtrinitysquare.co.uk/trinity-square-development.asp
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 20:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gateshead. 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/20080327073929/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=224 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=224
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 13:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A request for mediation...
; Primary issues
#I have inserted a citation from a well sourced probative document, the source comes from the Tyne & Wear historical archives at nationalarchives.gov.uk. Samuel J Walker, keeps reverting and removing the information.
I keep reinserting as I have inserted a citation for a clear non ambiguous premise. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=752241797&oldid=752185534 I have suggested to Samuel J Walker if he wants to get a third opinion, just say so on the Gateshead talk page rather than edit war. To be fair to Samuel J Walker he has also been respectful with regards to editing.
Here is my (Barkleave09) case for keeping the edit:
Without sounding disrespectful to anyone, it is fairly straight forward. Here is my simple straight forward case from myself for a third party reader:
*The premise: Part of the Gateshead County Borough until 1974 when it become part of the Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council,[1]
The citation that backs up the premise is very clear, probative, authoritive: 
*Title of the cited document: Gateshead County Borough
*Quote from the document: In 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act Gateshead County Borough merged with...
*Quote from the document: to form Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (see MD/GA).
*The source of the citation: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/f55bf2c6-3190-4ba0-b5cd-100c8c6e856f
*The probative authority of the citation: nationalarchives.gov.uk, Tyne & Wear Archives.
*the citation in a template: 
Issue:
*My argument: the premise is clear, the premise and citation match is factual and truthful, the context is clear, the citation comes from historical documents, official documents. I cannot see any reason to pull the edit down, or obscure. Though I am willing to let a third party settle this in order to stop any edit fighting and to be respectful.
*My argument against Samuel J Walker edit revert is this: The information he reverts to is not cited. It is also ambiguous. But more importantly it has replaced a factually sourced edit that references a premise that is validated by a citation from a reliable historical document from a reliable archive, this imo makes his edit of the article regressive.
Barkleave09 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateshead County Borough Citation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Gateshead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=591108&cityname=Gateshead-England
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304104753/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/freedom_of_information/106152docs.pdf to http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/freedom_of_information/106152docs.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303222838/http://isee.gateshead.gov.uk/detail.php?type=related&kv=3246&t=objects to http://isee.gateshead.gov.uk/detail.php?type=related&kv=3246&t=objects
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913044517/http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/index.html to http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229192022/http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/keelmans/keelman-intro.html to http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/keelmans/keelman-intro.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229192027/http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/utility/egc.html to http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/utility/egc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229192032/http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/utility/wgcw.html to http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/utility/wgcw.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229192040/http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/utility/durham-road.html to http://www.cycle-routes.org/cycle-gateshead/routes/utility/durham-road.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726005053/http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/Gateshead_Plaques/ to http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/Gateshead_Plaques/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014073600/http://www.ncl.ac.uk/energy/background/ to http://www.ncl.ac.uk/energy/background/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330052122/http://www.saltwellpark.co.uk/ to http://www.saltwellpark.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I and Inops would rather a 3rd person would end this in good faith.
Earlier this year a concensus was agreed between about the term 'historically' and it was agreed it should not be used because it gave undue weight or billing to one era out of the three eras described in the Gateshead lead.
My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=811898857&oldid=811777171 My outlined reasoning: My outlined reasoning is (and was earlier in the year when an earlier consensus was reached): I believe the term prefixed to one of the three eras presented in the lede amounts to a neutrality problem as it gives undue billing, undue weight, and puffery, to an era that gets billed the prefix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery I reason the term 'historical' used in the context of the Gateshead lede is clearly weaselling and puffery and clearly a misleading semantical misuse of the term historical. It is a clearly a term that can only be used if there was only 'one era' presented in the lead, Gateshead has 'three presented historical eras' in the lede; Therefore for the sake of the articles presented neutrallity, this also means no one era in the lede should be given undue weight and be prefixed with the term historically. I also believe prefixing every era with the term historical, for a sake of neutrality, is also flawed as it results in redundancy of the term historically. Therefore using the term historically for the sake of neutrality, on all three eras in the lede would result in redundancy with regards to the term historically. 
Therefore the only neutral use of the term is to not use it in the lede in order to respect neutrality.
I also believe the editor 'Inops' is using the term historically interchangeably with the term historic as part of his reasoning, in order to bill an era. The terms historic and historically are different. Referencing English dictionaries.com the terms Historic and Historical have different uses. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/historic-or-historical 
One last thing, I also understand wikipedia is about consensus and I have no issues in what ever way you go. However I do believe if you go with Inops, the term historical should have a weasel template, as it uses the term historically incorrectly in a non neutral context and so on. Barkleave09 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Inops edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=811903447&oldid=811898857 Inops's outlined reasoning: See Abingdon-on-Thames, Sunderland, Manchester, Liverpool, etc... they use the term "historically" to refer to a city's historic county. I don't accept your premise that there's anything wrong with this -- or anything about Gateshead specifically that means it can't be treated in the usual way. But, an alternative that's sometimes used is "Lying within the historic boundaries of *insert County*, the...", which clears up your problem with "historically". --Inops (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the consensus that is claimed for this? Keith D (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Keith D, a consensus was reached on the final few lines on a discussion on my talk page, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barkleave09#RE:_Gateshead_.28part_2.29  Barkleave09 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link. I do not think that you can claim general consensus for this as there was only one other editor involved in that discussion. Keith D (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After a long discussion it was established via consensus, and agreed that for the sake of neutrality the term historical should not be used...Barkleave09 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your opinion and good faith G. From my pov the other events in the lead are also 'historical,' as they have 'historical' documentation, this looks like puffery. It may look fair or desirable (just like it may look fair, desirable and equally valid if something else got the prefix), but with respect, the question is, is it neutral? Do you think you have answered the question on neutrality? Example, for the sake of neutrality, which era gets the historical prefix? Giving one era a prefix historically here looks like puffery. They are all historical documents, they cant all have the prefix as that would be redundant? There is no cited reference to prefix one with the term over another. Like I said I will go with whatever is said here, however I do believe it needs a puffery term template, or another template.Barkleave09 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd person

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gateshead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140928153004/http://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/RIBAStirlingPrizeWinners/RIBAStirlingPrizeWinners.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/RIBAStirlingPrizeWinners/RIBAStirlingPrizeWinners.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This town comes up as a test site for 5G technology, i.e. some people have trouble with that. This is an important topic to deny or confirm. 5G issues are a global matter and if there are tests and test results there, please let the world know. Greetings from Australia. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:F8D9:A473:A12E:6044 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  5G test site?  

message: No coverage of education providers in Gateshead? Helmardine (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education