Talk:Northern England

message: Footnote 1 ("HM Revenue & Customs Advice Teams - Northern England". HMRC.gov.uk. Retrieved on 23 February 2009) is a broken link and does not work.
Furthermore, this is a financial/economic designation anyway, which is at best ephemeral. Since "the North" is a mainly cultural phenomenon (I quote the article!), I recommend cross-referencing instead to television regions, rather than economic bodies. BBC Look North for example covers  South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire as well as North Yorkshire and North East and Cumbria. 
This is as opposed to Look East, and the other Midland and Southern TV regions. ITV Yorkshire covers Lincolnshire as well. There is a good argument for considering 'the North' to extend from the north-west corner of the Wash to between Stoke on Trent and Crewe. See this map for clarification: http://www.barb.co.uk/images/maps/barb_bbc_map.gif
Lincolnshire people will generally consider themselves Northern rather than Southern, although the southernmost Fen areas may 'blend' more with the Midlands. 
Further to this, the three articles Midlands (England), Northern England and Southern England ought to be brought into agreement and have a standard map design, rather than the three we have at the moment. A clarified map can be found here: https://p.twimg.com/AqoKVwLCAAEU6dx.jpg
Thoughts, editors?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.250.226 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation: HM Revenue and Customs

message: Is the Flag of Northumbria the flag or the north?
:No, not really. 'The North' doesn't have a flag Robdurbar 19:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tudor rose would make a good flag of the North. --BetramMurgatroyd 22:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only northern flag I'm familiar with is this northern cross.  Isn't the yellow and red stripey flag the county flag of Northumberland?  Yorkshire Phoenix   13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Flag of the North; mainly because the north has never existed as a separate political unit. Anything which purports to be a flag of the the so called North is original research (and therefore verboten) or, as has been the case. advertising to sell a flag product. This is an encyclopedia not a version of Wizards and Dragons. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of the North

message: The user: Mrsteviec made large changes to the article. In stark contradiction to the orignal and tentatively agreed point that "northern England", and more specifically "the North", was a point of much debate and conflict (in short, there was an agreement to disagree), Mrsteviec decided to add that:
 "The North borders the Midlands to the south and Scotland to the north."
...right after the paragraph stating that the term was ambiguous.
As if to confirm this last point, he added a photgraph of a road sign with the writing "the North" on it. This was either a joke, or a major lack of knowledge. The road signs indicate the direction rather than any geographical region. Either way - joke or misinformation - it is certainly not welcome in Wikipedia.
I realise Mrsteviec has worked tirelessly on other articles, but would suggest that this is not one of his better forays. I agree with Lancsalot in that he probably knows relatively little about it. I do not think, as Mrsteviec states, that it is 'obvious' what identities are present - even the article itself suggests that the 'London-based media' (and people?) put sterotypes on people of norther England - and ironically, this is something Mrsteviec kept in his new edit.
To all those who added edits after the Mrsteviec change - please justify your edits and they will be added if most agree with them. 
On a positivie note - the organisation structure he provided was beneficial. Logica 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you look again he didn't remove any info, just rearranged it and made it more presentable.  The statement about the Pennines was already there.  I prefer that version to the current one, subject to my point about Lancashire.  Lancsalot 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We could probably find a better picture than a road sign.  We could also add that while the border with Scotland is clearly defined, the border with the Midlands isn't.  Lancsalot 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't add any text as you suggest. All I did was give the article structure. It is very wrong of you to keep reverting the whole article back as it is clearly an improvement. You need to edit the current version if you want to make changes. Removing the references section is particularly damaging. The image can be lost if necessary but I feel your reaction is an overreaction. It is only an illustration. In any case one that proves your point that the north is a vaguely defined area. You also seem to misunderstand how good articles are laid out so I have left you a welcome message on your talk page with some guidance. MRSC 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mrsteviec changes 

message: the image could do with a caption explaining the xeno's paradox elements of "HATFIELD AND THE NORTH".  i wonder where exactly the signs on the A1 stop saying "THE NORTH"?  Morwen - Talk 11:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't! I think there are even some in Caithness (although clearly, that isn't the A1). Owain (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but it is rubbish. In Scotland, we have signs for "the NORTH", and they do in Wales too. In fact, the roadsigns (as opposed to the border signs) near the Scottish border on our side say "the South" for Northern England. They're loath to call it England for some reason, even though "Scotland" is marked on roadsigns!!! --MacRusgail 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. It was put on as a kind of joke by somebody I think. I pointed this out before - it is an idication of direction. Somebody added a link to Zeno's paradox, which cleared it up a bit, but the joke is obviously in the fact that it says "Watford" on the sign. Logoistic 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Before I go on, I want to apologise for saying "it is rubbish" - because I was referring to the argument, not the opinions of the people in this discussion!) Anyway "the North" on roadsigns in the UK refers to the general direction. You won't tend to find it on Plymouth roadsigns pointing to the north Devon coast, or Suffolk signs pointing to Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. However, you will find it in Southampton pointing towards Salisbury and Winchester, or in Cumberland pointing towards Scotland.--MacRusgail 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Manchester is often (rightly or wrongly) referred to as the "Capital of the North". Surely there should be a mention of this in the article - any (unbiased) objections? Jhamez84 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As England's second city York is clearly the capital of the North.  Yorkshire Phoenix   11:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Late to this discussion - but as the Council of the North met at York then it cannot be anywhere else? Manchester would have been the commercial capital in the days when it had a Stock Exchange, but no longer. Hiram K Hackenbacker 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital 

message: As I have stated before, I do not think that this article deserves to have a great deal of depth about it because I think it quite an arbitrary definition in any case. Rather, I would like to see it more like the Southern England article, which regconises that (1) it is used as a term, and (2) that it is ambiguous. Recent edits, such as removal of text on streotypes I think helps achieve this goal. So even though the article is getting shorter, I think it is getting better. Logoistic 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The state of this article 

message: To the user who deleted the 'problems' section, I want to say that I'm going to add it back it. The writing is not brilliant, but I think it's necessary for the article. The article is about a part of England that is _perceived_ to be culturally distinct from the rest, but this perception is based on problematic evidence and is much contested. We have to indicate the problems with the concept of 'The North' if the article is to be truly encyclopedic - as Logoistic says above. In addition, I feel it's better to alter than to delete information, unless there's a good reason for deleting it (which I don't think your edit summary provided: I didn't understand what you meant by "nothing said in this section carries any weight culturally... most certainly Birmingham has as different an accent from the North as it does from the South"?). Hope this won't lead us into an edit war, and looking forward to your views. Polocrunch (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems section delete

message: I have only ever heard the Birmingham accent described as a midlands accent. Can the assertion that it is considered a "northern" accent be removed or referenced. I found this article messy and uninformative, not really the kind of material that should be in an informative encyclopedia. It needs edditing so it is not simply a collection of different peoples contradicting assertions about their views of this area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.250.245 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems, and article in general

message: I think people are being too genrious with the northern title, Yorkshire and Lancashire are not northern they are midlands.. they speak like midlands and they are geogrpahically around the middle of the country. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha :) Neither Yorkshire nor Lancashire are anywhere near "the middle of the country". Perhaps you are confusing England with Great Britain, as they are in the middle of Great Britain, but both counties are geographically in Northern England. A quick check of any map would confirm that to be so. Try looking at  and have fun.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why you felt in necessary to post such a large image my midlands friend, but anyway - aye it is still in the middle part of the country, anything south of Morecambe Bay and the Tees would be midlands, i'd also say the real south is south of the Britsol channel and the wash, in a diagonal line. The midlands also tend to speak a much more 'standard' form of English than the north. Unfortunately some midlanders want to be northern, which is a shame to their rightful heritage as midlanders. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well regardless of your opinion the fact remains that Lancashire and Yorkshire are part of Northern England. Your comments though are also amusing, but so long as you have fun hey.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would say Oxford is close-ish to the midlands, but falls into a southern catagory. As for Lancs and Yorks, they are definately midlands, 100% midlands, it stands out like a sore thumb it's so obvious and it is a huge shame that popular belief would have these midlanders really beliveing they are northern. The midlands are nowhere near the Great North Run, and after the Great North Road had passed through the midlands settlements of Doncaster, Leeds and Wetherby it heads to the north. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just silly, do you have to be standing on Hadrian's wall to be in the North? Yorks and Lancs (and IMO Cheshire) are quite definitely in the North.GordyB (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they certainly speak like they're Midlands, or atleast not Northern, their vowels are not flat enough to be Northern nor is their accents Northern ones. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Does that even matter? People from London think Brummies are northern, Lancashire and Yorkshire are not northern, you do not speak like northerners nor do they have accents like ours. Gazh (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern?

message: My understanding is that, historically, the River Trent was traditionally used as a major dividing line between the "north" and "south". Particularly, if I remember correctly, the southern boundary of the Council of the North was a line drawn more or less between the Trent and The Wash. In many ways, this still seems a reasonable definition to me, because although Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire might nowadays be described as in the Midlands, they are clearly counties where accents, culture, and history begin to change over from southern to northern. Might this be a useful addition to the article? DWaterson (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those area are no longer northern as they do not use typical northern words like 'lang' for long and 'wrang' for wrong. Gazh (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says 'lang' and 'wrang' are typical northern words?  Yes they are used in part of the north.  You seem to be using the argument they are used in part of the 'north', so they are northern, therefore if you don't use them, you can't be a northerner. There's more to be northern than accent such as social values. 192.28.2.55 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my midlands chum, it feels kind of sad that many midlanders would consider themselves northerners and sell their own heritage short as a result. There are certain areas of the country that are unquestionably northern, and many people who are from the midlands believe they're from the 'southern' north have very little incommon with the proper northerners, by proper i simply mean from the most northern parts of the country. It's sad that all of England seems to be following the more southern parts in recent times when it comes to values, accent, dialect etc so whereas midlands places like Lancashire and Yorkshire may have once been defined as Northern, in modern times these places have more incommon with Derbyshire and Lincolnshire etc Gazh (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is definitely worth including the historical use of the River Trent as the geographical boundary between southern and northern England. This use can be seen in the history of the Diocese of York, the post of Chief Justice of the Forests etc.  80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then it should be added as a historical boundry, not a modern one. Gazh (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: River Trent

message: This whole article is original research based on water catchment areas for flood management and frankly made up areas research particularly on accents. While there are sources there is a large degree of synthesis which has bone into creating this article and no such "definition" of "the North" exists.  The whole article is a prime candidate for deletion due to being primarily OR and Synthesis to further one particular point.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of trying to define a "Northern England", which is undefinable. Tere are english Local Government regions and European Parliament regions called North-East and North-West, but do they alone constitute a "Northern England". Just where do you draw the boundray? The answer is you can't and will never be able too. That is the point being pushed by this article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be necessary, but that is what the article is trying to push in its current form.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears, per your AFD nomination, that you are alone in your opinion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really it just appears as if I have nominated an article which people think can be salvaged. I believe it is unsalvagable. The article contents could easily just be merged into the necessary other articles such as thouse on the counties and the local government regions as opposed to actually creating a whole new article and new fork just for this wishey washey topic of "Northern England"--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose only you could argue that the article should be deleted in the face of unanimous disagreement, and still think you're right.  sigh. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but what is the above comment meant to imply. I believe it is an open attack on me personally. Please withdraw the above comment or it will be reported. Remember comment on the content and not the contributor. This was nothing but a content discussion until you made the above inappropriate attack.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please see WP:RANDY.  Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but this does not mean that all views must be taken seriously.  Your position seems quite implausible and so we require good evidence per WP:REDFLAG.  I suggest that you focus on particular details of the article as a general attack seems too vague and is not working. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comments ignore the fact that I posted on this topic with the aim of improving this subject but was totally ignored so the basis of this is totally legitimate and the essay you point to is irrelevant in this case. In future do not assume that just because something is done that seems to be slightly out of the ordinary, that there is no legitimate and genuine reason of good faith behind what is being done.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did AFD become a tool to smack editors into improving articles?  The best route is to do something about it yourself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  I have no interest in this topic and believe it not to be a topic of substance other users disagree and as such the AfD failed. That does though not mean that the AfD process has been misused. If the topic can be salvaged and can be bought up to standards then it needs to be done by users who know firstly what they are talking about and secondly actually want to do it. I have no desire based on the second point. The message ignored on this talk page also gave enough indication that users were not interested in this topic to firstly be bothered t improve this topic and secondly to actually want to improve this topic. As Such and based on the valid points which I raised i bought it to AfD, as such those points now need to be addressed when improving the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AFD isn't a tool to smack editors into improving articles.  The best route is to do something about it yourself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

text: This is not the place for stuck records. If you believe you can improve the article then please do so rather than demanding the same of other people. --Lucy-marie (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeated just in case you hadn't realised that we don't use AFD to get other people to improve articles.  We either do it ourselves, or we seek help from Wikiprojects, or make suggestions on talk pages, and tag the article.  End of discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: It would be worth including a section on county cricket in Lancashire, Yorkshire and County Durham (at least).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  County cricket 

message: The bit about missing "the" isn't true. We'd say "I'm going t' ' shops", where the second ' is a glottal stop. It's subtle and you might not always hear it if you're not used to the accent, but it's there. Sounds a bit like how you'd say "tut" if you dropped the second T. We reduce "the" to a stop, but we don't omit it. At least not in the bits of Yorkshire and Lancashire I was born in and have visited.
It's a small point, but do you want your encyclopaedia to be correct or don't you? Somebody else fix it, I can't think how best to put it. 
(Edit: Did you know you can't put two apostrophes in a row on a Wikipedia page?)
188.29.164.22 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistics 

message: Does anyone have a source for that statement in the lead - in particular, the use of the words "principal cultural area"?    I know that to some extent there are shared cultural values in the North, and  from the perspective of the North that "the South" can be seen as having some shared cultural values (by the way, it really doesn't - the differences between, say, London, Suffolk and Cornwall are vast...), but a sweeping generalisation like that in the opening paragraph really needs some reliable sources.  Is it easiest to change the words "principal cultural area" to, say, "most widely recognisable cultural area"?  Are there better alternatives?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's too woolly to make any sense. I've cut it down to just "...is the northern part of England, when considered as a single cultural area." Smurrayinchester 14:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...one of the country's three principal cultural areas, along with the Midlands and Southern England." 

message: Is there anything particularly interesting about ice hockey in Northern England? All the article says is "People in the UK play it, and two northern teams are rivals". This doesn't seem like much to hang an section on - there doesn't seem to be any particular north-south divide or distinctive northern style. Unless there are any suggestions of what to add, I'll remove this section. Smurrayinchester 15:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice hockey 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20090827225854/http://www.goldenageofnorthumbria.com/history.html to http://www.goldenageofnorthumbria.com/history.html
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) 17:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20170304113840/http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/british-election-study-2015-face-to-face-post-election-survey/ to http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/british-election-study-2015-face-to-face-post-election-survey/
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) 00:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20151121011659/http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Big-Issue-Alastair-Campbell-asks-Stoke-Trent/story-28207957-detail/story.html to http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/big-issue-alastair-campbell-asks-stoke-trent/story-28207957-detail/story.html
*Added  tag to http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/community-development/smithinstitute/1518642013_public_services_north.pdf
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) 18:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20161029200818/http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/britain/unitedkingdom.htm to http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/britain/unitedkingdom.htm
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) 05:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20090502023017/http://www.northerncross.co.uk/about.htm to http://www.northerncross.co.uk/about.htm
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) 18:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20170313042645/http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/pdfdownload/8f1ac0eb-3af7-40d1-bb25-94ca542dcc9d.pdf to http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/pdfdownload/8f1ac0eb-3af7-40d1-bb25-94ca542dcc9d.pdf
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) 15:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Northern England. 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/20170315085206/http://www.waterwise.org.uk/pages/water-hardness.html to http://www.waterwise.org.uk/pages/water-hardness.html
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) 20:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article uses "Northern England". Is the capital N in the prose right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of Northern 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a small group of editors determined to push the ancient counties at every turn. The topic has been discussed ad nauseam and the consistent and continuing consensus is that this information has curiosity value at best. It certainly doesn't belong in the infobox in a section assigned to current administrative entities. Accordingly, I will be bold and take it out of the infobox and move it down the page under archaeology or something. If anyone disagrees, please take it up yet again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic counties in infobox 

message: the Tab is a website produced for university students and is essentially similar to BuzzFeed. I don't believe it ought to be used as a source, least of all when defining aspects of Northern identity and culture. 82.132.184.145 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Most links are not NPOV and lack citations that comply with Wikipedia standards. Many links that do exist are the opinions of regional journalism - hardly NPOV. BeingObjective (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the Tab as a source 

message: The opening paragraph implied  a robust government definition - I really tried to find it - could not - not one that is NPOV and official. BeingObjective (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robust Citation - Where is the north? 

message: The list in the infobox has become just silly. Think of the reader on mobile who doesn't have the show/hide option. The list should be restricted to the ten largest conurbations. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the list has become silly. I seem to remember that previously the selection for inclusion was based on population size, perhaps more than 100,000 people.--TedColes (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look through the history of edits on this section, including the justifications for why particular towns did or didn't deserve to be mentioned which started the controversy. I think what could benefit the article, under "Urban", is some profiles of northern cities and towns to summarise for a reader who's unfamiliar with the unique cultural aspects of them. e.g. Talking about the Scouse accent and Merseybeat scene next to Liverpool. There are, after all, these kinds of distinctions from town to town across the north that's a mentioned in a more fragmented way across the article currently. Putting it here also means something near the top isn't unnecessarily clogged up, and more detail on the places can be provided so editors can decide for themselves based on how much there was to say about a town, whether it deserves to be in the section. I'd say a starting basis should probably be, at least a medium sized urban area of ten thousand plus, and then a number of cultural aspects to discuss like local accent, local football team, celebrities and artists from the area, a claim to fame. I did attempt a draft of this, but found the edit wasn't accepted? ZachariasTwinkletoes (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cities and towns in infobox 

message: As well as having the duplicate of "city5", the statistics in this table are of built-up areas, which is most certainly not the same as cities and towns. I would have thought that there is a more appropriate source of statistics for a table with this title. Failing that, the table should be accurately labelled as "Built-up Areas". TedColes (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of  "Largest cities and towns in Northern England"