Talk:Middlesbrough/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

from Middlesbrough

It used to say that Cook was born in Mbro. I can't see that this was correct as he was born in Marton at a time when Mbro hardly existed, so it sounds weird to say he was born there - no-one at the time would have seen it that way. I have corrected it with slightly clunky wording - feel free to tidy up. Nevilley 15:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Ridley Scott and Tony Scott are "from Middlesbrough". I think they spent some time in Teesside, but in Stockton rather then Middlesbrough? They seem to have moved around an awful lot. --Amortize 16:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have added a good deal to this entry,and eliminated the Scotts. Ridley was born in South Shields. I found a vandalism inserted by someone with a hatred of Newcastle. I am editing a number of sites, so am just inserting the material for the moment and will be back to finish the job properly.

Emmet 15.10 11 June 2005 I've done the best I can to tidy up.I think it reads well

Emmet 15.08 12 June 2005

Why include the 'crap towns' allusion? This was a poorly researched publication, meant as entertainment. Why use that to run Middlesbrough down? I wonder if the other 49 towns have mentioned their inclusion. I think not. It's not very encyclopaedic anyway, so I suggest it be omitted.

Emmet 20.12 11 July 2005

Ditto on your observations over the 'Crap Towns' remark. That said, I personally don't have too many objections to its inclusion, despite being something of a Middlesbrough proponent. It is inserted in humoured spirit, and the comment in question is both well-mannered and sympathetic ("misfortune") etc. So, no strictly NPOV but true, nor is it to be deemed as generic encyclopedia fare either.

20 Dec 2005

I'm a UoT graduate and I seem to remember the VR center being finished? See: VR Centre mini-site

Town & Borough

The town and borough are the same place, jimfbleak 17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No dispute of that but the name of the district is not "Town & Borough of Middlesborough" like City and District of St Albans it is just "Borough of Middlesborough" like Borough of Milton Keynes. MRSC 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eston and Normanby

The people of Eston and Normanby where/are fiercely independent of Middlesbrough and on several occasions fought the Councils of Middlesbrough through Parliment. The area of Eston and Normanby was run by The Eston Urban District Council.

ESTON DISTRICT

Eston and Normanby have existed long before Middlesbrough, yes they are seperate Towns tow Middlesbrough and have never been in an actual BOROUGH of Middlesbrough, as in to say, Eston District wasn't under the Authority of Middlesbrough council, but the whole Eston Urban District was under the Local government and parliamentary control (for the use of elections) of the Middlesbrough Urban Sanitary District. South bank, Teessville and the younger generations of people from Grangetown are more likely to Say they are from Middlesbrough. Grangetown & Southbank were built sometime in the 1880's, the land it was built on was bought by the owners of Middlesbrough, was served by Middlesbrough transport authority and used Water supplied by Middlesbrough. Funny how Eston always protested against merging officially within the Borough of Middlesbrough yet it was merged with Langbaurgh with no hassle!!! Check out these web sites

• Genuki - History of Eston parish & District Descriptions from Bulmer's History and Directory of North Yorkshire (1890), retreived 8th February 2006

• - Articles and Gazeteers from Grangetown & Southbank

Also regarding the current population of Middlesbrough. If the Town of Middlesbrough has 135,000, how on earth can the whole Borough amount to 140,000? There is around 12,000 in Coulby Newham alone, plus the populations of Stainton, Thornton, Hemlington and Nunthorpe!!

A continuous stretch of urbanisation in itself can be regarded as a town, as towns do not neccessarily need to be a sub-set of any particular Borough or area of local government, that is they form a continous area of housing or industry without any definate or visible boundaries between the subsequent administrative districts. So in every way exept for local government, Eston is part of Middlesbrough Town.

Question; help, please.

I'm sorry about using this Talk page to ask a question for my own personal research purposes; but (1) this seems a likely place to get a good answer, and (2) perhaps the answer is something about which a Wikipedia article should be written.

Basically, I am trying to remember the name of a town or village, as well as the names of two specific features within that locale. (Sorry about town/village; although I've lived in England and look forward to returning, I'm from the U.S., where, at least idiomatically, such terms as city and town are used much less restrictively.)

In July 1997, on a coach day-trip from Darlington to Whitby, my girlfriend and I stopped in a little place on the way to Whitby. I keep thinking that it was called Middlesbrough, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe we took a small van to Middlesbrough, then boarded a coach there, and then stopped in yet another place, to get out and spend some time, before the tour resumed the journey to Whitby.

Anyway, the place I'm thinking of struck me as relatively small—though perhaps we were simply in a small-seeming area, or suburb, of a larger place. I don't remember any buildings of more than two or three storeys. The first stop was at what I would call a ruin. It was a stone house, possibly roofless in some places, that seems, in my memory, to be from the Middle Ages. In one large room, with large, glassless windows, the floor (dirt, possibly covered with gravel of very small pebbles) was wet either from the lack of a roof or from leaks in the roof. Within some minutes' walk of this old house, which may, in fact, have been called a castle, there was a lively market square.

In case it helps in terms of market days: we were there on Friday 4, or possibly Saturday 5, July 1997.

I'd be really grateful if anyone could help me figure out the name of the locale as well as the 'ruin'. (I do know some part of the ruin had a roof, because I remember being in a dark alcove of a window and taking a silhouette picture of my girlfriend's profile against the light coming in through the window; this was in a room whose floor may have been perhaps a meter below ground.) I could show a photo taken in the aforementioned wet-floored room if it would help someone help me identify the place.

Thanks again, and sorry about putting a personal question here. Still, once I find out the name of this place, I wouldn't mind researching and then creating a Wikipedia article on it.

Again, I'd like to know the name of the locale, the name of the old house, and the name of the market square. Thanks! President Lethe 18:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it was Middlesbrough. The coach service would have passed through into Middlesbrough centre but that is a relatively Large Town. Which route did you take, the country or coastal route?

Hey, thanks for responding; I didn't expect it to happen so soon. I've been trying and trying to find this place on maps, in books, at websites, in aerial/satellite photos, &c. Now that I think more about it, I'm pretty sure that the place I'm thinking of was indeed not part of Middlesbrough proper. Middlesbrough seemed much more industrial; I think we just took a small van to Middlesbrough, then switched there to a coach (I do remember being at a bus station), and then stopped again—in the place I'm thinking of—on the way from Middlesbrough to Whitby. I'm not sure about the distinction; but I would describe the route as countryside, not coastal. I can share a picture of the 'ruin' if anyone wants. I've failed so far to find anything resembling it in Google Earth—but not all the views of northeastern England are the sharp, aerial ones. Thanks again to any and all who can help. President Lethe 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Helmsley! President Lethe 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we actually went Newton Aycliffe–Darlington–Thirsk–Helmsley–Whitby on Fri 4 Jul, and Newton Aycliffe–Darlington–Middlesbrough–Scarborough on a later day. Places are Helmsley, Helmsley Castle, and the Marketplace. Anyway, thanks again for the help! Glad finally to remember; fills me with nostalgia. President Lethe 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The route to Whitby would go through Guisborough, where there is a ruin ( Priory ) and a popular market. To go to Whitby via Helmsley doesnt make sense because you wuld have to back over the moors, you would go to Scarborough via Helmsley.

Population comparison with Newcastle upon Tyne and Sunderland

I have removed an incorrect statement regarding the comparison of the size of the towns.

Measured by Urban sub-area as defined by the Office for National Statistics (which is based upon the pre-1974 local authorities):

• Middlesbrough 142,691
• Newcastle 189,863
• Sunderland 177,739

This shows that Middlesbrough is the largest town in North Yorkshire and in Teeside, but is the smallest of the three major towns in the north east. Steven J 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the statement, i was referring to the actual land area as oppose to population, my mistake.

Tsider 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Population of Middlesbrough Town

This is referring to the population of Middlesbrough Town. According to the most recent article, Middlesbrough has a population of 142,691. How on earth can this be true? The population of the whole borough is just over 147,000!! So how can the Town be 142,000 and the borough have 147,000 when Nunthorpe has 4,620, Marton has over 9,990 and Coulby Newham has over 12,000 people? That isnt even including Stainton, Thornton and Hemlington which are seperate settlements from Middlesbrough Town!!! If Middlesbrough Town had a population of 142,000, then from the population of Nunthorpe, Marton and Coulby, the whole borough would be around 157,000, even without the settlements of Stainton, Thornton and Hemlington added!!!!!

Towns are not necessarily a subset of the borough after which they are named. For example, the population of Reading Borough Council is 144,000 whilst the population of the urban area stretches outside and has a population of 232,662. It is therefore entirely possible that the Office for National Statistics have included areas outside Middlesbrough Borough Council's area within the Urban Area of Middlesbrough.

The population of the whole Teeside conurbation is given as 365,323; and is made up of the following Sub-Areas (or towns) - Billingham (35,592), Eston and South Bank (32,788), Ingleby (14,290), Middlesbrough (142,691), Redcar (36,443), Stockton-on-Tees (80,060) and Thornaby (22,620).

More information can be found on the ONS's report, Key Statistics for Urban Areas Steven J 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, still doesnt make sense. I agree with Towns not ahving to be within a certain administrative area and can indeed cross over into 2 seperate ones which is apparent in the case of Middlesbrough/Eston area. The Info from the Key Statistics given by ONS, gives each of the main Towns of Teesside as oppose to the collective district each belong to. So it is still apparent that the Town of Middlesbrough has 142, 691. Fair enough but then the Borough of Middlesbrough would have nearly 200,000? Here are some figures which Ive gathered from various sources such as Tees Valley Statistics and local council websites:

Middlesbrough Town = 142,691 (mid 2005). Stainton & Thornton = 3,500. Hemlington = 4,000. Coulby Newham = 11,600. Marton = 9,990. Nunthorpe = 4,620.

From these figures it would mean that The Borough of Middlesbrough has a population of over 176,401??? This is obviousely wrong. Maybe the ONS have counted the Town of Middlesbrough as the whole Borough!!. So with that figi=ure in mind, and the addition of Eston (which is part of the Middlesbrough Urban Area), Middlesbrough has over 209,189!!! hmmm, cud anyone divulge any info on ow this can be? tsider 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily... You're assuming that Middlesbrough is contained entirely within the Borough of Middlesbrough, rather than potentially spilling outside. Looking at a map (I'm not local!), I would guess that the whole of Nunthorpe is counted as being within the Urban Area, but only half appears to be in the Borough. Equally Ormesby appears to be outside the Borough, but is potentially part of the Urban Area.

It's also a problem mixing figures from different sources as you can get some very odd results as you can see from your calculations. It's unlikely that the ONS have counted the Borough as being equal to the Urban sub-area, as both figures come from the same Census and the ONS release both sets of data. Steven J 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Armpit of England"

I have removed this derogatory term as it no longer has any relevance to Middlesbrough. The air is much cleaner nowadays and has been known to be cleaner than most large Urban areas such as Birmingham and Manchester. It has been known as the "Armpit of England" not so much for its pollution but more its industrial landscape. It has also be noted as the skid mark on Britains underwear but I do not agree both are worth noting. No matter what people say about Middlesbrough, it was one of the most important industrial Towns and greatly helped in shaping Britain tsider 1:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well - I would have to disagree with dj_paul. This is an encyclopaedia, and therefore should include even "derogatory" terms, because it is a piece of information about Middlesbrough which people would like to hear. Ciao.

I really disagree with the inclusion of the "Armpit Of England" section of this article. As this is an encyclopedia it should be based on fact and not opinion. The development of middlesbrough compared to urban cities like liverpool and manchester has been slower but as Middlesbrough doesn't have city status and is a much younger town in comparison I think this is to be expected. Supposedly being called the "Armpit Of England" (being from Middlesbrough I have heard this term used for many towns in england) I think has no educational weight. For this reason I have excluded this section. Dangerhertz 15:55 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Dangerhertz, opinion should be avoided unless it can be cited from a reasonable source... even if it a fairly accurate description. I hate it here. 86.30.14.139 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

In response: 1) It says "Urban Centres", not "Urban Cities" 2) Whilst Middlesbrough may be smaller and "younger," the dockyard work brough a huge number of immigrants to areas such as Middlesbrough, Liverpool and Manchester. As such, they are comparable as industrial sites. The fact that Middlesbrough is smaller could be a sign of its failure, especially given the present circumstances. Whilst Manchester and Liverpool have regenerated successfully, it seems that Middlesbrough is having problems which one art gallery and putting slippery tiles in the town centre will not solve. 3) I too am from Middlesbrough. 4) The fact that this term has been used for many towns in England does not mean that it should not be used about Middlesbrough 5) This is not merely an opinion. As you yourself have admitted, this phrase is used about Middlesbrough, therefore has a right of place in an encyclopaedia. 6) What exactly do you mean by "educational weight"? To me, this means nothing.

--Pjmc 18:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

What I meant by educational weight was, this term "Armpit of England" is not exclusive to Middlesbrough and isn't an accurate description of this one town it's also not representative of mass opinion regarding middlesbrough, Therefore it's not giving anyone wishing to learn about middlesbrough any real knowledge of the town itself. The section on crime doesn't show middlesbrough in a good light BUT it is based on facts and figures whereas the "Armpit of England" section is pure opinion and therefore I dont think should be included. Whatever it is you think of regarding the efforts of Middlesbrough Council to regenerate middlesbrough is fine and in some senses I agree that we could be doing a lot better but I think it's upto wikipedia as a whole to give the facts on a subject thus leaving people to garner there own opinions and not sway peoples opinion on certain subjects

-- Dangerhertz 15:55 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I think you have a very perverted sense of what a "fact" is. I think you will find that it is FACT that Middlesbrough has been called "the armpit of england" and therefore, by your own acknowledgment, has a right to be entered in the section on Middlesbrough. As I said before, this is no longer stated as personal opinion, but as merely a fact. --Pjmc 13:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Is this there anywhere that you can find that Middlesbrough has been officially named as "Armpit of England" or is there a survey that you can produce that proves that the popular opinion of the people is that middlesbrough is in fact "Armpit of England" if so then I agree wholeheartedly that it should be included. But as we have already established this term is used for many different towns. Does this mean we should put it on every article of any town that has ever been described "Armpit of England"?

--Dangerhertz 15:55 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Even if only in the name of hazy affirmation, I do feel a considerable urge to back up dj_paul on this matter. Statements being made are indeed fact; albeit by the vagary of what they are, having little correlation with the level of infatuation of that which is said - clearly, in this case, particularly high, when not even a statistic or survey result, in themselves rather spurious and subjective in nature, is even inserted. On moral grounds alone, irrespective of the presence or otherwise of a system-wide 'NPOV' agenda no town featured on Wikipedia anywhere in the world warrants a section headlined "Armpit of Britain" or anything remotely resembling it. Hence, a clean and just victory for staple common sense here. - MRacer

NEIGHBOURHOODS

Just regarding the neighbourhoods. Some of thhose in the list arent neighbourhoods as such but are whole Villages or nowadays the Electoral wards based on the old Village parishes. The neighbourhoods are within these and are much smaller. Whinneybanks, Tollesby, Saltersgill and Berwick Hills are neighbourhoods whereas Acklam, Grove Hill and North Ormesby are the respective wards. Also if Nunthorpe and Ormesby are included in the list, surely Grangetown and Southbank should be included, after all they are far more closley related to Middlesbrough than Redcar even if they are not under Middlesbrough Council! tsider 24:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FILM

The statement "Six Bend Trap is the first ever feature film made in the Middlesbrough area" is out-dated and not true. There have been other feature films made in Middlesbrough, including Bacon-Based Bastards, Sub Zero and Gangsters In Love. There is some truth in the statement however. Six Blend Trap is the first feature film to be shot in the area using HD-TV cameras. --Joe 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Norf n Lights

Norf n Lights are an entertainer in the city. Fine, they can be listed with the other entertainers, but the extra section on them alone is inappropriate. Two entries in the External Links is probably overkill as well, but I'm on the fence of that one. I suggest removing the Norf n Lights section. (I'd have done it myself if Firefox didn't cut short on long pages.)
--BakerQ 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be a sufficiently obscure outfit to me so as to be deservedly omitted completely, as is precisely what I have initiated. Such dubious bandying of promotive blurb as this, I wouldn't deem unfamiliar: the Saltburn article was at one point similarly plagued. But we're Wikipedians, so I'm sure we aptly can 'police' the situation... --MRacer 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Middlesbrough town / borough

I have posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions regarding the present split between the articles Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough (borough) and invite comments. I note that the articles are mutually contradictory, in that Middlesbrough claims that it is larger than Middlesbrough (borough), but Middlesbrough (borough) identifies places outside Middlesbrough that are in the borough; but these places are places that Middlesbrough claim are in Middlesbrough. Please leave general comments there. Morwen - Talk 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit

I've looked at their website for a source for this 180,000 figure, and can't find it. [5] shows their population figures, which are all entirely based on local authority and ward boundaries. I cannot find any attempt at them identifying a Greater Middlesbrough area. Morwen - Talk 09:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had trouble locating the exact file on the interent. It was a pdf that I found through google. It was a document from the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit but I did not access the file through the website itself. It may be best to remove the statement or change it to be viewed form a local rather than offical point of view until I can relocate this file. Being a local lad, any other references to the Urban area is purely a local matter and recognised by the locality. It is simply based on the fact that Middlesbrough/Eston is bordered by the Tees, A19, North Yorkshire and the ICI Wilton site so it becomes one Urban entity (although part of Teesside aswell) tsider 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You must understand the importance of properly referencing things. For example, in this edit, I made the population figure in the infobox actually agree with actual ONS data. I have not checked who put that figure of 182,800 in there, but I strongly frown upon misrepresenting sources in this way. Given the sort of misrepresentation and nonsense that are prevelant on the Middlesbrough articles, I am skeptical as to this figure as well. Morwen - Talk 08:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we are - it was you after all. Can you please justify this edit? Morwen - Talk 08:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes it was me who made the edits and after looking back on the previous , it sounds like the rantings of a madman. It is a touchy subject from where im from and something that I feel strongly about. In the edits it is apparent that I have sacrificed fact for local knowledge and opinion. As wikipedia is an encylopeadia its a meant for factual topics based on real factual evidence rather than opinon. As I am a local lad brought up in Eston, I have gone into each edit ignorantly believing that what is local knowledge on Teesside is also common to the rest of the UK. As I and most of Middlesbrough believe, Eston & Southbank is Middlesbrough but I now realise that this is not hard fact and there are no real statistics for this and the only official definition for Middlesbrough is based on the local authority. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add info about what is perceived locally as middlesbrough, with the inclusion of what officially entails as Middlesbrough. BTW the 182,000 was not a Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit stat but an informal way used by them to establish projects on Teesside based on the Middlesbrough PCT area (Middlesbrough & Eston). Sorry for any inconvenince as Im not an experience Wikipedian butI am very enthusiastic about my locality. In future I wil stick to facts and figures. tsider 19:36, 30th October 2006 (UTC)

I am humbled by your acknowledgement of this. I'd be delighted to see information about local identity addde - this type of information is difficult to source but not impossible. Local newspapers, local history books, placename dictionaries, that sort of thing, probably exist and are usable as sources, in addition to the possibility of more academic works. Morwen - Talk 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Though they can't afford to shop there

Cheeky B******! Maybe people living in central Boro cannot afford it but people living in the suburban areas (who traditional are the better off ones anyway) can! Just look at the house prices in Yarm, Marton, Nunthorpe, Acklam! Love the way no-one can delet it aswell, Sly! 00:39 11, September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Emmett

Who is Paul Emmett? I've removed him from the list of notable musicians because he doesn't seem to be famous. Epimorph 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Middlesbrough query

Can anyone offer any information regarding the Middlesbrough registration district from 1901. I happened to come across a site which offers census data from 1901 and was curious about the Middlesbrough area. Now I know there is always controversy and split opinion when it comes to the "Southbank & Eston being part of Middlesbrough" arguement, but when I looked into the census data for Southbank, Ormesby and Eston they refer themselves to being within the Registration district of Middlesbrough as sub-districts of Middlesbrough and was also part of its parliamentary borough. What were these districts used for and do they constitute the said areas being a part of Middlesbrough in any form?

This is the site from which I found the data:

http://www.1901censusonline.com/results.asp?wci=locale_results&px=1&searchwci=locale_search —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.11.18.231 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Pronunciation

I think that it would be helpful for non-Britons if a pronuciation guide, using the phonetic alphabet, was included. I can't do any better than "middles-bru", where the u is as in cup. That's clearly not good enough. Dancarney 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Its more like Middles-bra

Depends on how you pronounce the "a". Needs phonetic alphabet. Dancarney 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the received pronunciation version, though the local pronunciation is probably different. Falconer 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Local pronunciation is like "Midils-bra". The brough is not pronounced like "Midils-broe" or "Midils-buroe" Tsider 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Crap Towns II

Although the fact is probably true about it being voted tenth 'crappiest' town in the UK, should this really be on the middlesbrough wiki page? When I saw Bath appear above Middlesrbough on the list (along with some others), I realised that this list must have been made by picking town names out of a hat. Are there no better gradings of towns around? If not, then I think this should just be removed. It's a joke, wich makes me naturally question the rest of what I read on the page. Ben 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Cr

I think you'll find, actually, that there is nothing 'factual' about either opposing assertion; ie. that Middlesbrough is even in the remotest sense, a 'crap' town or an utter urban utopia... MRacer 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Its part of the reputation of the place, see also [6] where 'Boro has found a place into the top ten worst towns to live for the 3rd sucessive year, this year wining the 'honor' (07)--GazMan7 12:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Middlebrough and the railway

In the first paragraph I wrote that Middlesbrough was the first town in the world to owe its exitsence to a railway. I think that this is important enough to have a prominent mentiom. Although the name is much older than this, as the article makes clear, the urban settlement would not have started without the S&D extension. (The Pease family of course wore the initial financial backers of the S&D). Sasha 19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Population change

Why has the population of the Urban area been change to match the District population? Surely that population has been stated within the Borough of Middlesbrough article has it not? The population of Middlesbrough Urban area as defined by the ONS is 142,691, which is the appropriate figure to include in the Town article. Most of the articles on Wikipedia, when describing Towns, use the Urban sub-area figure from the ONS for the population so why not for Middlesbrough? I have changed the population accordingly | statistics for Urban sub-areas Tsider 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

North Yorkshire IN Middlesbrough???

Now I agree that the majority of Redcar & Cleveland, possibly even the council itself, would count the areas above as Middlesbrough (based on them having a Middlesbrough address rather than being located in that particular district) but they are not officially part of Middlesbrough, which I believe they should.

I too agree with the Grangetown, Southbank, Eston and Lazenby areas of Redcar & Cleveland being part of Middlesbrough, regrdless of its council and local administration, as it forms part of the same continuous urban area, not to mention them all having a Middlesbrough postal address instead of a Redcar one. It seems apparent that the addresses given to where people live and establishments are do not reflect the council area they are within, so why should being within one council area mean you are not part of another Town? Anyway, locally, the area is seen as Middlesbrough, but apparently the government know better and the office for National statistics decided that those areas are part of a seperate urban-sub area, even though they have a Middlesbrough Postal address AND are linked directly by sprawl.

Also another thing, the popualtion of the actual Middlesbrough Urban sub-area is 142,691 not 199,000... If the whole of the Middlesbrough area is counted as one single urban-sub are like it should be then it still only amounts to around 180,000. For this I have taken the liberty to change the population back ( although 180,000 would be more appropriate in my view as a local!) Tsider 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm from Teesside and I'm not sure that I would could Redcar as part of Middlesbrough any more than I would Stockton, Billingham or Hartlepool. It is sufficiently different not to be counted, but it should be mentioned as an adjacent town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agglemeration over Conurbation

In the articles for Grangetown, Southbank, Eston, Teesville, Normanby and Ormesby I have made changes to parts which say the above areas are part of a Middlesbrough 'conurbation' and replaced it with 'Agglomeration' as conurbation gives the impression it forms a much larger area than it really does. Tsider 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are we removing links to dates?

Just a question... why do some editors seem to have such an aversion to providing links to specific dates in an article, and proceed to actually remove them? We are, after all, constructing an encyclopedia here, resplendent with, and better thanks to (or so I thought), as many relevant and interesting links as possible. Might somebody not wish to click on them in order to gain a wider, world view of events contemporary to a particular date? It's hardly as if there aren't plenty of them, after all! Isn't it more of a headache, that editors removing links to dates are therefore making them too indistinct in the article? Or is all this palaver over having them (or otherwise) simply some result of a broader Wikipedia policy of which I am unaware and which I have to say, if anything, I hardly like the sound, or understand the logic, of?

Do clarify, if there are any objectors to me finally adding linked dates back into the article, please. MRacer (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Full dates should be wikilinked to allow for user preference operation, but year only or month & year dates should only be wikilinked if significant, so most year only dates would be expected to be unlinked in an article. See WP:MOSDATE#Autoformatting and linking for details. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here, just a response to the cheeky remark made by an anonymous editor (who would therefore presumably lend himself to not being easily 'chased up') under the 'History' tab. Of course that particular Odean Cinema is based in Middlesbrough, and at no point did I ever suggest that it was based in the "Dales". Or in Leeds. Or in London. Which correctly makes it 'Middlesbrough-based'. 'Base' on its own simply means foundation, where it is. It doesn't imply that the Cinema (aside from the perfectly legitimate idea that Middlesbrough is hardly the only location on the planet with an outpost of the Odean Cinema 'chain') ever physically travels anywhere, because cinemas, of course, don't. That does go without saying in my world at least, anyway. :D MRacer (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime

Could the high crime rate be partly due to the use of cameras and zero tolerence policy leading to more incidents being recorded? --Another berean (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, just because incidents are observed it doesnt necessarily mean they will be recorded by the police, neither does it mean they will be attended. For example, on Friday evenings when traditionally things "Kick Off" the police are too understaffed to go to all incidents so its quite common that the footage will be recorded and viewed by police later, but if the victim or witnesses dont come forward to report the incident its not recorded.

Crime is underreported across Great Britain which is why some people say the British Crime Survey tells a more accurate picture. It suggests that certain crimes are underreported by as much as 50%, 90% when you include low volume offences such as Homophobic and Racially aggravated offences.

Middlesbroughs current rate of crime at 170 per 1,000 is below what it was in 2002-03 at 209 per 1,000 but the England average is only 100. The Met Police has reduced even more significantly from 150 in 2002-03 to 105 in 2007 although certain individual boroughs remain high (Camden, Islington, Westminster, Hackney... all over 150).

Crime rates are falling nationally with strict government targets which expected 15% reductions in every part of the country between 2004-05 and 2006-07. For several years before this crime rates changed little in most of the high crime areas although this last 3 years have reduced significantly to meet the targets - Essentially in my opinion the targets set by the government have meant police are becoming more intelligent in the way they count/record crime, massaging the statistics to meet these targets which are profitable. Damn lies and statistics.

One thing that cannot be hidden though is the rise in that same period of street robbery and serious violent crime, although the numbers here are too low to impact on overall statistics so they are not "important" as they cant hinder the chance of meeting targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.254.162 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Smog

There has to be some mention in the industrial section that the place was once thick with smog. The fans of the football club are called smoggies and there are songs about taking gas masks to the city for this very reason. The place is still not the cleanest air in Britain, and it used to be disgusting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.223.212 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The smog that was may not have been industrial. Up through the 60's domestic coal fires were a major source, and you can say that about any major urban area. I remember the fogs of my youth, and they were definitely smoky. I can't speak about any time after 1974, but I bet things are better. Even in the 60s most of the industry was out of town: Billingham, Eston and Redcar must have had the worst of it. Djdaedalus (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No worst than any other industrial area (South Wales, East London), Cambridge has more air pollution than Middlesbrough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.254.162 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an Evening Gazette news article reported, possibly around two years ago now, that Middlesbrough's air is actually now cleaner than that breathed by the Queen (ie. in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea). I'm not sure what the implications subsequently were for Middlesbrough's national 'ranking', but it would almost certainly be worth finding the relevant link, were we to introduce such a section to the article. MRacer (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sport

Who are the top football teams in town other than the Premier League club? Kenallen (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no notable examples which haven't already been mentioned in individual suburb articles (like Marton FC). MRacer (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Teesnewportbridge.jpg

The image Image:Teesnewportbridge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

David Daniel

I've added him back into the sports people list. I am not sure I can agree with the other editor that he is not notable: the fact that there's no wp article on him now is not the same thing. It is not correct that there is no evidence of notability and that he is not Googleable: see for example this, this and this. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I have altered the opening paragraph on Middlesbrough to reflect the fact that Middlesbrough is not part of the County of North Yorkshire. Olive66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olive66 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Town/City

I reverted this recent edit which changed "town" to "city". City status in the United Kingdom makes it clear that Middlesbrough is not currently a city. The attempt from 88.108.45.197 to change that latter article too was not supported by any reference and has already been reverted by another editor. I'd suggest that this needs discussing here before any further change is made: a change to "city" will not stick without verifiable evidence to support it. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Twinned with Pyongyang?

Someone at an IP addr. posted an entry to the effect that Mbro was twinned with Pyongyang in 1966. I removed it.

OK, the North Koreans did play at Ayresome Park in 1966 during the world cup. And maybe the respective mayors (it was a largely ceremonial post back then) did exchange flags or whatever. But can anyone document this? Djdaedalus (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a little time has passed and no-one has spoken up for it so I have removed "formerly twinned with Pyongyang in 1966." It can always be restored if a reference can be found. I did have a bit of a look but could not locate anything. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The twinning list

At the same time as the above I restored Middlesborough, KY which I had previously removed, and gave a reference for the LGA list which contains it. However I do feel that the date of 1890 for a twinning is very unlikely but again maybe a reference can be found? cheers DBaK (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You say mima, I say MIMA

At the risk of making everyone even more disillusioned, bitter and knackered than they already are, I'd just like to point out MIMA and mima are used inconsistently in the article. Myself I'd prefer MIMA on the grounds that it is an acronym and I see no reason to cater to officials with an e.e.cummings fetish. As a comparison, the company AT&T is widely known by that acronym even though the modern logo is lowercase throughout. Djdaedalus (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think you are quite possibly absolutely right. I was mostly annoyed by the anon IP editor, who does not believe in edit summaries and whose contribution record, while short, is not necessarily unblemishedly helpful. So I definitely wanted to revert their addition of a redlink (Max Han) for obvious reasons, and while I was at it I thought that if they wanted it to be MIMA they could at least give us the courtesy of a note, otherwise it looks like random driveby fiddling rather than a reasoned argument. Now, actually, like you I'm really not convinced that we have to use the capitalization arrangements that people would like, though some do seem to be a stronger currency than others (iPod for example, loathsome though it is, is quite well-accepted.) So in fact once I'd rv'd that I spent a little bit of time looking for a guideline or essay called something like "why we don't have to follow people's bloody silly capitalization schemes, nor their favourite fonts nor their other cute tricksy tricks" and sadly I didn't find it. By then I was feeling disillusioned, bitter and knackered, as you so observantly noted, so I gave up. If you want to make out an argument for MIMA throughout, or even produce that elusive guideline, I'd suggest you go for it. If I see some discussion or a helpful edit summary or really any sign at all that it's not just driveby fiddling, which was what I felt with the other one, then I'm really amazingly unlikely to take up the cudgels! Having said that I do have a nagging feeling that this issue does come up often and that there is probably a body of useful discussion elsewhere, which it might behoove us (yes!) (erk, is that what I mean??) to take into account... if only I were not too dim, let alone DB&K, to find it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Club Bongo

Are these recent Club Bongo edits serious? Djdaedalus clearly thinks not and I reverted the next editor to add it mostly on that ground, but I don't really know and I see there is something there called that. Can someone clarify please? I don't want to risk leaving vandalism or to discourage legit editors so I'd be very grateful for more information. DBaK (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I didn't see why any text about Club Bongo had to be introduced by hijacking a paragraph about the Empire. If anything worthwhile can be said about Club Bongo it can be said in a separate section. I don't live in the Boro anymore and haven't since the 70's, so I can't say whether CB existed or who played there, if any. I never heard of any clubs "over the border", although "red-light district" could refer to Union Street or even Newport Road, where there were plenty of clubs (e.g. Sloopy's).Djdaedalus (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Boro Eye

I've snapped a few photos of the new "Boro Eye" attraction if someone wants to add one - and ideally some information - to the article. They were taken on an iPhone, so don't expect exceptional quality - more than good enough for a Wikipedia article, though. Recommended size is 320x480, so that or smaller as a thumbnail would be fine. Media:Boroeye_dusk.jpg | Media:Boroeye_dusk_close.jpg | Media:Boroeye_night1.jpg | Media:Boroeye_night2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsiburr (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Middlesbrough/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

#References need attention by switching to one of the {{Cite}} templates Additional inline references required Check for WP:UKCITIES layout compliance Copy-edit for WP:MOS Keith D 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Rob Smedley

Shouldn't Rob Smedley be in the notables list? Anyone with a Wikipedia entry would seem to be qualified. --Kcrossle (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But he comes from Normanby rather than the town which is the subject of this article.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the old argument about whether a separately listed suburb also counts as part of the town, or whether it need to always be traeted as a place apart. Yes, everyone knows that Normanby is in Redcar and Cleveland, but it is, de facto, a part of Middlesbrough. Perhaps Middlesbrough could be seen as including Nunthorpe and Eston, perhaps even Lazenby - after that there is a wilderness until you come to habitations that could be said to belong to Redcar.

Looking from the other direction - what about people who belong to Linthorpe? Are they from Middlesbrough? Is that a separate place? (I love it when Linthorpe people get onto the bus and say "The Village" and the Redcar driver says, "Which village?" ... sorry that's unrelated really). --Francis Hannaway Francis Hannaway 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Town East - Town where?

I have no knowledge of, nor can find any reference to, places in Middlesbrough called Town East or Town West. Town Farm - yes, I know that exists. But where are those other two? Francis Hannaway 14:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Hi. I made two changes to this article's infobox data and wanted to check that others thought them OK. Or, er, not. Firstly I reverted a change made very recently when an editor changed the town's name to all caps. The infobox documentation doesn't mention all caps but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#All_caps doesn't suggest this usage and general usage elsewhere would not seem to support this change. The other change I made was to remove the nickname "Ironopolis". The template documentation at Template:Infobox_settlement#Images, Nickname, Motto says "well-known nickname(s)" and I am not sure that this is the case. The ref given for this (and for the other claim regarding this in the article, which I'd better remove for consistency) sadly has lost its audio, and the text given does not support this usage. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong with a good ref but I don't currently believe that it matches the spec. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to find evidence that I'm wrong I haven't had much luck yet, but maybe you can do better. Apart from a billion clones of Wikipedia and articles about the former football team, there doesn't seem to be that much. This from the local paper mentions "The title refers to the town’s nickname throughout the world when it was at the height of its industrial power" which, sadly, is not now. Like I say, prove me wrong and I will be quite happy. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave references from 1870, the earliest I could, find, and the Journal of Social History 2004, which is a refereed journal. How many more do you want? The photo of the wall is also suggestive. An encyclopedia is not limited to current usage. Ironopolis is much better established than some of the Manchester Mafia's claims.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that, having lived in the Middlesbrough area from birth, the name Ironopolis doesn't ring any bells. I've heard of the Ironopolis Club - so it must be based on something - but it is never used now. "Boro" is frequently used, not just to refer to the football team associated with the town, but generally to refer to the town. Francis Hannaway 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Boro (current), Ironopolis (obselete) is a good call. Accurate and helpful. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you : Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Demography

Unfortunately I can't see any reference for the estimation of 2008. Should be added. --Dionysos1988 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing well sourced information

This edit, removed due to "political slant", is not acceptable. Perhaps the information could be placed elsewhere and integrated into the article more appropriately, but it is solid information about the subject. The economy section simply does not mention either the decline of industrial production (the article doesn't go into it in detail either but takes it as a given) nor does the fact that about 50% of the people in the town work for some government or government agency with layoffs in progress. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and work it in where you think fit. I removed it because, however well supported, it was clearly political commentary. Nobody will fault you for placing the information in context, without reference to party politics. Djdaedalus (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Tournament"

Is the Town's being the main setting for the film The Tournament big enough to gain mention in the Televisions and Filmography section? UFOash (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's already been mooted and booted once. And if you read the article on the film, the link is tenuous at best.Djdaedalus (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The first appearance was here. To be fair the article on the film has improved a lot since then. The Boro connection is clearer, but the notability of the film is in doubt.Djdaedalus (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

General discussion - Today's Middlesbrough.

Looking at the overall syle of this page - and the same is true of a great many Wiki pages - it seems to dwell on the past. Ee, it were grand in those days! Don't get me wrong, there should be a history section - but should every subject be weighed down by that, or should we be describing a the modern town of Middlesbrough. It tends to have factiods thrown in here and there. It rambles. It's quite long.

Take, for example, the paragraphs about transport. "... a turquoise-liveried fleet, a colour which was not universally popular."' Do we really need to know that people weren't sure about the colour of buses in 1970? What about just stating, as in the first paragraph, that Middlesbrough and the surrounding areas are served by a network of bus routes operated by Ariva and Stagecoach?

I think the page is full of such ramblings and would represent the town more if we cut a bit more back to the wood - especially when it's just people's unreferenced reminiscences of the good old days.

If it's compared with other pages - London, for example, - a good section on history is included ... but after that, only present day aspects are described.

Further to these points, I'ved noticed that three Middlesbroughs are being described:

• The original Middlesbrough near the Transporter Bridge
• The town of Middlesbrough
• Any good points in neighbouring towns in the area that become by default Middlesbrough when it suits people.

... please discuss :) Francis Hannaway 11:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On the last point about other settlements information you have to decide if the article is to cover just the town, the borough or both. May be you need to consider splitting off the borough into Middlesbrough (borough), which is now a redirect to Middlesbrough Borough Council, though that may lead to some duplication. Probably need to make this decision early on so that you can focus thing better. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Keith. I was thinking along those lines. It makes me think of French football supporters who called Zinedine Zidane French when he played well, and an Algerian when he didn't. Similarly, the Eston/Grangetown WWI hero and VC holder is suddenly from Middlesbrough, Ormesby Hall is suddenly in Middlesbrough (despite the actually technically disclaimer), but photos of Normanby, South Bank, Eston, etc. are not included as views of Middlesbrough. I wonder what other's thoughts are on the subject. Francis Hannaway 16:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Acklamite here!! Now I realise im late in this discussion which I can appreciate may be irrevelant seeing the article split is already in place, however there are a couple of points Id like to make. Firstly the biggy, what constitutes Middlesbrough. For me the Middlesbrough article should not focus solely on the area contained within the administrative boundaries of Middlesbrough Borough Council, nor should it focus on the central pre-1968 county borough boundary (town centre, Linthorpe, Acklam, N Ormesby etc) as a definition of Middlesbrough but include the urban area as a whole including Eston & Southbank, Nunthorpe, Marton, Coulby & Hemmo. Now I fully understand that Eston and Southbank are not and have never been within the Borough of Middlesbrough and are very much part of Redcar & Cleveland, im in no way claiming that, but this article is not about the administrative district of Middlesbrough nor that of Redcar & Cleveland but the urban area of Middlesbrough itself, the 'town'. I realise there are varying factors on what defines a town but for me this best describes the town/urban area of Middlesbrough. Anything to do solely within the Borough, as i see it, should indeed be seperate and included in the Middlesbrough Borough Council article which would exclude Eston & Southbank. This is just an idea but I would like to hear any comments on this, for and against. If this is not a possibilty then maybe the use of the official Office for National Statistics designated urban sub-area for Middlesbrough would be a suitable substitution. The ONS classes the Middlesbrough urban sub-area as the entirety of the Borough with the addition of Ormesby and an additional 8,000 residents. (however all previous references and links to this on Wiki strangely no longer exist and I cannot find any record on the ONS website anymore :S??) My other point was about the removal of Ormesby Hall from the article. Part of the Ormesby Hall Conservation area [7] is actually within the borough, albeit a tiny portion (maybe 2% if that) but because of this, Middlesbrough Council along with Redcar & Cleveland council, are jointly responsible for the area and must consult with each other on issues regarding the entirety of the Hall and grounds. I would very much welome any further discussion on either of these topics. Yours Acklamite 00:26, 3rd November 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Middlesbrough Borough Council

It's very clear that that the page Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough Borough Council are talking about the same subject. I'm surprised others have been so quiet about the issue. Both articles are talking about the Unitary Authority of Middlesbrough aka Middlesbrough Borough Council. At least the Middlesbrough Borough Council page doesn't try to claim places in neighbouring Redcar and Cleveland.

So - let's hear your thoughts on the subject. All opinions welcome. Francis Hannaway 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External link cleanup

I added the tag for ext link cleanup bc there seem to be far too many ext links and many are used in the main text of the article where it would be more appropriate to turn them into inline citations/references. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 07:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

World War II - new article

I'm sure that there is enough interest to move the section about the Second World War to a new article. Then it could be expanded upon. As it is, it takes up a lot of space in an already overly long article. Any thoughts? Francis Hannaway 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now reduced the section about WW2 and submitted a new article Middlesbrough during World War 2 (not live yet - it's being reviewed) which will take the content of the Middlesbrough page on the subject and, in time, be expanded in its new home. Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of history section from Mayor of Middlesbrough article

And dump here. NPOV and WP:FORK concern. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinning and twin towns

Why are "twinning" and "Twin towns" two separate sections? It's tempting to assume that it's a mistake and someone perhaps introduced one without seeing the other already there ... or ... ? DBaK (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Francis: it appears that this was you, here - was this intentional? Please advise. (I've TB'd Francis.) DBaK (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Well, my memory doesn't go back so readily to individual edits, but that looks about right. What I do know, however, is that Middlesboro (or, Middlesborough) in Kentucky, is not a current twin. There's no reference given for it ever having been a twin - but it was already in the article when I started editing. Perhaps it was in the 1800s. My apparent introduction of these "facts" could've been from last summer when I deleted almost half of the whole page by trimming a lot of drivel about bus shelters and public TV screens and weasely POV content. You may be looking at what I stuck back together. So, dated 5th August 2012, that seems about right. Incidentally, I tried to get a merger of Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough Borough Council. It really needs some one from outside the area to look at both articles. But ... going back to twinning - edit as you will. Best wishes! Francis Hannaway (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the merging of the two Middlesbrough articles is that it is actually the borough council that is twinned - not the town. Middlesbrough as a town doesn't have any elected bodies - it is the unitary authority of Middlesbrough Borough Council that has those. Therefore, we could argue that Middlesbrough is not twinned at all. Signs erected on entry roads clearly show that it is the whole of the unitary authority which is twinned. It's easier to see the logic of this by looking at neighbouring Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council with its main town of Redcar. Redcar and Cleveland is twinned - but Redcar ain't. Middlesbrough is both the name of the main town and the name of the unitary authority (and the unitary authority doesn't reach far beyond the town) so it's easy to confuse the two. Food for thought Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful replies and yes, that's food for thought indeed. It means that my initial concern over the duplicate sections is now part of something a bit broader ... although I suppose that deduplicating them here might be a good start anyway. Perhaps fortunately I'm out of time today so I can perform the Lazy Editor Manoeuvre of coming back in a day or more to see what (if anything) has happened! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that you are also right about Middlesboro, KY, by the way. I seem to recall that we discussed it here years ago, or I looked it up, or something ... I don't think that the evidence exists. If it does, I would be most interested to see it! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Twin towns sortout

I'm going to be bold and try to sort this out, but please chime in if you can help! The only good ref I can find so far is the Council's own page on the subject, which mentions only Oberhausen. Historyman53 (please see here) has very usefully pointed out that the ref I had for the Dunkirk thing is not reliable - it's a blog, and in fact I wrote to the journalist and he has no better ref beyond that, so I think that's it done as a WP:RS. But actually I think the council's own current page trumps all, so I am going to cut it back to Oberhausen, at least until someone shows up with an RS for anything else. I will de-duplicate the sections at the same time. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

PS I note that this doesn't address Francis's concern about what is actually twinned - the authority rather than the town ... sorry ... but I am not sure how to, and it's a start, anyway. DBaK (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A climate for Middlesbrough

Someone has helpfully written a paragraph about the climate in Middlesbrough.

"Middlesbrough has an oceanic climate typical for the United Kingdom. Being sheltered by both the Lake District and Pennines to the west, Middlesbrough is in one of the relatively drier parts of the country, receiving on average 25 inches (640 millimetres) of rain a year. It has more of a continental climate than other parts of the UK, with above average summer temperatures, and below average winter temperatures. Summer highs typically reach around 20 °C (68 °F), while winter lows can fall to several degrees below 0 °C (32 °F)"

I would say that, with it being unreferenced, that it is complete original research and not completely helpful. It states that Middlesbrough has an oceanic climate and then that it has a continental climate. I don't know what's wrong with a good old-fashioned temperate climate. My understanding, and experience, of a continental climate, in Europe, is one of much hotter weather in the summer, but with extremely cold temperatures (-10 C to -20 C) in the winter. Would anyone agree that the excellent temperature and rainfall grid on the page would suffice? ... and that we can delete the paragraph, which, if referenced, would be more at home on a page about a region rather than a town? Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like OR, support removal. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Similar sections are on most city/town articles e.g. Manchester or Northallerton, though would need referencing. Keith D (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Manchester is well referenced for rainfall and temperatures, but it mixes 'temperate' with 'maritime' and provides no indication as to how these descriptions were arrived at. The Northallerton page gives references for temperature and rainfall, but the only other reference is a dubious one, coming as it does from a tourist site for the Yorkshire Dales ... could be a bit biased. The rest of Northallerton's paragraph seems to be similarly written as OR by an amateur meteorologist. I think we need to be careful in providing information to the wider public which appears to have been written with authority, when it quite clearly has just been made up.Francis Hannaway (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

City status

This one's for the muppets who keep changing "town" to "city": http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9588713.Middlesbrough_misses_out_on_city_status/ Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ONS: Middlesbrough built-up area (formerly urban area)

The ONS has released new information regarding urban areas, or built-up areas as they are now known, within the UK. The figures refer to the populations of what the ONS have designated as urban areas, regardless of administrative boundaries. In the case of Teesside, the ONS had previously classed Middlesbrough and Eston & Southbank as two separate urban sub-areas. The population of the Middlesbrough urban sub-area of Teesside was 142,921 (which was the entire Borough of Middlesbrough plus the Ormesby ward of Redcar & Cleveland) and Eston & Southbank as 32,600 (the remaining 5 wards of Greater Eston). Now, however, the ONS have classed Middlesbrough and Eston & Southbank as a single urban subdivision of the Teesside built-up area, with a population of 174,700 [8]. Now as far as im concerned this should be the official definition of the town of Middlesbrough and I think it should be included within the article to show Middlesbrough's urban population as 174,900 not 138,400 which is the population of the local authority and doesn't reflect the full extent of the entire built-up area. As this article is about the urban area and not the adminstrative district it should reflect all aspects of the area. With this in mind the areas of Eston and Southbank should feature within the article as they are now officially classed as part of the Middlesbrough area. Hopefully this may give some closure to the argument of what actually is considered Middlesbrough and what isn't, at least in terms of an official government statistics point of view. Acklamite (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Eston and South Bank fall under Redcar & Cleveland Council, and I don't think a "data capture" area for the purpose of national statistics is considered an official area any less than the way they bound "North East" into totals, but I'm not having any luck finding the most recent ONS data to support your views. Maybe you could provide some links? The nomisweb link provided returns a "File does not exist" screen, I'm guessing it was a session based search result so no unique URL is generated. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct Marcus, Eston and Southbank do indeed fall within Redcar & Cleveland council, im not disputing that. I am refferring to how the ONS have re-classed the urban area and its population, not the authority/council area which divides up the conurbation. As before, the ONS classed the urban sub-area of Teesside, known as Middlesbrough, to include areas outside of its authority area. Previously this was only limited to the Ormesby area. However, the Nomis website, which is part of the office for national statistics, shows a change in the methodolgy on what constitutes an urban area and re-classed them as built-up areas. The built-up area of Middlesbrough, or to be more specific Middlesbrough BUASD (buit up area subdivision), according to Nomis and the ONS has a total urban population of 174,700. This does not represent either the populations of the Borough of Middlesbrough nor that of Redcar & Cleveland which are completely different entities to the urban area, but is a more accurate way of representing built up areas that may have a natural urban continuity to them. I must stress again the former urban sub-areas or new built up areas are used to determine the population of an urban area and not the population of the authority. As for the legitamcy of the new methodolgy, I do not think it is simply just a data capture of an area made up purely for statistical purposes, but a way the government can be more accurate in defining population centres regardless of boundaries, physical or otherwise. Here is a link to the report published by the ONS about the re-designation of urban areas in the UK; Characteristics of Built-up areas. Also you are correct about the link I included above, I should have known better not to use a generated search as a reference, however as I have not found any other file or document that I could create a link to I had no option. Even if you go to this page, 2011 census, Key Statistics for Built-up Areas in England & Wales, you are still given the same link to the same section on Nomis. I will have to use an indirect method;

• http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/ks101ew

This link will take you to the usual resident population key statistics page. To download select built-up areas including subdivisions from the drop down box that says 'choose area type'. Or to use the Wizard Query fucntion; first select All next to built-up up areas including subdivisions (you may have to click the link built-up areas..... to access the locale afterwards) / select North East from the drop down box /s croll down the list and tick box next to Teesside - Middlesbrough BUASD (you can click the little map icon next to it to see the coverage of the built up area if you desire) then click next back at the top of the screen / the next steps are to choose variables and how the table is displayed and so forth, simply make your way through these steps by pressing next once completing / once you come to the end step you have a choice of format then click finish for the result! My apologies for how long winded all this may seem but this seems to be the only way to access this information.

Lastly, I also think that as this has been conducted by the ONS, which is part of the government, that it should be deemed official as it is how the government has the defined the area. Acklamite (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered this document also Built-up areas Guidance & Methodolgy. Hopefully add some more incite to how the new urban areas are defined. Also i have managed to successfully copy the link to the results http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2htm.aspx & http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2xls.aspx?tableNum=0&sort=-1&sortasc=yes Acklamite (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the last two links are also returning "File does not exist" for the first and "404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable" for the second.

If ONS have designated "built-up areas" across the UK I think these need to be rolled-out across all of Wiki, that way you prevent any conflicts between articles of neighbouring areas which may happen if you leave old data in one area from, say, 2001 and add new data to another from 2011. If you just focus on Middlesbrough it may lead to confusion. I think a wider-discussion would be more appropriate, with regards to introducing the idea of referencing "built-up areas" over administrative boundaries before we go tinkering with demographic totals, as it may not be warmly greeted and I think it's best to avoid small or large scale disputes by first seeking consensus, seeing how editors feel about it. Clearly there's a lot of valuable fresh data available at ONS, which is usually welcome, but I don't think it's wise to only apply the data for one area to a new standard and ignore the rest of the UK.

I would suggest approaching a relevant WikiProject, such as WP:WikiProject UK geography and discuss your proposal and the implications of introducing this new ONS data, and if it is approved of you may find there are a number of editors prepared to help rollout the changes fast.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm those pesky links, I even checked them by logging out then back into wiki and they worked! Oh well nevermind. Thankyou for the suggestion I shall bring it to the attention of editors and it should indeed be a UK wide standard. I was curious to see if any other articles had already introduced this particular data and indeed I discovered both Leeds [9] and York [10] to have included the 2011 Built-up areas figures for the urban population, aswell as showing the figures for their respective districts. Acklamite (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of sites use session based search results, which basically means the result is stored as a "session" typically with a cookie or stored on their server, and those sessions tend to expire after so long, e.g. a PHP site's session lasts 24 mins, default, after that time your cookie expires and you'll need to perform a new search. It allows sites to dynamically create search results without having to create hard-coded web pages, just templates and the results of the search or a recalled session fills in the rest. Though very useful for web developers it does make it harder to link to such pages as they are not stored.

If a couple of other areas have started introducing these new ONS stats, then yes, definitely raise this with WikiProject UK Geography, as I think it should have been discussed and then done on a larger scale for the reasons I mentioned before to keep all related UK articles up-to-date and on the same wavelength. It's hard to follow related articles if they use different data sets for the same parameter. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have finally got round to bringing this up within the WikiProject UK geography portal and started a new topic for discussion with the main focus on getting all the current data for 2011 census updated. Currently BUASD's are not being used within any articles for towns and settlements nor are they within articles about conburbations, instead only BUA's are being used which of course refer to the entire conurbation or the population of the actual authority is used. Ive also mentioned that the article List of localities in England by population which uses the 2001 method of urban areas needs a new article created using the current 2011 data as this article is purely used for historical purposes now. "This article is provided for historical interest only, because this sense of 'locality' disappears in the 2011 census and the population data have been recalculated" I also noticed I have made a slight error when referring to the York area above. I said that the York article has already started using the population figure for its BUASD of 153,717. This is incorrect as this figure is for the entire Built up area or conurbation. The sub division of York which is part of the Built up area had a population of 152,841. This is because the York BUA is made up of not only York BUASD, the Earswick BUASD which has a seperate population of 876. I know it is only a small difference but still it was inaccurate. Acklamite (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Teesside Tintin

Is Teesside Tintin notable enough for this article? We now have "Comic writer Nick Donnelly creator, voiceover and editor of Teesside Tintin" in the notable people section. Edits by Edaward123456 today - I will drop them a talkback message. DBaK (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In short - No. Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Donnelly, he gone. DBaK (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Longlands

Is Longlands a real enough bit of Middlesbrough to be in the list? I RVd an IP as they'd also trashed the list format and didn't seem to get the alpha order, but I'm agnostic on whether it should actually be in the list or not, and don't want to appear bitey - anyone advise please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A list of suburbs is meaningless in an encyclopedic article. The reader could be in Japan, or Java. They are just words, and if they don't have a page to describe them, then they shouldn't be included. The Newcastle upon Tyne article gives a concise list of council wards in two columns - very neat and tidy; I suggest the Middlesbrough page do the same.Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion Longlands is kind of an area within an area if you will. I mean Its fairly substantial enough in size to be classed as a real bit of Boro but its more just a residential part of Town the same way Gresham is, its not a ward or anything. However I agree that its not really useful in an encyclopedic article as apart from a few local shops and the Baltimore Hotel its really just a normal run of the mill residential area which isnt a bad thing just not really noteworthy. Acklamite (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Irish population

I know it is not commonly known outside of Middlesbrough (perhaps not even within Teesside!), but the fact remains that Middlesbrough had/has the second highest proportion of Irish born inhabitants/lineage in England after Liverpool. Not only did it have a large Irish influence but there was also a significant Welsh population making up 3.9% of Middlesbrough's population during the 1871 census. I definitely think it is worth mentioning as it had a big impact on the area such as evident with the Middlesbrough accent. Acklamite (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Have added a Welsh section. As you've said, The Welsh had a similar impact as the Irish (being in situ for a generation or so before) but I'm afraid I didn't add anything about the accent.

Whilst it seems clear to my ears, I don't really know enough on the subject and have found nothing substantial to support it in the sources I have used. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable, or with time to do the reading, could add this as a subsection.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Richart Sowa

He is the architect/artist behind the creation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Island

His facebook says he is from middlesbrough https://www.facebook.com/richart.sowa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.128.19 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Middlesbrough - shows up in Scarborough

—83.170.111.148 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

83.170 is right, thanks, but it's the OS grid ref that's wrong, not the co-ord at the top. I'll have a go ... fixed DBaK (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Middlesbrough (/ˈmɪdəlzbrə/ (About this soundlisten) MID-əlz-brə) is a large post-industrial town[1][2] founded in 1830 and situated on the south bank of the River Tees in the Tees Valley region of North East England.[3] The local council, a unitary authority, is Middlesbrough Borough Council. The 2011 Census recorded the borough's total resident population as 138,400 and the wider urban settlement with a population of 174,700.[4] Middlesbrough is part of the larger built-up area of Teesside which had an overall population of 376,333 at the 2011 Census.[5]

Middlesbrough became a county borough within the North Riding of Yorkshire in 1889. In 1968, the borough was merged with a number of others to form the County Borough of Teesside, which was absorbed in 1974 by the county of Cleveland. In 1996, Cleveland was abolished, and Middlesbrough Borough Council became a unitary authority within the Tees Valley. RGs Erimus ("We shall be" in Latin) was chosen as Middlesbrough's motto in 1830. It recalls Fuimus ("We have been") the motto of the Norman/Scottish Bruce family, who were lords of Cleveland in the Middle Ages. The town's coat of arms is an azure lion, from the arms of the Bruce family, a star, from the arms of Captain James Cook, and two ships, representing shipbuilding and maritime trade.[6] TeesInfo (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This should be the ceremonial county as is our usual practice so should be North Yorkshire not Tees Valley. Keith D (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Original Research

I've removed a paragraph about the local accent, which is unsourced and appears to be made up original research. I've pasted the text below in case any editor wants to find some reliable sources and reinstate it.

Another feature of the Middlesbrough accent is the presence of a harsh "CK" sound. This indicates a possible influence from the many Welsh speakers that inhabited Middlesbrough at the same time as the Irish. Words such as black, track and crack often have an emphasis on the ck which give it a sound of clearing the throat. Not only is this feature prominent in Welsh speakers but it is also present in speakers from Liverpool. This further suggests the similarities between speakers from Middlesbrough and the Liverpool area.

~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely concur that this is original research, and it's arguably trivial without any contextual details regarding the accent's idiosyncrasies. It does make sense though, doesn't it? I'm sure some academic or well researched article could be sourced, but I haven't come across any so far.

Currently, this isn't encyclopaedic and it's best placed here for futhur discussion.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic writing is different to writing a travel guide

Please note - when adding your Boro-Love anecdotes about how great and beautiful Middlesbrough is, that Wikipedia is not TripAdvisor. Writing should be concise and informative, with statistics and not hearsay. Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Notable people

This section was very messy, after tidying it up, it appears to be too long + very cumbersome. This section needs to be moved entirely to List of people from Middlesbrough to tidy up. Devokewater (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree – if there is a separate article for it then it does not need to be here too – the guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS has that normally there should be link to the list and a prose summary – however I often find the summary problematic as some of it duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the sport section where several names are already covered) and it leads to debate over which and how many names should be mentioned. EdwardUK (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that - I tidied up the page List of people from Middlesbrough and threw out a few examples such as Ray Mallon (from Thornaby) as those who were not from Middlesbrough. The list of notable people here far exceeds that on the separate article, something which should be reversed. I am perhaps being too pernickety, but I don't think James Cook belongs here either, as Middlesbrough was a tiny settlement smaller than Marton when he was born. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move when I have a spare moment. The joy of all things do you still want it kept alphabetically? Devokewater (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Devokewater Alphabetically? It was like that when I started, just without citations. However, the other Yorkshire lists (List of people from Bradford, List of people from Leeds, List of people from Kirklees, List of people from Barnsley, List of people from Doncaster, and List of people from Wakefield all are alphabetical. Only List of people from Kingston upon Hull and List of people from York are separated by occupation. As long as it's cited and the Middlesbrough article looks better....meh! Good luck and regards. Ooh; if you are struggling with citations, I can help out with some referencing via ODNB, as I did at Richmond, North Yorkshire#Notable people. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, moved as discussed Devokewater (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Middlehaven

Should Middlehaven get its own section in the article:

• Old centre of town(history tick)
• notably has college, football ground, rail station and bridge (present sections)
• a lot of developments are currently planned for it (future section)

They is probably a set boundary but A66 is pretty much to the south and Tees to the north. Where did the name come from, probably simply Middle+haven and when did it come to been named as such. Chocolateediter (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Prima Facie, yes, if you have sources. Devokewater 17:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I need to know when the name came into use since it has exist atleast since 2007 but I cannot back date it any further.

Iron and steel works in what is now Middlehaven is a good section to build up. (Surely some wiki-articles exist to get overviews and references to these, I have a map reference to form a list to look up)

The stadium and transporter bridge (even Newport bridge making the whole bridges section go to Middlehaven) can all move over.

Development sources are easy enough to find. I’ll start making it tomorrow if I feel like it, at most, the whole Middlehaven section will definitely be done in a week.

For starters I’ll put summit on the lines of: “Middlehaven is waterfront of Middlesbrough. It hosts the old town centre and most of the settlement’s industry.” Chocolateediter (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds very interesting. Devokewater 21:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Done Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow blimey! Well done. The weird thing is I had no idea of this usage or even of that bit of the geography ... I was little and our visits into Middlesbrough were not really tourism and heritage absorption! :) Good job and thanks. DBaK (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be some problem with heading levels here as all sections towards end appear to be part of this new section. Also you end up with multiple sections named the same e.g. History. The whole section probably should be part of the main History section rather than a separate section. Keith D (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Large" town

There is a discussion at talk:Milton Keynes#"Large" town that may be of interest to editors of this article (since it also uses the phrase "large town"). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We should change from "large town" to just "town" Devokewater 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Middlesbrough is a large town. Larger than any town in Teesside but they maintain large in their leads. RailwayJG (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Population

There are four different population figures, the correct figures need to be agreed. Devokewater 08:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The correct one is the figure for the Middesbrough district which is what this article is about. But Middlesbrough is also one of the main parts of the Teesside Urban Area which is one of Britain's largest urban areas, so the population figure for that may be worth a mention in the article too. I found an "up to date" (2019) source for the population here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland I will update the article with it. Eopsid (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've updated it now, someone has even made a nice easy to use template to add citations for english district populations, {\{United Kingdom district population citation|England}} Eopsid (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats better, previously the main article + the infobox had different figures Devokewater 11:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Eopsid, if the article is about the district of Middlesbrough, why is there a seperate Middlesbrough Borough Council article? Surely this one can reflect the larger BUASD as a recognised subdivision of a Teesside?

Have tweaked the wording slightly + removed unsourced reference to Teeside. Devokewater 23:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have again removed reference to the urban subdivision of Middlesbrough as per this discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_localities_in_England_by_population they aren't settlements. Anyway Middlesbrough is part of the urban area known as Teesside so we should be using the figure for that when discussing Middlesbrough's wider urban area population even if some of it isnt in the same district. Eopsid (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Eopsid (talk) it looks fine now. Devokewater 17:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We are now back to four different population figures again. Devokewater 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Devokewater: Sorry I added the BUA population (the infobox is for the 2011 census BUA) without realizing that there was a discussion here, please revert if needed though I'd say the BUA is the best population data especially if the borough has a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You aren't using the BUA (built-up area) you are using the BUASD (Built-up area subdivision) which is a very different thing. I don't think the BUASD is a very good measure for anything. I'm of the opinion that we should be using the Borough population (I dont approve of the recent split). But if we have to split it then I guess we should be using the unparished area. Eopsid (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I meant BUASD. BUASDs seem even more useful than BUAs since they are generally for a particular settlement rather than several that are joined. On page 9 NOMIS says "users wanting a population figure for the town itself, rather than the wider area, should look at the tables in built-up areas including sub-divisions area type" so I think this is more useful to the general reader than the district or unparished area though I'd also be fine with the unparished area (assuming the borough stays split). The unparished area is 132,303 in 2011, the smallest number of the 3 (or 4). The BUASD, unparished area and district (and possibly Teesside BUA) should probably be mentioned in the article and the best one used in the infobox. As noted if we do merge the district then we will use the standard infobox for the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of the sub-divisions and dont think they should be used for anything. They are arbitrarily defined but have no offical basis, i.e. they arent used for local government or anything. So they have all the problems of City limits definitions but without any of the upsides. I was thinking of starting a discussion on the main uk geography page to try and completely forego their use. Eopsid (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The BUASDs aren't arbitrarily defined. The Teesside urban area is subdivided based on their urban extent, a bricks and mortar approach. Look at a map of the Teesside area, the boundaries of the subdivisions are literally based on the physical extent of those areas. Middlesbrough/Eston form a single built up unit when viewed from above, which form a clearly defined area seperate from neighbouring settlements such as Redcar or Thornaby. Another point is when you look at the other Teesside articles, Stockton-on-Tees, Thornaby, Redcar, Billingham and Ingleby Barwick all use the population figure for their the BUASD as their "Town" population. Middlesbrough is the only Teesside town not to use this definition and base it on council area alone.

If you look at any BUA other than Teesside they are subdivided both on urban extent and arbitrarily. Tyneside is a good example. South Bank and Eston was a seperate subdivision in the old 2001 census data. Regarding other Teesside articles, Thornaby, Billingham and Ingleby Barwick are all seperate parishes and we should be using those figures. Eopsid (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that their are four different population figures, again:

- Main article says: In 2019, the population of the town itself was estimated to be 177,354

- Whilist the infobox: 174,700 (2011 Census)

Regards Devokewater 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Population figures, yet again

Can we have some agreement on what to include. Some editors want to quote 140k, others 170k + others want to include the entire Teeside population. The sources also vary with some quoting the 2011 census + others quoting 2019 estimates for the same figures! Regards Devokewater 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• 2019 estimate for the BUASD, Teeside is a larger area with a different name and the borough has a separate article though all (including the unparished area) should probably be mentioned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should just use the Borough population, the BUASD doesnt really mean anything and honestly neither does the unparished area. I would like something to indicate how Middlesbrough is at the centre of one of the country's largest urban or metropolitan areas (top 20) but it doesnt look like there is consensus for this. Eopsid (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be the 140k as the basic definition of "Middlesbrough". As much as we try and seperating out the borough / council article pretty much the entireity of this article is about the Borough in any case as until 2011 this was also the definition of the BUASD (which was convenient).

From 2011 the BUASD added two additional settlements to the east in the adjacent Borough. The support for these to be considered "Middlesbrough" as a single settlement entity seems very much to require the acceptance that the BUASD defines a single town, and that the single town takes the name of whatever the ONS calls it, and all sub-articles should be amended to be described as parts of Middlesbrough.

That, I don't think, is supported by either the history of each town or village being distinct, historic borders, public perception, weight of resources, nor the BUASD's structure (which ends up excluding population centres based on greenspace that have traditionally been part of towns that don't always conform to dense urban populaces) and leads to issues of population count conflict with different articles both claiming the same subsets of population depending on what arbitrary study is being used to draw them up.

However, at the same time I have no issue with us mentioning the 170k population figure so long as it is done with due weight and accuracy - how that language is constructed I am happy to see suggestions (although it does seem to suggest a certain degree of a transfer of ownership of those settlements which are both in a different Borough currently, it does seem to raise the question of what happens when there is a Boundary Commission in the future, but that seems like CRYSTALBALL via the proxy of the BUA).

Teeside population has no real place in the lede. It isn't to do with the town at all, and pretty much everything in the lede should explicitly be about the town where possible. It should be in a subsection on geography or similar. Koncorde (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Teesside is to do with the town. A lot of articles have the towns urban area or built-up area population in the lede. The only difference with Middlesbrough is that its just one of the few that isnt named after its largest part, but is instead named Teesside. Eopsid (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Stuff that I am also not defending when it occurs. I find it is inherently misleading to suggest that Liverpool had an urban area of 864,000 the same way that I would argue the BUA for Teeside isn't Middlesbrough (and Leeds was a hot mess last time I looked of about 9 different population figures, though it seems someone has taken an axe to the entire lede at the moment). Things being named for "biggest" constituent parts (especially when Stockton-on-Tees "Borough" is bigger than Middlesbroughs "BUASD" is particularly problematic) and glosses over historic sentiment. Again, the Liverpool BUASD arbitrarily stopping at Bootle, Crosby and Litherland - but not Huyton is very problematic for local historical identity, and suggests a willingness by the ONS to treat some regions differently with their underlying algorithm. Their Ordnance Survey maps for the Tees region is, unsurprisingly, called "Teesside" which is why it got that name as the BUA. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats why I dont like the BUASDs they can often be very arbitrary. What population figures do you think we should have in a lede though? I think it makes sense to show a town is the centre of a larger metropolitan/urban area and have the population for that. That way the reader can get a rough idea of a town's relative importance. Eopsid (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the use of the 140k, and BUASD so long as we are not saying "Middlesbrough has 174,000 people" because that way leads to madness of multi-authority entities. It is of more immediate relevance than the BUA and it at least shows contiguous population in some form of a "town" or urban sprawl, plus it is commonly available and easy to cite and reference. Under geography section there should be a clean reference then to the change of the BUASD at last evaluation. I'm open as to what the correct wording is. My original plan was to add a second paragraph covering modern developments / industry which would cover the expansion of its "urban area" I had not got round to it yet. Koncorde (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

But the BUASD isnt the urban sprawl. The BUA is. Eopsid (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The settlement / localities whatever you want to use, I am open to suggestion, but they are clearly a thing and have been raised her numerous times and has prompted prolonged discussion and we should therefore work to find some wording that is agreeable and accurate. The built-up area represents the wider area around a place, for example a city and any linked towns and villages. Sub-divisions provide greater detail in the data, by identifying the neighbouring settlements and localities within the larger conurbations. Koncorde (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The BUASD isnt the settlement/locality either. Its just a way to subdivide the Built-up areas. And as you showed before in the Liverpool case the way they are subdivided is pretty arbitrary. The only really accurate wording is something along the lines of the Middlesbrough subdivision of the Teesside built-up area. Which is excessive. If we want a "Greater Middlesbrough" mention in the opening section of the article, we should be doing the whole of it, not just a subdivision. Eopsid (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How about instead of using things like "town" or "Middlesbrough its self" etc we use something more like "ONS built up area subdivision" that would help to avoid us making any claims about the BUASD=town? I'd note that the borough is well the borough not the town and the unparished area is the unparished area so nether of those can be used to define the town even though the latter is more likely to correspond to a town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Middlesbrough, as a BUASD, does form a single physical unit/area, especially when viewed in terms of bricks and mortar. When you view it from a map or satellite image, it does appear as a distinct, clearly defined area to the rest of the Teesside BUA. There is a definite measurable urban area in regards to the BUASD, not just as an arbitrary subdivision of the Teesside BUA but as a single built up unit in itself. All of the BUASD also comes under a MIDDLESBROUGH postcode (TS1-TS8) and when travelling within the BUASD between the 2 councils in areas such as Ormesby, Nunthorpe and Southbank, there is no distinction between one area or another due to urban sprawl.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.45.90 (talk) 20:30 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Its not an urban area, just part of one. Thats why its a built-up area subdivision (BUASD) not a built-up area (BUA). Eopsid (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, it may not be designated an urban area in the statiscal sense by ONS. It is, however, an urban area in the fact it is a physical, contiguous built up area of bricks and mortar consisting of houses, shops, offices and factories that forms a single, measurable urbanised unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.45.90 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an OR interpretation of a BUASD Eopsid. The BUASD are described as The built-up area represents the wider area around a place, for example a city and any linked towns and villages. Sub-divisions provide greater detail in the data, by identifying the neighbouring settlements and localities within the larger conurbations. There is nothing about that second sentence that precludes a BUASD being a town or series of settlements as being their own thing within the "larger conurbation" - however the interpretation is that in some cases the BUASD and those sub-data areas do reflect an "Urban Area" (because they conform to historic definition & boundaries) and in other cases do not (because they don't conform to the historic definition & boundaries). Middlesbrough falls into the second camp. Koncorde (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde Are you saying my interpretation was OR or that IP address's interpretation was? I'm confused. 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, meant the IP's interpretation. Koncorde (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the population figure yet again. The population in the infobox should be the smallest one for Middlesbrough. There are other tags in those infoboxes for urban population and stuff like that. Eopsid (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Probably have to change the whole info box to a settlement one rather than UK place. Might do tomorrow. Eopsid (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Borough split

Why, has the article been split into two, one for the Borough of Middlesbrough and this one Middlesbrough? I dont think it warrants two articles. All the information in the new article is covered by this one and Middlesbrough Council Eopsid (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I suggest they be merged together again. Eopsid (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You could argue that with Darlington. Why does a borough article exist and why does a town article exist. Darlington has a borough council. Middlesbrough has a borough council. The borough article covers the wards and government side. Like Darlington. Whereas the main article is about the history of the town and not the borough. There is a slight difference. So If Tamworth for example and Darlington can boast a district and borough article. Why not Middlesbrough? If is pointless to merge them as one could make that argument for the two mentioned. RailwayJG (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The boundaries of Middlesbrough district appear to be smaller than the town so aren't comparable to Darlington which covers all of the town and several other villages and Tamworth, Staffordshire is now 1 article. There is older discussion at Talk:Middlesbrough Council. Perhaps the council article should be merged into the borough article instead? Middlesbrough does satisfy 2 of the criteria at WP:UKDISTRICTS for having a separate article, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others. @RailwayJG: perhaps you would be better working on splitting York/City of York instead which does meet most criteria to be split, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Partly parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Crouch, Swale thank you for your input. If your satisfied with the two being able to be seperate and kept as are. I had no problem with Darlington and Stockton now. But what of Hartlepool? Is that worthy of a borough page like Middlesbrough? But at least we can keep the article for middlesbrough and the borough of middlesbrough as it does exist as you stated. Looks like York has already been merged into one. RailwayJG (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Borough of Middlesbrough is the area covered by the Council, Middlesbrough is the town itself, this is similar to Carlslie, although a city it's much smaller then Middlesbrough, see Carlisle + City of Carlisle, the later includes other surrounding towns + villages in addtion to Carlisle itself. Devokewater 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Yes Hartlepool should remain separate since it includes the town its self plus several distinct settlements such as Elwick and Dalton Piercy, see this map of the district and this map of the town. With Middlesbrough the district seems to be smaller than the town and doesn't include any distinct settlements, see town v district. Likewise York (and Carlisle) include separate areas in addition to recent boundaries and parishes so could be split again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont see why you keep referring to the "town" of Middlesbrough, Built-up area sub divisions aren't towns Eopsid (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They are probably the best way of defining a town (or other settlement) unless you have a better one. My point was showing that Hartlepool district clearly includes distinct settlements while Middlesbrough doesn't clearly which can be seen even without knowing the BUA boundaries Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We should be using parishes to define towns and if one doesn't exist then the district, urban area or unparished area. But I think we need to reach a consensus on what we should use. There isnt a neat and tidy definition of towns in the UK not like other countries. Eopsid (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we can keep them separate as no point getting rid of the borough page when it actually exists. And covers some areas as mentioned. I'm happy to see it can be kept so thanks anyway for your input. RailwayJG (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale should we call an agreement to this debate of it being able to be kept? RailwayJG (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've created this discussion on the main uk geography page to see if we can reach a consensus on when we should have seperate articles for districts and towns Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Article_for_both_Borough_and_town? Eopsid (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact is a borough exists I'm Middlesbrough. It is worth having a separate page as it will give the borough more exposure then a simple section on the town article. And wards and political makeup are then the focus of the page then the town one. Makes it easier and if Crouch is happy they can be separate then let's all agree and put this to bed. Borough is of you check out the page and references mentioned on BBC news and Teesidelive RailwayJG (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems pointless when you've already had two other people input on it. But fine. It's just not gonna change the fact the borough exists whether we want to pretend it does or not. RailwayJG (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts has 6 criteria to decide whether we should have multiple articles for borough and town. The borough doesn't satisfy any of the criteria except 4 although thats because middlesbrough has a weird local government history with it being part of the last new county borough, County Borough of Teesside. Eopsid (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Tees area has definitely been somewhat of a test area for government. Teesside being the first river+side county in any sense then abolished just as the others came along and has the first “metro mayor” as Tees Valley. Wish south Tees went back to Yorkshire fully politically and statistically hopefully now those regions are fading. Chocolateediter (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Its a mid-size conurbation that crosses county boundaries. So seperating South Tees back to Yorkshire politically would be stupidly inefficient. And anyway looks like the whole of North Yorkshire is going to be turned into some combination of unitary authorities soon, so its all gonna change. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing though. Eopsid (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I dont agree there doesnt seem to be any consensus to merge so I'm going to remove the merge notice. Eopsid (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eopsid: Maybe a lack of consensus means we should merge back though in this case although the arguments against merging were weak since they seem to be based on false equivalences there does seem to be some merit in the arguments. However I'd consider merging Middlesbrough Council to the borough article instead since that is effectively a content fork per WP:UKDISTRICTS and I'd merge others like Darlington Borough Council into Borough of Darlington since most of the information will apply to both entities and districts aren't well known enough to have the distinction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you completely actually. I will merge into it into the Borough Council article unless anyone opposes? I would support merging of the Hartlepool and Darlington borough articles too. I will add merger proposals to those pages. Eopsid (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want I could produce a list of districts that have a separate article for their council (though they are already in Category:District councils of the United Kingdom) since I suspect many won't need separate articles unless like Plymouth there isn't a separate article for the district. I'd also note as well as content being forked frequently wikilinks are made to the council article where the district is likely more appropriate, say "Middlesbrough Council is in tier 4" this is more relevant to the entire district rather than the council however in cases like Plymouth this is more or less OK since the article is more focused on the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree to merging the council page into the borough page as it would both give the borough article more context and some borough articles do contain the council and polticial makeup. So if we agree to maintain the borough article and merge the council into it as Crouch, Swale proposes. Let us do it. RailwayJG (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That is how we handle the St Helens, Merseyside vs Metropolitan Borough of St Helens and it works well for that case where the Borough covers areas that have historically fell under other parishes, urban or rural districts and so are commonly held as distinct by historic reliable sources, and only referred to collectively within context of the Borough. Koncorde (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Middlesbrough case is different because nothing else in the borough is really distinct from the town Eopsid (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Are villages like Linthorpe not distinct? I can't quite follow the above sections actual arguments because nobody seems to have actually expressed what the particular difference is (or why they aren't different by your metrics). Koncorde (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There are no villages which aren't physically seperate from Middlesbrough in the borough. There is only one built-up area in the borough. Eopsid (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And now the article is about a weird defintion of Middlesbrough thats larger than the borough, hence the 3 unitary authorities that you mentioned below. Eopsid (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Then this whole section of discussion seems WP:OTHERSTUFF discussions of Hartlepool and other areas, and from what I can see nobody has actually defined this Middlesboroughs differences to the Borough, or why it has 3 UA's. I assumed this was a historic settlement (or pre-74 olde boroughe) within a borough concept which we have multiple precedent articles for.

If I cannot work out what this town is, I have no idea how the casual reader would. Koncorde (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot of false equivalences, most of those presented pass every test at WP:UKDISTRICTS other than maybe 1 but Middlesbrough passes quite a few of them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The below is from WP:UKDISTRICTS, Middlesbrough passes every one of these except how old the boundaries are. Which is a weird quirk because middlesbrough's current boundaries are smaller than the district it was in 1974.

   Single articles are generally created where the settlement/district matches most of the following criteria:
   1. The built-up area closely matches the boundaries of the district with no rural hinterland
   2. There is a lack of other distinct settlements in the district
   3. The ONS population for the settlement is roughly the same, or larger than the district
   4. The current boundaries of the district are long-established and predate reforms in 1974
   5. There are very few or preferably no civil parishes in the district
   6. The district does not cover a geographically large area 

Eopsid (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So, for absolute clarity, what is it that we are differentiating on because this discussion is super unclear, and not got any clearer?

Our intro suggests a "town" of 177k[11] and a Borough of 140k[12], but our Governance section excludes the former: In 1968 Middlesbrough became part of the County Borough of Teesside, and in 1974 it became part of the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland until the county's abolition in 1996, when Middlesbrough became a unitary authority of North Yorkshire. while the BUA map is unclear if this is the "town" or not but given that the BUA includes distinct historic "settlements"[13] like Eston that fall under other districts (presumably our Redcar and Cleveland article is also counting Eston and others in its figures based on this logic)?

If Eston is included in the "Town" then this article definition is trying to dance on a pinhead. Koncorde (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are differentiating on. I don't agree with the split. We should be using the borough definition of Middlesbrough. Eopsid (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the 1st one its borderline since there is a small amount of rural land in the south east and south west. Regarding the 4th, at User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others I've used the post 1968 CB to assess that since its an unusual case in that many districts were merged in 1974 while this one was split however its it did take Nunthorpe from Stokesley Rural District (that weren't part of the County Borough of Teesside either) so I'd say 4 isn't satisfied but the rest are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

...Okay. Eopsid aside, can anyone else answer what reliably sourced definition is being used as the basis for the "Town" of Middlesbrough? Are you saying Eston (and others) is Middlesbrough? Koncorde (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The ONS BUASD which as noted is larger than the borough however Eopsid doesn't appear happy with using BUA/BUASDs to define towns (and instead seems to prefer unparished areas which is the district minus Stainton and Thornton and Nunthorpe) but they are probably the best definition we have. The BUASD does indeed include Eston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont like the unparished area either, I think we should be using Parishes and districts to define towns and only use unparished areas in the rare cases where no other definition is available. BUASDs aren't mentioned in many sources. Eopsid (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Eopsid. I think "best definition" is very debateable and this is getting very slippery slope. The use of BUASD in this way when the change to include "Eston" was only made so recently to unilaterally declare it Middlesbrough proper paves the way to a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF type arguments for locales such as Liverpool and Huyton because it too in 2011 became part of the Liverpool Urban Area. We're getting into serious conflation territory for an awful lot of cities, towns, villages etc that do not reflect historic reliable sources, nor are referenced by modern reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The BUASDs as stats for towns are mentioned by the ONS where on page 9 it says "users wanting a population figure for the town itself, rather than the wider area, should look at the tables in built-up areas including sub-divisions area type". To my awareness this is because some larger settlements are considered distinct enough to provide data on but often these are somewhat based on the post 1974 boundaries. Consider for example Topsham that is apparently a town and although it's part of the BUA of Exeter its a separate BUASD and it seems that although its within the 200 metre rule that its not actually touching Exeter, Topsham lost its separate borough in 1966. There is also Fulwood that is clearly part of Preston in that its touching but that's a separate BUASD and until 1974 was a separate district. As can be seen from West Yorkshire Built-up Area Stanley was merged into Wakefield in between 2001 and 2011 and Tamerton Foliot isn't a separate BUASD despite being large and somewhat independent. Presumably the ONS assesses how independent a place is considered today in if it should be a separate BUASD today which might well be the case with Eston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

But isn't Middlesbrough the opposite because the BUASD is larger than the borough? The main reason I don't like the BUASDs is because they aren't really used anywhere outside that primary ONS source. And as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources [...] Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. And this use of the BUASD to define Middlesbrough as seperate from the smaller borough is very much a novel interpretation... Eopsid (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well Middlesbrough is a subdivision of Teesside rather than being the name of a BUA but yes it is still larger than its borough (which points to a merge). The ONS is kind of a primary source for its defined BUASDs though it is using secondary sources to build them but unlike someone working for the council it is an independent source otherwise and using this for a statement about the population seems within PRIMARY though I'd consider changing "town" to "built-up area sub-division" if needed. A definition that is a designated new town, see for example regarding Stevenage (2) the reference to area in the designated new town being moved[14] but that definition would only apply to a few since most towns don't have that definition while the BUA/BUASDs are used in the whole of England and Wales. One thing that I would be careful of (though you might be able to us it to get a rough idea) is text from things like businesses and reviews etc since if you have a business in Thornton you would probably say you are in Middlesbrough so that people know where you are/can easily get to you but if you were a hotel in Thornton you would probably say "near Middlesbrough" so that although people can get there easily it would be outside the town its self. Older people and people who have lived in an area for a long time are more likely to think of places as being separate since they are more likely to remember places being more separate and will probably see more "natural" boundaries that someone unfamiliar with the area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with the Borough being held as a distinct legal entity, and so have its own article, I do have an issue trying to use a BUASD as the definition of a town in order to say "Middlesbrough" has 170,000 residents, has 3 unitary authorities etc and then still have 90% of the article talking about the prior depiction of Middlesbrough as only the borough with each infobox, historical text, reliable source etc still talking about it in the sense of ONLY being the Borough. We're caught in the situation, by having a split off article about the Borough, of effectively saying that this article is now about the BUASD which doesn't cover all the Borough. This article needs to be about Middlesbro the town and unitary authority and historic entity, and then if we want to say that it has a BUASD which stretches into other UA's etc we can do but otherwise we are getting into real OR / SYNTH situations where wikipedia will be creating our own novel interpretation of stuff. Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The borough exists where editors agree or disagree. There are no notable settlements in Hartlepool Stockton or Darlington but they have borough pages. There was already debates and it was agreed to be kept. Reopening an old debate already agreed on is pointless. It passes wiki standards and is reliable. Those against it think Middlesbrough is only a town with a borough. Yet another town is Slough but it has a borough page RailwayJG (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As already noted Hartlepool Stockton and Darlington do contain distinct notable settlements and Slough's borough doesn't have a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is disputing the borough exists, we are disputing whether the town and borough are different enough to warrant seperate articles Eopsid (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was already disputed as you know Eopsid and you asked on nearly two different pages for census and they agreed to keep the borough. You suggested merging and it was decided to be kept. RailwayJG (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And what distinct settlements does Hartlepool contain other than possibly Seaton Carew? RailwayJG (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see on maps Hartlepool is the same as Middlesbrough. Stuck with one small village and two suburbs. Other settlements are either in county Durham itself outside the so called borough or in Stockton Borough. So I heavily disagree with notable settlements for Hartlepool. RailwayJG (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd merge Hartlepool and it's borough as it's smaller then Middlesbrough and has no distinct settlements. Find me a reliable source to clarify distinct settlements for the others which apparently Middlesbrough lacks. RailwayJG (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that discussion goes over to Hartlepools talk page, but the presence of distinct Civil Parishes (Brierton, Dalton Piercy, Elwick among others) is what are generally recognised as "distinct settlements". The issue appears to again be Hartlepools main article is conflating the town with the borough/UA and runs into the issue of the BUASD being an entirely different functional entity.[15], Seaton-Carew meanwhile is a historically distinct settlement within its own township, village has been moved between various RD / EP's.[16] Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you've got your numbers confused Railway JG, Hartlepool's borough is larger in area than Middlesbrough. I've also just checked the Borough of Middlesbrough article and the population and area figures in there are just wrong. There is also already a merge proposal on the Hartlepool borough page. And I don't know what maps you are looking at but the Hartlepool and Middlesborough boroughs are very different. Middlesbrough is in the middle of an urban area whilst Hartlepool's contains an entire one plus a small rural area. Eopsid (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like all the numbers in the Middlesbrough one are wrong because the info box is just a copy paste of Darlington's... Eopsid (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the GSS code so everything should be OK now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Again the debate was had and the census was to keep the borough page so reopening the debate to merge it is pointless. I've tried changing the population but the it won't let me on a pc or mobile RailwayJG (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

JG, nobody has said anything about merging the Middlesbrough Borough page, but even if that was the case consensus can change - particularly if it leaves this article in limbo as neither fish nor flesh because after whatever split was agreed it seems nobody was then committed to fixing them both. Koncorde (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)