Talk:Yorkshire

Lead reword

I've just reworded the Sussex article intro, inspired by the Scottish Highlands and Lowlands articles. I am asking if I can do something similar to this one, since the hidden note says to ask if you want to do so. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There has just been quite a lot of rewriting to the Yorkshire lead section (see further up on this talk page and article history), which has just settled, and that hidden note is quite old. What exactly would you propose changing? Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 20:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Highlands are more akin to Northern England than Yorkshire, so not sure of that comparison. I am fine with the current lead here, pending whether the past tense issue would rise again. Although I do see "region" used to describe Yorkshire (excluding the Humber). DankJae 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Northern England has 3x population of Scotland so it is expected to have its own subdivisions, 3x as much. Chocolateediter (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123:, 1. moving the term historic county to a new history paragraph • 2. Focus on nature in the first paragraph rather than a sentences on bordering counties which is repeated into the second paragraph • 3. History paragraph created • 4. Keep paragraph starting with Yorkshire Day pretty much the same, maybe re-order those sentences • 5. Remove population and area since it is old very old data that is more commonly found in demography. Chocolateediter (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood a couple of things:

• The current wording of the lead sentence is the result of the discussion above, so it currently has consensus and shouldn't be significantly changed.
• The counties in the lead paragraph are the counties which currently cover the historic area of Yorkshire. The counties in the second paragraph are the counties which bordered the historic county.

The current lead is something of a blend between an historic county article and a region article, and shifting it more toward one or the other causes issues. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

8 mentions of -shire; Lancashire, as well as 5 mentions of Yorkshire in the second sentence + the 1st word and the 1 in the last sentence. The second paragraph is just as bad with county and shire. It is really pushing the words county and shire down your throat over region so balance is not your best argument.

Old data on the infobox is making it unnecessarily long, Yorkshireman and Yorkshirewoman don't seem to be the best demonyms, pretty sure Yorkshire lad and lass and Tyke are more common.

I know if we as editors work on a lead that we get attached to it. We're not on a ceremonial county article here so the template and guidelines of those don't need to be followed and Yorkshire should be more like an between of the Scottish Lowlands or Northern England due to its scale.

Can I see the link the original discussion on the use of former because with the phrase "We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries " it links to a wiki-wide guideline that does not mention anything to do with it (a common troupe of people pushing their knowledge of a guideline corrupted by Chinese whispers and monkey see monkey do). Yorkshire became "a former county" before any other so it would be under different government acts, the ridings became counties so I'm saying technicality. The 2013 government act recognising and encouraging historic counties as current is clearly ignored since the guidelines were written before it and nobody is brazen enough to change it then wonder why it keeps coming up constantly. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: I start ranting so read til you get bored then reply. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there are improvements to be made to the infobox and the rest of the article, but other editors seem to be broadly happy with the lead at the moment.

On '-shire', it's a bit unfortunate that the suffix is repeated so often, but there's not much that can be done about it. Yorkshire is big, it bordered seven historic counties and its historic area is covered by eight ceremonial counties, most of which contain '-shire' in their names. It's also part of the county name, and that's naturally going to be mentioned a lot. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree the opening sentence has a degree of consensus from those who took part in the discussion. Secondly, the lead as a whole is supposed to be a summary of the salient features written in the body of the article and to my mind doesn't achieve this; it concentrates on borders with other counties. @Chocolateediter makes in effect the same point. I do however appreciate why this has likely happened — there was a dispute on how Yorkshire should be defined, so it wasn't clear what should be in the body. Now this has hopefully been resolved, the lead should be expanded to include elements of history, mention of the national parks and cities etc. Rupples (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say the lead concentrates on borders with other counties; that information is contained in the first sentence of the second paragraph. It's conventional to mention bordering areas in the lead of articles about geographic areas – compare United Kingdom, Scotland, or North Yorkshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It lists the 4 instances of Yorkshire counties, it lists the 4 ceremonial counties with bits of Yorkshire and it goes into the second paragraph to list the 7 historic counties it borders.

I look to Northern England as I remembered it has solved that issue. They is simply too much to put in the lead that it should be in article, might look up templates which might explain it in a better way for the mean time I'll add a definition header under the lead. Can I please re-add my edit in and move the lists to definitions for now til I have found a good template for them (that geo location one that goes in the compass direction doesn't show on phone app so I am not going to use it) @A.D.Hope: Chocolateediter (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but you don't seem to be acknowledging the main thrust of my argument, which is that the lead as now written fails to adequately summarise the article content. Rupples (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What should be included which isn't currently? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chocolateeditor's inclusion of the national parks. The Yorkshire Dales is in the infobox as the main image; also the Dales and Moors cover a large area of the county/region. From the history section I'd pick out the Danish/Viking connection, maybe mention Roman significance, although that seems to be more centered on York. Mention of the woollen trade and coal mining, maybe steel and the areas of the county/region where they were dominant. Description of rural in the north, built up/urban in the south/west and name the major cities. All in all, something along the lines of the lead you rewrote on County Durham. Rupples (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe include Yorkshire cricket. Rupples (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

As a general rule I'd say Yorkshire-wide things could have a place in the lead, but if they can be covered in the contemporary ceremonial county articles they're probably better there. So the cricket is worth a mention, but the national parks are a better fit for North Yorkshire.

There is a History of Yorkshire article, so this article's lead doesn't necessarily need to mention it, but then again many ceremonial counties have history articles but also give a brief summary in the county article lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the version as of now: "Yorkshire is a cultural region of England, on the nation’s east coast." It's not accurate to use a generic term like cultural region when readers know it to be, and the top of the infobox also says, "historic county". Drawing attention immediately to the coast when it's so much more than that is problematic. I don't even want to read the rest. Rcsprinter123 (shout) 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, multiple reversions of the lead are not constructive. Chocolateediter's rewrite doesn't seem to have support, and tbh I too don't think it's an improvement, so do not support its retention. Rupples (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a lot of time for Chocolateediter and know they edit in good faith, but multiple reversions rarely helps. I'm sure we can talk it through. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Meh oh well some things work better in some places and not in others. So remove cultural region and coast got it. Reversions happen with bigger changes. Some of it was full of typos, I needed to get into the zone so the worst bit was going to be the top before my head got into it.

Please bother to read it Rcs, so many arguments happen by prejudging the start and not bothering with the rest. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's now back to what it essentially was before, making the initial discussion a waste of time?

In the end, WP:BRD can apply, no one can force their lead when it is under discussion, I believe the earlier one should be put back or a formal proposal made on a selection of leads. Open to all ideas, but the main argument prior is for "area" / "region" whether it be cultural or not, be the main subject than "historic county". DankJae 22:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We should probably have a wider discussion about what belongs in the lead (and the article). I'm not opening one at 11pm UK time though, shall we do it tomorrow? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, as the constant overriding of leads is not getting helpful. DankJae 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, leave for now. I wouldn't have thought a single editor can overturn what seemed to have consensus. However, perhaps a second look is warranted where a number of editors perhaps unaware of the original discussion express discontent with the recent changes. Rupples (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I had a go at improving things - in particular it felt odd that over half the lead was obsessing about historic boundaries but there was no geographic overview. @A.D.Hope has now put pack in "...and parts of Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cumbria and County Durham" to the first paragraph. In my view this is the tail wagging the dog; the lead should be summarising the most important facts and simplest overview for the casual reader just trying to get a sense of Yorkshire in general. More detailed discussion about evolution of the boundaries can (and does) follow later in the article, which I've also tried to clarify.

Listing these counties so prominently also introduces the perception that we think there's an objectively correct definition of the historic county, but that requires you to choose an arbitrary date when you fix what you're deeming the historic county to be, which is inherently subjective. The county boundaries did fluctuate over time - by way of a couple of other examples not caught by those extra counties now listed in the lead, until 1886 Yorkshire included part of Misson, now in Nottinghamshire, and until 1889 Yorkshire included part of Crowle, now in North Lincolnshire. This is all better discussed in the definitions / administrative history sections further down the article, not in the lead.

I would therefore prefer to have the first couple of paragraphs of the lead not try and list every modern county covering part of the historic county, and just focus on the four modern Yorkshires - the wording I had was "...which was historically a county. It gives its name to four modern ceremonial counties: East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, which together cover most of the historic county." The "most of" signposts that those four together don't perfectly align with the historic county, and I would argue that's the appropriate level of balance for the lead. Stortford (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead doesn't cover the evolution of the county boundaries, but the first paragraph covers Yorkshire's location within the UK. It lists the eight ceremonial counties which cover the bulk of the historic county. I'm very keen to avoid implying that the four ceremonial counties with 'Yorkshire' in their name correspond closely to the historic county borders, as they do not. 'Most of' isn't accurate enough wording to convey that.

I've had another go at writing that section, and have come up with 'The area includes the ceremonial counties of East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, which are all part of the Yorkshire and the Humber region, and parts of all of the the neighbouring counties.' The list of neighbouring counties is contained in an explanatory note. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that's worse. Whether you mean it or not, saying "the area includes... parts of all the neighbouring counties..." implies that the "area" is unambiguously taken to mean the historic county (at whatever date you're deeming that to be). Stand back and put yourself in the position of a reader unfamiliar with the area who hears of a place called Yorkshire and looks it up - going straight into saying it includes (present tense) parts of neighbouring counties is considerably more confusing than helpful. My suggested wording of saying that it was a historic county and gives its name to a group of four ceremonial counties covers the two main ways of defining it, without presuming to imply that either of those definitions is universally accepted or unambiguously correct. Further down the article is the place for setting out the differences more clearly, not the lead.

By my calculations, 93% of the area of the shrieval county as it was in the 1961 census (so before creation of Teesside County Borough) is now within the group of four ceremonial counties. I fully expect the proportion of the population would be even higher, as the 7% of the land area that's different is mostly pretty sparsely populated. I think "most of" is therefore fair - we could perhaps give it a bit more emphasis and say something like "most, but not all of", but I'd really rather remove the footnote you've now added and not make such a point in the lead of trying to square the circle of which counties now administer every bit of the historic county. Stortford (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It might be best to break this down. To address your first point, the term "area" is a compromise to allow Yorkshire to be spoken of as a present-day cultural region without implying that it's still a county. The borders of this area do match those of the historic county in general, but aren't fixed to a particular date. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would get rid of the note as not helpful, I would also loose the region and the largest urban area. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you'd explain your thinking. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the note serves no real purpose; it just muddles things. Also agree with Keith about losing the region & urban area, so have removed them. Reads clearer now. Rupples (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears there is more support for not including the list of non-Yorkshire counties either in a note or the lead, than there is for inclusion, so my edit is reflecting this. Rupples (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed any reference to ceremonial counties until we can resolve this dispute. Again, it would be helpful if you could explain your thinking beyond 'it just muddles things'. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For my part, I could accept something like:

It gives its name to four modern ceremonial counties: East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, but also includes parts of all of the surrounding counties.

The note would be reinstated – there's no harm in it, and I wouldn't expect readers to know which counties currently contain bits of Yorkshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the current situation re Yorkshire as set out in the third paragraph of the Definitions section, starting "since when . . .". The note should not be reinstated; other editors who have expressed an opinion oppose its inclusion. Rupples (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that section in particular needs to be summarised in the lead; why is it relevant that four counties contain the word 'Yorkshire', but not that there is a region called 'Yorkshire and the Humber'?

If the ceremonial counties are going to be used to define Yorkshire then we should mention all of them, not just the ones with 'Yorkshire' in the name, whether in a note or the body text. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The regions are virtually defunct, only used for presentation of statistics - not a major thing to go in the lead. Elsewhere we sometimes use the other regions' geographic names to help locate a place, but "Yorkshire and the Humber" doesn't give much help to someone who doesn't known where Yorkshire is.

Conversely I think the fact that there are four modern counties with Yorkshire in their names is significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead - I'd be interested to know if there's consensus from other editors on that. The fact that parts of the historic county aren't within the four modern ceremonial Yorkshires is a much more nuanced point for unpacking elsewhere in the article - a footnote is inadequate to do that job, yet is quite a distraction to the flow of the opening of the lead. My wording was carefully constructed to avoid suggesting that either the historic county or the group of four ceremonial counties are the only way of defining the area. Your desire to list all the modern neighbours which ever included parts of the historic county sends the message that the historic county is the only "true" definition.

I'd be happy with Rupples' suggestion of broadly using the wording from the Definitions section – perhaps add a second sentence to the lead of:

There are now four ceremonial counties with Yorkshire in their names, being East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, which together cover most of the historic county.

Stortford (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The regions are widely used on Wikipedia when describing the location of English places, and changing that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

If we're not going to use the ceremonial counties to explain where Yorkshire is, then the best place to put the information about them is the end of the third paragraph, at the end of the section about the county's administrative history. I'd prefer my wording – which is based on yours – with a footnote listing the counties. Footnotes aren't a distraction to the flow of the text, at least no more than citations are.

The historic county is the 'true' definition, as far as this article is concerned; its primary topics are the historic county and the current cultural region, which has more or less the same boundaries. The current ceremonial counties are relevant in that they show the name 'Yorkshire' is still used in local government, but they don't define the area covered by the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have put a sentence about the modern ceremonial counties at the end of the third paragraph of the lead, with a somewhat more carefully worded note - hopefully you can accept this as a compromise. I disagree that the historic county is the true definition for the purposes of the article - it is 'Yorkshire' however that is defined, and as there are multiple ways of defining Yorkshire we need to bear that in mind and be careful to keep things neutral. A 'cultural region' doesn't have precise boundaries (and I don't think you're suggesting there's anywhere outside the historic county or four ceremonial counties which identifies as culturally Yorkshire) so let's keep it objective by restraining ourselves to the more verifiable historic county and four ceremonial counties. The consensus which emerged some time ago was to describe Yorkshire as an area rather than a county. I don't think that's the same as saying that the foundation of the article is some subjective definition of the 'cultural region'. Stortford (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)