Talk:Regions of England

Dorset

Given that Thomas Hardy's Wessex is Dorset, are people really objecting that the southwest isn't enough like Thomas Hardy's Wessex? That seems implausible. john k 05:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dorset was, IIRC, South Wessex in Hardy's books, and Wessex as a whole also included Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and I think more.

Anyway, to the reason I came here: why is there a link to Regions of Denmark in the see also section? How is this relevant? Joe D (t) 19:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I had added it, but its relevance was questioned by at least two other editors, so I have now replaced it with more general-topic see also links. Enjoy! =} //Big Adamsky 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

It's faulty, all should be geographical, changing 'east England' east, humbler to 'north east' so north east remains north and only London has a toponym, otherwise humbler is allowed to keep its historic name above the others and the whole harmony of its axis disappears — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.108.44 (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It ought to be dead easy to find people in Hansard or other such source criticising the South East and Eastern regions. But I couldn't. I think we need to restrict ourselves here to cited criticisms, because it's easy to come up with thousands of possible objections ourselves (to any set of boundaries). Morwen - Talk 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is nice to have a source for a truism, but it isn't essential. I am reinstating the deleted material as you damaged the balance of the article by making it imply that the things you happened to find in Hansard are more important than the things you didn't. CalJW 06:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten. For example: Opponents of regionalism argue that instead of decentralising power from London, the new tier of government will simply take power away from county councils. Not quite sure how this is a criticism as the whole point of regionalisation is that the county council will be totally abolished! MRSC 09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ofcom

I have deleted the following sentence:

Ofcom propose a phased change to the telephone numbering plan with a wide area code (020, 021, 022 etc.) used for each government office region. [1]

The supporting document appears to be an (undated) discussion document from several years ago. The 2006 Ofcom UK Numbering Plan makes no mention of reorganising numbering on a Regional code basis. Sceptic 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See also UK telephone numbering plan which seems authoritative on area codes Sceptic 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced. I've read in several places that OFCOM wants to put in region based WACs but cannot make changes until there is enough demand in each exchange. In fact I remember now, they have even reserved the migration plan and do not allocate numbers that would conflict. I will have a dig around for something else to back it up... MRSC 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good hunting... More than happy for it to go back in if you come up with something more concrete. Also are you sure that Ofcom's regions match the govt. office boundaries? Sceptic 18:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I note the Scotsman article, but I'm still not convinced this is anything to do with EU regions. The latest Ofcom consultation document does not mention EU regions. Sceptic 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Greater London

The template box displays London, but the link is to Greater London. Make up your mind Londoners! --Jay(Reply) 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That link is correctly formatted. The region is called London, not Greater London. However, it consists of the territory of the Greater London administrative area. MRSC 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not authentic regions

I think one of the critiscisms of this policy, is that these regions do not represent historical/ cultural regions such as Yorkshire, Cornwall, Lancashire, Northumberland etc. As with the 1974 local govt act with arbitrarily divided up or bound together historic counties to make them more manageable, this act is about bureacracy rather than true regional identity. Could someone find some sources for this, or at least look into it. I'm going to have a go, but I think it's mostly going ot be based on articles in newspapers. 217.196.239.189 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a short sentence should be placed at the top of the article to make clear that this article refers to the government's administrative regions as defined by the NUTS classification and pointing to the article Historical and alternative regions of England for alternative definitions of English regions. Sceptic 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Creation

So do we have any scholarly sources for

The United Kingdom was divided into regions by John Major's government in 1994 following the Maastricht Treaty.

What did the Maastricht Treaty have to do with it? Well, it created the Committee of the Regions, but I don't see how the government office regions of England have anything to do with that Committee : are the UK members on it supposed to represent each of the regions? There are 24 UK members, 2 for each of the 12 regions of the UK : the list here doesn't indicate which region people are supposed to be representing. Any idea? I can't find stuff in Hansard. Morwen - Talk 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Jeffery, C., The Regional Dimension of the European Union: Towards a Third Level in Europe? (1997), the treaty is ambiguous, requiring members to be "representatives of regional or local bodies". For states without a regional framework already, the need to create regions is implicit in the treaty rather than a requirement. He goes on to describe how the regions with direct representation (rather than the 'local representatives') gained more influence in decision making and had enhanced rights such as the possibility of delegated voting rights from the member states.

As it stands the statement is true, in so far as one followed the other. In order to have more influence in the CoR it became prudent to have a rhobust regional network with direct representatives from each. To look at it another way, some sort of regional system would have to be set up in order to select the regional/local representatives, so perhaps it was "unavoidable" after the treaty. MRSC 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So how then are the English regions used to select members for the committee of the regions? Morwen - Talk 22:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you suggest earler, they provide the framework for the selection. The regional assemblies make proposals to UK government (via the Local Government Association of England & Wales), and the government makes the formal selection based on that.

from [2]: UK members of the Committee of the Regions have an elected mandate from local or devolved authorities. London Assembly Members Jennette Arnold, Robert Neill and Graham Tope are members of the Committee of the Regions.

and from [3] Although the UK Delegation is formally nominated by the UK Government, it receives proposals from the following bodies: the Local Government Association of England & Wales (in consultation with English regional bodies); the Scottish Executive (in consultation with the Scottish Parliament and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities); the Welsh Assembly (in consultation with the Welsh Local Government Association); and the Northern Ireland Assembly (in consultation with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association).

The members are drawn from the elected cllrs/members in the authorities of each region. This list shows their local authority: [4] MRSC 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

European parliamentary constituencies

Could the article be expanded to explain whether or not the government regions are coterminus with the constituencies for the European parliament? I am sure readers will be confused by the constituencies having the same names as the regions, and could benefit from some explanation of the apparent coincidence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Since 1999, the nine regions have also been used as England's European Parliament constituencies"

Sorry—it was there all along. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

North Midlands

Someone wrote 'There has been a call by the counties of Derbyshire, Cheshire, and parts of Linclonshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire to form a new region, to be named the North Midlands. This region is currently under governement discussion, but the counties have alread set the ball rolling, by describing their counties region as The North Midlands.' wether this is true I do not know. London UK (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also if this was true then there would be only three counties in the East Midlands (Rutland, Northampshire and Leicestershire). These would probably become part of the West Midlands and we are back the way we are two midlands but not East or West but North and South. London UK (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cromwell

I have heard that the current regions were roughly decided back in the days of Cromwell. I think it is a myth, but perhaps someone has some information. (Definitely not the heptarchy....) – Kaihsu 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rule of the Major-Generals; Historical and alternative regions of England#1655-1657. – Kaihsu 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon roots?

English regions

England, 802AD, around tea-time

Interesting thought which occurs to me - did the definition of these regions have any origin in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms or England? If you compare the maps, there is a clear likeness between the regions and the likes of Mercia, Wessex, Strathclyde, Northumbria etc.

By design? Or an unintentional connection that grew out of natural cultural boundaries? Hmmm.

Cnbrb 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like coincidence, with a little inevitable geographical determinism (places next to each other are often but not always in the same region). The differences are in fact substantial, except for the border of Wales based on Offa's Dyke. --Rumping (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated the discussions in the two sections above into the article. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Consist of regions

In the pages of England regions f.e. East of England is write that It includes the ceremonial counties. Because the regions is about local government I think it should consist metropolitan or nonmetropolitan county (district + UA)? Can somebody describe this think for (not Englishman] me? JaT (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Isle of Wight

My home county, the Isle of Wight is missing off the map showing the the regions of England. Can anything be done to put it in? Edgarb1 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done It took two years, which is disappointing. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Update needed

This article needs updating to take on board the abolition of the regional assemblies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have updated this page - but with the new administration planning to abolish leaders boards, another update may be needed in the next few months. Dn9ahx (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be some very enthusiastic supporters of English regions on Wikipedia. Quite why statistical regions that nobody relates to need to be given so much prominence is anyone's guess.--80.42.208.250 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Headquarters"

I've reverted the addition of "Headquarters" to the list of regions. Although the Government offices have (had?) "headquarters", the regions themselves are (were?) more than that. For example, although the Government Office for the South West was based in Bristol (with an office in Plymouth), the Regional Assembly (and the equivalent later secretariat functions) was based in Taunton. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

renaming proposal

The lead of the article Regions of England defines the scope as “The English Regions are currently the highest tier of sub-national entity of England, used by central Government for statistical purposes. They are defined as first level NUTS regions ("NUTS 1 regions") within the European Union. They have also, until 2010, had an administrative role in the implementation of UK Government policy, and as (mostly indirectly) elected bodies.” By way of background, it also has a bloated history section. The part that deals with the history post the accession to the EEC (as it was then) is largely all right. However, everything before this date is irrelevant to an entity that has no proper existance outside of NUTS and Eurostat. Suggest that Historical and alternative regions of England is the appropriate place for this stuff. I propose to delete the pre EEC history. I also propose to rename the article to NUTS 1 statistical regions of England to correspond with its eponymous category and with similar NUTS 1 article in the EU. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph does not summarise the article well. It needs to point out that regional boundaries have been used for Government purposes in England since at least the 1930s, and have earlier historical antecedents. The history section is not "bloated" in any way, but the writing could be improved. The "pre EEC history" is not "irrelevant" - what is (largely) irrelevant is the reference to the EEC, given that regions have been used both before and after accession for various UK government purposes. The fact that the regions are currently used as NUTS 1 regions in the EU is a small part of the whole story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the above user is missing the point: it's not that two stories need to be contained into one article, it's that there are two stories. The NUTS story needs to stay here, per the lead scope definition. The other story - that of ancient Britain, King Arthur and who knows what else, needs to go elsewhere. It deals with an historical topic and so have suggested that Historical and alternative regions of England or something similar would be a suitable resting place. The EEC reference, far from being irrelevant, is in fact the driving force behind the whole article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The lead did not even refer to the NUTS designation until recently. By "history", I meant history up to 31 March 2011, the date until when the regions of England were used as units of central UK Government administration and government (that is, through Government Offices, regional assemblies and their replacements). The regions of England had a process of historic development, regular use for Government administration in various forms from the 1930s until last week, and are now also NUTS regions. It is preposterous to suggest that the NUTS designation is, ever has been, or should be, the focus of this article - though clearly, as a continuing function, it should be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Why not simply create a new article on [[NUTS 1 statistical regions of England]], along the lines of NUTS 2 statistical regions of the United Kingdom? My objection is to your idea that the text of this existing article is somehow irrelevant. It isn't. Quite possibly there is some overlap with Historical and alternative regions of England, but that can be addressed, and there could even be some merits in merging this article with that one - under the title of this article. If that is what you are actually trying to achieve, it seems a somewhat perverse and aggressive way of doing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to create a new article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England: this is that article. It serves its function perfectly. All it lacks is a proper name. I agree that the text of the existing article is not irrelevant: only the amorphous pre-history bit is irrelavant. On the other hand, it would be very relevant to "Historical and alternative regions of England" or something siomilar. The maps only refer to current realities. None of the regions in the maps corresponds exactly to an historic region of kingdom. The article is precise, bureaucratic and current. The other stuff is imprecise, non executive and historical. For this reason, the two should not co-exist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are approaching this from entirely the wrong end. I am unclear what your motivation is here - is it simply to remove from the record all traces of the regional government in England that applied before April 2011? Surely you can see that there is a great deal more, of encyclopedic value, to be written about the 'Regions of England' than simply the fact that they are still NUTS regions? There needs to be an article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England. Why not write that article and link it to this one? But it is by no means clear to me what you are now suggesting. Do you think all of the 'History' section should be moved to Historical and alternative regions of England (because in your view it is "amorphous... imprecise... historical"), or only part of it? (I have no idea what you mean by using the word "non-executive", or indeed "bureaucratic".) What do you think should happen to the 'Powers and functions' section of this article? Finally, what do you mean by the words "the two should not co-exist"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for moderating the tone of your contributions. Secondly, have you had a look at Mercia by way of example? It has lots of good stuff about a former region (though it would never have so described itself). It even has a section saying how it roughly comprised the modern NUTS 1 regions of West midlands and East midlands. It is a member of the Category:Petty kingdoms of England which contains lots of other such regions, or, more accurately, "petty kingdoms" per the category name. It seems clear to me that the first few paragraphs of the current article's History section should be deleted and moved into one or more articles of this category or "Historical and alternative regions of England" or something similar. Everything else in the article points to its use for Eurostat purposes as EU regions. The other paragraphs, the maps all point to this. It is inappropriate for the article to be hijacked for other purposes. There are plenty of articles that deal with ancient regions of England: this is not that article. As such, its name should reflect its function. By non executive, I mean that the fluff about ancient petty kingdoms has nothing to do with current admininstration, either at a central government (the "Executive") or a local government level. Only NUTS fulfill that function. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The regions of England were used as units of government and administration, in various forms, from the 1930s until 2011. That has very little to do, directly, with ancient kingdoms like Mercia. You say: "Everything else in the article points to its use for Eurostat purposes as EU regions." No, it doesn't. It discusses their role in UK (and EU) government and administration, of which designation as NUTS regions is just one small part. The introduction currently highlights the fact that, currently, the regional boundaries are those of NUTS regions, but they do continue to be used for many other purposes as a legacy of the fact that, until a week or two ago, they existed as administrative areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now re-edited the article, to update it and to refresh the structure. I haven't removed any text of substance, but have re-ordered some of it for clarity and to give a clearer chronology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Move

I have moved the article from Regions of England to Regional administration in England, for clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For clarity! This is hilarious. You revert the name. I object. You suggest that I start a discussion, which I do. Discussion is ongoing. You then unilaterally change the name to something completely different that was not even suggested in the discussion. What chutzpah! I'm going directly to arbitration on this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue about how the NUTS 1 statistical element is addressed, in this article or in another article, is a separate matter to that addressed by my text edits or my WP:BRD proposal to change the article name - "completely different" as you say. The article text is now much more clearly focused on regional administration in England - hence my reference to clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Editors visiting this page might be confused by your suggestion that I reverted the name. You were the one who changed the name "Regions of England" (which existed since 2002) to a wholly inappropriate and partial other name - which I then reverted. What I now suggest is that the article name be revised and clarified, for the reasons set out below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the "Regions of England", in general. It is, specifically, about regional administration in England. The title "Regions of England" was unspecific. There are many "regions of England" - "the Lake District", "the West Country", "the Midlands", "the South", "the North", etc. etc. etc. This article is not about those regions. It is about the nine regions which have been used for Government administration in England, in particular between 1994-2011, and their historical background. The title "Regional administration in England" is specific, and refers to administration through those regions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to its original location until a consensus can be reached or arbitration sorts the issue out. The whole "region thing" in England is very confusing now - last year I spent time writing pages for each LALB only for them to lose legal status two months later! Dn9ahx (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Confusion" is precisely what I am trying to avoid! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have read through your discussions and also taken a look at the article in question. I feel that you both make good points, however it is my personal belief that the 'side' of this discussion occupied by Ghmyrtle rings most true with me. A major factor in this belief is that as an encyclopaedia, an article has to be where the reader would look for it. Whilst at present it could be correct to have a title including NUTS 1, I believe, in general, that the average reader will in fact be looking for the present NUTS information alongside the historical information under a generic title. I hope my opinion has been of use. THis has been removed from the 3OC noticeboard.—Philip.t.day talk 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will now propose a move to Regional administration in England, at WP:RM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Diverse ideas were presented in this discussion, and no consensus emerged. Additionally, after reading the discussion and the article as a noninvolved reviewer, it seems to me that "Regions of England" is as good a title as any for the current article content. With additional changes to the article, the next move proposal -- maybe to this name, or maybe to some other name -- might succeed. Orlady (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Regions of England → Regional administration in England — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC) The article does not cover "Regions of England" in a general sense - it only covers the administrative arrangements for the nine specifically defined regions into which England has been divided for Government purposes, most importantly between 1994 (though their origins go back to the 1930s, at least) and March 2011 - for example, covering their use for regional assemblies and Government Offices. The identification of those regions with EU statistical regions through NUTS (a particular concern of one editor, see talk page) can be addressed either within that article, or has now been addressed at a separate article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Regional administration is also over-broad. How about Administrative regions of England, 1994–2011? —Tamfang (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that that title is over-broad. There are many articles linked to this one, relating to the particular administrative arrangements such as RDAs and regional spatial strategies, but what this article does is give an outline of those arrangements, in context, and set out the historical development of the arrangements in England, dating back to civil defence regions in the 1930s, the Redcliffe-Maud proposals in the 1970s, and so on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What about "Former administrative regions of England" seeing as none of the regions currently has an administrative function? Use a "See also" section that directs to an exclusively NUTS 1 article? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

London does have an administrative function, and the title "Regional administration in England" does not imply that it is necessarily current administration anyway. A separate article on the NUTS 1 regions would be most welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: A separate article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England has now been created. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would lend my weight to the new title "Regional administration in England". Personally I believe that its bredth matches up well with the breadth of the actual content on the page. Philip.t.day talk 08:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The administrative title is "region" and so the article of course is about administrative regions of England. However, "Regional administration in England" would be about the administration of the regions, not the administrative regions. "Administative regions of England" would be more accurate, however this title is far more simple and accurate. IIABDFI. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Split This article is currently schizophrenic: two-thirds of it talks about the administration method and history, and one-third talks about the actual regions. I suggest creating a new article called "Regional administration in England" as Ghmyrtle suggests, and moving sections 1 and 2 of this article into that. Mooncow (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Where would you suggest the actual delimitation of the regions be discussed, if not in this (renamed) article? The article on Subdivisions of England effectively links back to this one, and the article on NUTS 1 statistical regions of England only deals with one aspect, that is, their use for statistical analysis. Incidentally, there were changes to the regional boundaries in (I think) the 1980s, which aren't yet covered anywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support As per opening poster. The Proffesor (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In the second half of the first millennium, after about 500AD

What pomposity. All that's needed is the date.

Yorkshire and The Humber

It used to be Yorkshire & the Humber, then became Yorkshire and the Humber...but now it is Yorkshire and The Humber. It has been for around 10 years. Capital T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

had an official administrative role within UK Government. While they no longer fulfill this role, they continue to be used for administrative purposes

This is nonsense. It says they had an administrative role, then that they no longer have this role and then says they are administrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I've now clarified the wording. Better? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Largest cities"

I've reverted the addition of "largest city" information added in these edits. Firstly, the information is unsourced. The use of "city" is debatable in the UK context - we have List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, and the quite different List of cities in the United Kingdom. And, even if the ONS "major urban area" definition is used, there will I'm sure be arguments over whether, for example, Brighton should be included for the South East or South Hampshire (Southampton / Portsmouth)... etc. Perhaps we should just include a link to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#List of urban areas by Metropolitan area and Region. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Regions of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808115208/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2007/press_79_07.cfm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2007/press_79_07.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218005902/http://www.gos.gov.uk:80/ournetwork/675481/ to http://www.gos.gov.uk/ournetwork/675481/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080219014022/http://www.egovmonitor.com:80/node/16178 to http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/16178
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124215735/http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/press_13_10.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/press_13_10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Regions of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821200926/http://www.cor.europa.eu/en/presentation/national_delegations.htm to http://www.cor.europa.eu/en/presentation/national_delegations.htm#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Greater London Mayor - not London Region mayor

The page states "The London region has a directly elected Mayor and Assembly." - this is incorrect.

The London region is comprised of the City of London and Greater London. The latter has a directly elected mayor and assembly - not the former. 'Greater London' and the 'London region' are not the same.

The text 'London region' in page statement above links to Greater London.

I propose updating the statement to: "Greater London, which makes up a majority of the London region, has a directly elected Mayor and Assembly"

Lighthouse3050 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Website

They is a striking resemblance to this website I think it is a copy of this article: [5] Chocolateediter (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear they've copied this from Wikipedia (and not the other way round), but they haven't complied with the terms of Wikipedia's licence, which requires them to credit Wikipedia as the source and to release their page under the same (or very similar) licence. -- Dr Greg  talk  14:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the region article titles are wrong

I'm putting this discussion here, as it affects the pages North East England, North West England, South East England and South West England, and I don't think four separate discussions would be helpful (though I have put notices on each talk page). In essence, these pages are wrong as to what the official names of the regions are, as they currently treat "England" as being part of their official names. It isn't, and they should be "North East", "North West", "South East" and "South West" respectively. This is evidenced by the original enacting legislation which conferred the names, but can also be seen in the UK Gov's official statistics. Plus the majority of people do not include "England" as part of the name unless it's for disambiguation reasons, which makes this a case of WP:COMMON, too (contrasting with the style of these four articles, which meticulously use the supposed full names throughout - clearly going above and beyond disambiguation).

I'm certain that this misunderstanding has come about because the former EU Parliament constituencies were officially called "North East England", "North West England" and so on, but those constituencies were based on/contiguous with the regions, but weren't formally the same thing (similarly to how the Isle of Wight (UK Parliament constituency) is not the same as the ceremonial county of the Isle of Wight). It's pretty obvious why the EU needed to disambiguate them, too.

As such, I think we should probably move the pages to "North East (region of England)", "North West (region of England)", "South East (region of England)" and "South West (region of England)" respectively, and should update the articles accordingly. The main article (i.e. this one) seems to be pretty good on this front already, but in some ways that's even worse, as we're currently just being inconsistent across different articles. Theknightwho (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Meh. The regions didn't suddenly become extant with this legislation, they existed for at least a couple of years before that in popular cuture going back more than twenty years, back to the last century ! - Roxy the English speaking dog 07:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - but if you want to make that argument, then "England" definitely shouldn't be included. Theknightwho (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No need to change. The Treasury report, for instance (para 0.3) refers to "South East England". In any case, so far as we are concerned, we use commonly recognizable names, not necessarily "official" names. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That report refers to "South East England" once and "South East" eight times. The commonly recognizable name is without "England", and in any event the articles are incorrect as to what the official names are. The pedantic use of (for example) "South East England" every single time is simply misleading, and "England" should not be in the infobox as part of the title or bolded in the lede. Theknightwho (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The "commonly recognizable name" is not "South East". We are a global encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The commonly recognisable name is not "South East England" the indivisible unit, which is what we currently have. I'm not just referring to the article titles. Other articles don't use disambiguations throughout the whole article length like these do. Theknightwho (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There is simply no logic to say that England shouldn't be included, no matter what points have been made. By the way, I was trying for biting sarcasm in my initial response, I'm obviously a failure. I'm afraid that the proposals for change here do not make sense in a global encyclopedia, and will not fly. - Roxy the English speaking dog 16:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying "England" shouldn't be included at all - I'm saying that we shouldn't give it a title in the same style as countries like South Korea, because it's misleading. That's why I suggested titles that also mention the word "England", in fact...

That's aside from the fact that it is wrong to include "England" as part of the infobox title, amd it shouldn't be bolded in the lede. Nor should it be laboriously incldued in every mention of the name, which is something we don't do for other disambiguations. Or are you saying that that doesn't make sense either? Theknightwho (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The articles are about the areas themselves - not about the official designations. The fact that - for instance - North West England is referred to in official publications about England as "North West" is trivial and irrelevant. The articles are not solely about the official designations. They are about the areas covered by those designations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The opening lines:

• North East England is one of nine official regions of England
• North West England is one of nine official regions of England
• South East England is one of the nine official regions of England
• South West England is one of nine official regions of England

They mostly use that full designation throughout, the infobox has them under the "official name" parameter, and we bold all three words in the lede. Come on. Is it really too much to accept that it's the result of an understandable mistake? Imagine applying this logic to the Birmingham, Alabama article. Besdies, the fact they aren't just about the official regions isn't an argument in favour of your position, because that makes the use of these purported full names throughout make even less sense. Notice how we don't even apply that silly pedantry to Northeastern United States, for example (whcih does have "United States" as part of its official name. Theknightwho (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change the opening sentences to say, for instance, "North West England (also referred to as the North West) is...", I wouldn't object - but I think it's unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to refer to the official regions in the opening sentence, we should do so properly. We can't just start appending extra words onto official names because we feel they're ambiguous. I assume you don't think Birmingham, Alabama should open with "Birmingham, Alabama is a city...", despite it being common to include the state when referring to it from an international perspective. I don't see why you're insisting on applying that logic here.

Besides, Google Ngrams suggests "North West of England" is more common than "North West England" anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

One basic point is that, if Wikipedia had existed in (say) 1950, it would still have an article on "North West England". It's a real area (like, say, Southern United States), not simply an official designation. This applies to most if not all of the other regions as well. The article is about the area. If undue prominence is given to its designation as an official government region in the opening sentence, the answer is to reword the opening sentence, not change the article title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

But Wikipedia didn’t exist in 1950, and why should that matter when the use with “of” is more common now anyway? Most people aren’t talking about the official areas when they use those terms. We also already do give unique prominence to the official area by explicitly declaring that that is what the article is about, and your proposal would make these four articles inconsistent with the other five.

You’re also ignoring that this very article already follows the changes I’ve suggested, too. I didn’t just come up with this stuff out of the blue. Theknightwho (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

So, make the other five articles conform with the four we are talking about. We are clearly not going to agree about this. It almost seems as though you think that Wikipedia protocol is more important than common sense or what is helpful to readers. You need to go to WP:RM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. ( ... that we are clearly not going to agree) - Roxy the English speaking dog 07:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

One thing to point out here is that neither position is status quo. It's quite a major change to formally change these articles from being directly about the official regions, which is what they ostensibly are. Theknightwho (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion is that the articles, as written, are not necessarily about the "official regions" per se. They are about the regions as widely understood, which happen to coincide with the official regions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with the OP on this. It's arguably a somewhat pedantic point but if we strive for accuracy then it's a valid change to make. At the very least, I never tell anyone I live in "South East England" - if I'm referring to that area I would say "the South East of England" or just "the South East" - and I think that's true of most people. So the current names are neither the official GOR names nor the common names. WaggersTALK 12:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that how people living in the area describe the area to others is all that relevant. You would not tell people who do not know that you live in England that you live in "the South East". You would say either "the South East of England" or "South East England". My opinion is that the first term is more informal and conversational, but the second term is both shorter and more encyclopedic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You would if you'd already mentioned that you were from England. The issue is that the current titles (as well as the articles) follow a format which treats the word "England" as formally part of the proper name in every-day speech (hence the use of "North East England" over and over, far past the point where "England" is necessary in the article). None of us are arguing that it shouldn't be disambiguated, though. It's just that the current title follows a format similar to "North Korea" or "West Germany", which implies that the country name is mandatory except in informal speech (e.g. "the West" = "West Gemrmany"), where it makes complete sense for the articles to use "North Korea" or "West Germany" as the primary names in the article body.

On the other hand, the names of these regions don't work that way, just as Birmingham, Alabama doesn't treat ", Alabama" as part of the name, despite it being at the page Birmingham, Alabama. It is not informal to say "North East", and "England" is given only where it is necessary for clarification. It won't be repeated over and over as it would be with "South Korea", though. An English-language comparison is Northern Ireland, where "the North" would only ever be used informally (or potentially for rhetorical variation). Theknightwho (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is a correct statement - "hence the use of "North East England" over and over, far past the point where "England" is necessary in the article" - that could easily and simply be addressed by minor changes to the wording of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You're not really addressing my main point at all. Theknightwho (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Your main point seems to be that using the official government term and definition trumps all other considerations. I don't see why that should be the case, and if it is perceived to be the case (for instance, in the wording of the opening sentence), then the best answer would be to change the wording of the text to fit the current article title - rather than changing the article title to fit the current wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to do but ask you to re-read what I wrote 90 minutes ago. That wasn't my point at all. It was about how the terms are actually used. I'm also not at all what sure you mean by the best answer would be to change the wording of the text to fit the current article title - rather than changing the article title to fit the current wording, either, given that they're currently the same. Theknightwho (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You are going to have to refer this issue elsewhere for discussion. It seems unlikely that there will be a consensus here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I await your proposal to change every instance of "Birmingham" to "Birmingham, Alabama". It has just as much sesne in it, and it would at least be consistent. Theknightwho (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me, but I suspect my arguments are making no sense to you. So, it needs fresh eyes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, the names of these regions don't work that way, just as Birmingham, Alabama doesn't treat ", Alabama" as part of the name, despite it being at the page Birmingham, Alabama. It is not informal to say "North East", and "England" is given only where it is necessary for clarification. Theknightwho (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: All I have to say is that this region in Romania is called Sud-Est, not containing the name of the country, and that it remained with that name in EU's list of development regions when Romania joined the EU. —Soap— 04:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Soap Here's how we treat similar regions in other countries: Southeast (Vietnam); North East (Nigeria). Theknightwho (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is based on a misunderstanding. Those regions are purely official administrative or governmental constructs. The regions in England have a wider significance. Here are a few examples of book titles using the term "North West England". I'm sure there are hundreds more. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]....... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as someone who actually lives here I am well-aware. The point is that you are insisting on names that aren’t necessary for disambiguation, aren’t the most common, and for which straightforward alternatives are available. Rather than pretending you don’t understand the point about disambiguation, try addressing it, because there are tons of books with “Birmingham, Alabama” in the title too. Doesn’t mean we should consider it the name instead of “Birmingham”. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You've lost me completely now. The article name is Birmingham, Alabama, not Birmingham (city in Alabama). Anyway, please take this discussion elsewhere. If you think your view is unarguably correct, there should be no problem in finding others who agree with you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Because you are insisting "North West England" is the WP:COMMONNAME, whereas I am arguing it is disambiguation. Theknightwho (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing for natural disambiguation, but you are insisting on parenthetical disambiguation. "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation.". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Which would include the word “of” as it’s more common, as has already been pointed out. Theknightwho (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a very moot point, but anyway it's a different point from what you originally suggested. Are you going to start another discussion, or move request, on that point? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware that I’m only allowed to have a single opinion and must stick to it no matter what. Given that you seem fixated on the issue of the article title, when that was never the whole point I was making, it feels far more like you’re interested in feeling right than genuinely building consensus at this stage. Theknightwho (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your original point was that "I think we should probably move the pages..." to remove the word England. I've disagreed, for reasons which I've clearly stated (most recently by drawing attention to WP:NCDAB) and also suggested that your other point - that "these pages are wrong as to what the official names of the regions are" - could easily be accommodated by (in my view) unnecessary but (so far as I'm concerned, at least) minor changes to the article wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Read it again. That is not what I said at all. It’s also bizarre that you would suggest correcting the parts of the page that explicitly do refer to the official region is unnecessary, too. Just feels like a way to avoid conceding a point. Theknightwho (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It is precisely what you said, because they are the very words that you used! My view on the purported "official" name of the region (as set out in a single document in which the word "England" is implicit) is that it is not as important as you seem to think it is, given the very large number of other reliable sources that use "England" as part of the regions' names. And, rather than continuing to pursue this never-ending bilateral argument (entertaining though I'm sure it is for both readers and participants), can I again suggest that you raise this as a formal move request, which may well secure the involvement of other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand the difference between a page title and what the page treats as the name. I was talking about the second one. You’re also contradicting yourself: it cannot both be natural disambiguation and an integral part of the region’s name. Which is it? Particularly given it isn’t even the most common way of disambiguating. Theknightwho (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

So, when you wrote "I think we should probably move the pages..." that is not what you meant? And this whole discussion is about changing the words in the text? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Which you'll note didn't suggest moving them to titles that didn't include England. Have you actually been reading anything I've been writing, or have you just been jumping to conclusions and writing reactionary responses for fun? Given how patronising you've been since the start, I'm going with the second. Theknightwho (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sigh... You wrote "I think we should probably move the pages to "North East (region of England)..." etc. I disagreed, and still disagree, because you still haven't made what I consider to be a good case for doing that. If you still take that view, please take your ideas for moving the pages elsewhere. You must be getting bored of reading my comments, surely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and you've presented no case for why the entry should remain where it is, and have given absolutely no input on anything else I've raised. Rather than telling me to take the discussion I've started elsewhere, I suggest you don't involve yourself if it no longer interests you. Theknightwho (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

But you are the person who is suggesting a change to article titles that (at least in the case of North West England - I haven't checked them all) have existed on this site for over twenty years. Looking at the talk page for that article, the name of the page has never previously been questioned. It is not my responsibility to present a "case for why the entry should remain where it is" (although I have done that, several times, using several arguments) - it is your responsibility to propose a change, through WP:RM if there is no consensus here. It's quite absurd to suggest that I "have given absolutely no input on anything else". Personally I don't suggest any overriding need to change the wording of the articles to reflect the fact that a government publication omits the (understood) word "England" from their names, but it could be achieved - as I've suggested several times - by minor changes to wording of the text. As I wrote here several days ago, "If you want to change the opening sentences to say, for instance, "North West England (also referred to as the North West) is...", I wouldn't object - but I think it's unnecessary." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And, as I and another commenter have pointed out, it isn't just government publications that support my position.

Even your suggestion for the opening sentence isn't ideal, because the most common term that includes natural disambiguation would be the North West of England, the only objection to which you've given is that it apparently isn't encyclopaedic, despite being the natural form that people who live here actually use most of the time if they feel the need to disambiguate. May I remind you of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. The fact that "North West England" does get used doesn't change the fact that British English does have a preference for one over the other. Theknightwho (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"North West England (also referred to as the North West of England or simply the North West) is...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so resistant to prioritisng the most commonly used name? This is becoming absurd. Theknightwho (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Because I haven't yet seen any arguments to convince me that anything other than "North West England" is the best name for the article. The only reason this thread has become "absurd" (which it has) is that you refuse to take your case through WP:RM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Pretending you didn't see it doesn't stop it being real. Theknightwho (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course I've seen it. But, the guidance sets out various criteria. Do you think that "North West England" is not recognisable, natural, precise and concise? Or is your argument solely based on the argument that the current titles are not "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"? On that, my argument is that the articles to which you referred earlier in this thread are not "similar", in that they are solely used for government purposes, which the English regions are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither the Vietnamese nor the Nigerian regions are solely used for government purposes (which is a very strange assertion to make), but in any event the obvious article to point to here is East of England. Theknightwho (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The term "East England" is almost never used, so there is no problem with "East of England". What I really fail to understand is why, if you are so convinced of your arguments, you do not make an effort to try to convince other editors, through the "requested move" process? Who knows, you might find others to agree with you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And the term "North West of England" is more often used. What's the problem with the more commonly used term, exactly? Theknightwho (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's not as bad as your original suggestion of "North West (region of England)". But it's still longer than the current title, and I suggest less encyclopedic. That's my opinion - please seek the opinions of others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a "patience of a saint" barnstar? I would award it to Ghmyrtle. - Roxy the English speaking dog 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's rather easy to be patient when you ignore what someone is actually saying, yes. Theknightwho (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ignore doesn't seem to be applicable in this case. I on the other hand ... - Roxy the English speaking dog 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "stonewall" might be more appropriate. Theknightwho (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why a disagreement between two editors should be described as a "stonewall", but let's move on... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

nine regions had officially devolved functions within government. While they no longer fulfil this role

This suggests that the regions no longer exist, so the article (like that about metropolitan counties) should be written as an historical one. If local authorities have set up region-based organisations, Wikipedia can have entries for these, but there are no English regions in any meaningful, current sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:DD15:2186:E814:1DF6 (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)