Talk:Newcastle upon Tyne

Pronunciation

The intent of this edit is not entirely clear but it appears to be a poorly laid out, confusing, slightly altered repetition of parts of the local pronunciation that is already given. It does not appear to be an improvement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. I don't understand why it needs to be added given how long the existing version has been in place for. What was incorrect about the original version? 10mmsocket (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit added the variant UK pronunciation /ˈnjuːkæsəl/ (as opposed to /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl/) in a concise way. This is in fact different from the local pronunciation /njuːˈkæsəl/ in that the placement of stress is different. Morever, the newly added variant is included in the source already cited. 88.108.162.25 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

But surely that's exactly what is says there right now - (UK: /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl/ NEW-kah-səl, locally /njuːˈkæsəl/ (listen) new-KASS-əl) I don't understand why you needed to make any change 10mmsocket (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I get the difference - directly from personal experience as I spend up to four months every year in Tynemouth - but I simply don't understand how what you added to the standard English pronuncation made any difference to what was already there. Your new version UK: /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl, -æ-/ NEW-kah-səl, -⁠a-, and the old version UK: /ˈnjuːkɑːsəl/ NEW-kah-səl. What is the point of the ae and a on the end of the two versions? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The new version was commmunicates that the second vowel sound may be pronounced /æ/ rather than /ɑː/ without gaining primary unlike the local pronunciation in which it is both pronounced /æ/ and gains primary stress. 88.108.162.25 (talk)

Even if that is the case (a quotation from the source would be useful), it was laid out in a confusing manner, with individual vowels peppered in amongst the existing full pronunciations, with no clear indication as to what vowels they were an alternative to. If it is verifiable, the pronunciation should be laid out in full. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying I should add the full alternative pronunciation rather than the more concise alternative (using a shorthand used on other articles)? And what to you constitutes it being "verified"? 88.108.162.25 (talk)

By UK pronunciation I take it to mean a standard accent as opposed to local accent considering the local would still be a part of general British English. I remember previous revisions of this article using the initials "RP" (referring to Received Pronunciation) used to describe the broad "A" pronunciation. Considering it is the accent traditionally regarded as the standard British accent, as opposed to local accents, and does tend to use the broad "A", as in father, in words like "castle", I would like to suggest using those initials to describe this pronunciation if this is what is meant. Tk420 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, cf. WP:NOTDICTIONARY and feel free to note me as at least one editor who thinks this should be left to the city's Wiktionary entries. There is no important difference to any of these pronunciations and there's absolutely nothing noteworthy or helpful being provided by adding it. Anyone who can read the article can already pronounce the city's name and the violently British bit about introducing a y sound into the word "new" is just bog-standard British English: near universally done by those who do it already and ignored by those who don't, including the people who typed out the respell form. — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022

“Newcastle was historically part of the county of Northumberland until 1400, when it became a county in its own right seperate from Northumberland”

The word “separate” is misspelled. 81.109.0.231 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

reverted edit

With this edit, Editor 10mmsocket reverted my edit with this edit summary: Revert deletion of web archive url status parameters which break references. The summary is an incorrect statement. My edit should be restored.

Compare these two {{cite web}} templates taken from the article; one with, and one without, |url-status=dead. First with:

{{cite web|url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|title=Global city GDP 2014|publisher=Brookings Institution|access-date=18 November 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605135349/http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|archive-date=5 June 2013 }}

"Global city GDP 2014". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 5 June 2013. Retrieved 18 November 2014.

and now without:

{{cite web|url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|title=Global city GDP 2014|publisher=Brookings Institution|access-date=18 November 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605135349/http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3|archive-date=5 June 2013 }}

"Global city GDP 2014". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 5 June 2013. Retrieved 18 November 2014.

The renderings are exactly the same.

When a cs1|2 template has |archive-url=, the value in |url= is presumed to be dead unless otherwise declared to be live for the which use |url-status=live.

My edit should be restored.—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What? Did you not read the page history? I did revert only minutes after I made the change. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read the page history? Of course I did. I must have done else I wouldn't have links to our individual edits. Your self-revert came while I was writing the above and had no further need to look at the article history.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

New set of lead images (Consensus for the lead collage of Newcastle)

While I like four of the lead images on the article as of today 6 April, the final image of the riverside exhibition is both weak and repetitive. It's not a strong image, it doesn't show the essence of the riverside, which is the amazing view of the bridges and city skyline in the first image. Why not show one of the universities, or the civic centre, or central station, or some of our great city's (in)famous nightlife with a picture of The Gate? St James' Park? The Chinatown arch? Grainger Market is spectactular following the roof upgrades. Two river views are unnecessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the collage needs a bit of size tweaking but Civic Centre and Grainger Street have been added. St James Park already in lead and kept photos of the castle, RC Cathedral and Skylines. But feel free to feedback below DragonofBatley (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll tag @Chocolateediter: who reinstated the old one with not many photos like the one I did. If they would like to discuss with us @10mmsocket: and other editors like @John Maynard Friedman:, @Crouch, Swale:, @Eopsid:, @Rscprinter: and any other editors. Let us build a concensus on the lead collage for Newcastle just like on Manchester. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Every time I look at this Newcastle collage I get reminded that we haven't moved any forward. Should we decide on the pictures, how many and what they cover. If I get consent to I'll try to do a good one. If we have to decide can we start the ball rolling again please. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there any places of note or interest for Newcastle worth adding or changing? I would keep the following landmarks in the lead:

• Newcastle Cathedral
• Newcastle Castle
• Newcastle Civic Centre
• Grainger Street

and

• Tyne bridges

DragonofBatley (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• All 4 are probably important so should probably be in a montage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

All good. No disagreement from me. However, it's worth noting that the Newcastle Cathedral in the photo is the catholic one near the station, not the actual cathedral. Show the correct one, or show both. Otherwise I stand by my earlier suggestions to consider St James' Park, Grainger Market, The Gate and the Chinatown Arch. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Some general rules I follow:

1. Consider if a photo is used on other articles, swap it out of either if you prefer it on the article as pictures can easily be over used
2. avoid putting the name of the settlement in the caption and lead apart from the top
3. 6 to 8 pictures/not too long
4. recently taken (2010s/2020s)

My view on the collage:

1. keep the quayside picture or have two pictures, one for the Millennium and one for the Tyne Bridge and a quay one with neither. Best to just have the quayside picture with bit of both bridges on.
2. the stadium frontage or the interior showing the city's views, I prefer the exterior but it might too good that it would be best on the main picture of St James' Park article so interior with views of the city.

• Grainger: if they is a Grey's Monument picture, it should be full length, zoomed in enough and be contrast to the sky so that it is clear. If not the Grainger Market exterior or interior. I wouldn't have just the street but maybe persuaded.
• I don't like the civic centre that much. If it must maybe have it outside the infobox.
• The castle should really be a must, after a bit of thinking the Keep is a way better representation than the Black Gate.
• If you put one cathedral on, you would have to do both so just do neither.

1. The Gosforth building doesn't represent the racecourse that well
2. The aerial view photo outside the infobox is naff.

The composition could be; line 1, Quayside with bridges; line 2, Castle Keep and the Black Gate; line 3, Gray's Monument and Grainger Market; line 4, stadium and racecourse; line 5, the CoE cathedral and RC cathedral.

Turnbull's warehouse could be in geography showing the city's incline or in the city centre article, it's a nice colourful picture but might be an obscure view without any very notable landmarks. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed a slight new editor changed the entire lead collage with no explanation and clearly didn't read the talk page. So I've reverted back to the one before for further discussion. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the St James' Park article and moved my mouse pointer into the blue link of Newcastle upon Tyne and what came up was an image of St James' Park instead of an image of the city. Oroborvs (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter: My two cents, if you want a bit of inspiration, here's a very old montage from years back. I do really like the photograph on it which gets both the logos of the Metro and the University in, though it does need cropping. Newcastle Racecourse should not be included in the montage; it feels out of place and is just not noteworthy enough. If you want a bit of greenery from a bit further out, I bet there's a photograph of the skyline from the Town Moor somewhere. With the Castle, I agree that a picture of the Keep is more important than the Gate – this one gets used a lot, but that just means it's decent. As for the riverside, I really do like this photograph; it gives the Tyne Bridge more prominence than the Millenium one, and you still get a good view down the Quayside. --Voello _talk 22:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hyperlink

Please add a hyperlink directing to England. 87.52.108.81 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles for other English towns and cities appear to leave "England" unhyperlinked. Helmardine (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be true. London, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, etc. all have it linked prominently at the top of the article or in the lead infobox, as they should. — LlywelynII 11:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK - "obvious" topics are not linked-to. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:READER and WP:IAR. There's a specific reader asking for a helpful link and we shouldn't be refusing to provide it.

That said, instead of biting the newbie and citing WP:FOFF at them, you could've just pointed out that England already is linked in the infobox. — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hyphenation

From the first archive, there's a specific editor who made it (presumably) his mission to mangle all the mentions of the city by removing its hyphenation. I get that the guy has his own issue; I get that the city, like English speakers generally, doesn't really know how to handle hyphenation and doesn't usually bother; but the article should at least include it in the running text as an alt form. Aside from all the sources who you can't help but already note used it, it was the more common English form into the 1940s and remains a major alt form of the city's name. No one is proposing a move but we should stop humo[u]ring that one guy's peeve and note an extremely common and perfectly acceptable English usage in our article on the place. — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

History

Nothing in the article on the city's previous problem with lead poisoning and historical importance for its diagnosis and treatment. See, i.a.,

• Rainhorn, Judith (2021), The Colour of Controversy.

with the most important bit being on pages 8 and 9: "Similar statements were made in Britain, where the growing white lead industry in Newcastle-upon-Tyne caused waves of illness and even death among women workers: Dr Charles T. Thackrah had early on denounced the serious intoxications linked to the use of lead in industry and described the main symptoms allowing the disease to be diagnosed and patients to be distanced from the source of poisoning (1831), as had Henry Burton, who stated that a greyish coloration of the gums was an unmistakable symptom of lead poisoning, then known as the "Burtonian line" (1840)." — LlywelynII 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)