Talk:North Yorkshire

Admin HQ

What is the HQ of this county? --Maddawg1967--

Northallerton Yorkshire Phoenix 08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Carve-up of North Yokshire

I remember being sent literature regarding possible alterations to North Yorkshire in the early 90s. Among various options included Hambleton, Craven, Richmondshire and Harrogate districts to secede and become 'The Dales Council' and with the rump North Yorkshire to revert to 'North Riding'. Another option was for Lanbaugh district (then Cleveland) and the old East Riding of Yorkshire to merge with North Yorkshire to form an even bigger county. Nothing came of it but worth a mention I'd have thought.15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See linked article

I've found my original maps and references, and will be adding it to the History of local government in Yorkshire article. I've added the link, I'm now off to add the detail.

BTW, I can't find anything about Langbaugh leaving the former Cleveland collection of councils. Jgharston (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tone of "Education" section

The education section has been marked as being in a tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The single sentence is, "North Yorkshire LEA has a mostly comprehensive education system with 42 state schools... and 12 independent schools..." I believe that the person who flagged the section misunderstood the sentence as meaning "North Yorkshire has a mostly thorough education system" rather than "North Yorkshire has an education system based around comprehensive schools", where "comprehensive school" is single school catering to pupils of all academic abilities. I believe that the link in the sentence makes this clear enough so I have deleted the "inappropriate tone" tag. Dricherby (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the tag - I think it was a left over from when it was a longer section, most of which was deleted by a user who went round most county articles deleting education details. Keith D (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely this section is wrong anyway? North Yorkshire has *well* more than 42 state schools... there are more than 300! Does the figure only relate to Secondary schools? (ChrisP)

Elections

The article requires details of the political structure adding together with details of the recent European election & County council election. Keith D (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Height of Whernside

A Google search revealed that Whernside is either 704m or 736m, depending on the website quoted. Does anyone know the real height of Whernside? Michael Glass (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey figure is 736 m. It has a trig point, so I have no doubt that it is the definitive height. Great Whernside, between Wharfedale and Nidderdale is 704 m high. There is a well-researched list of peaks in the Yorkshire Dales with their heights at List_of_peaks_in_the_Yorkshire_Dales --Langcliffe (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Michael Glass (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An average of 45-90 days of snow in winter? Tosh.

I have checked the alleged source for this statement, and it shows that nowhere in Yorkshire is the average number of days of (lying) snow more than 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.13.220 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have double-checked and according to the Met Office website snow lies for a maximum of between 45 and 70 days a year in those locations. I think that your error was that you looked at a specific month rather than the annual total. Anyway, I have corrected the page to reflect the Met Office figures. --Langcliffe (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Economy" section - what does it mean?

The "Economy" section presents a chart (sic; actually it's a table) of something called "regional gross value added at current basic prices". A reference directs the reader to an ONS PDF document containing (with no explanation) this information. As a ref it's perfect, referring as it does to an official ONS report. As useful information it's as much use as a chocolate fireguard, giving as it does no clue at all what "regional gross value added" may be.

WP has no article on this thing, and a quick Google search throws up many instances of documents detailing it without explaining it. Given that this section merely contains an inaccurately-described (it's a table, not a chart) of inxeplicable (or at least unexplained) numbers, does it have any place in the article? I propose to delete the "Economy" section on 17th April 2011 unless it is improved before then. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am NOT an economist, but as far as I know the GVA is a way of measuring the sum of incomes earned from the production of goods and services in the region using methodologies determined by the EU which allows comparison of economic growth across the EU. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/ET627.pdf has a helpful section on this together with fuller references. As I am not an economist, I have no intention of modifying the section, and have no vested interest in whether it is kept or deleted. --Langcliffe (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Try Gross value added. Admittedly a stub but it does exist and it defines the term. --Harkey (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Staithes, North Yorkshire.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Staithes, North Yorkshire.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

York the largest 'settlement' within the ceremonial county?

Im afraid I have to disagree with this statement as the largest settlement within the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire is Middlesbrough. As of 2011, the York urban area had a population of 137,505 whereas the population of Middlesbrough was 138,700 and that's not even taking into account the larger urban area of Middlesbrough which extends beyond the authority. The local government district of the City of York is larger however with around 200,000 people, but covers a much larger area than York itself so i feel the statement is misleading saying its the largest settlement. Maybe its the largest town in 'true' Yorkshire as many people up here (hailing from the Middlesbrough area myself) are mixed when it comes to the Yorkshire identity (Acklamite) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.136.58 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ONS figures give York as 197,800 and Middlesbrough as 138,400. Keith D (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Those figures are for the unitary authority not the actual urban area. The City of York covers a much larger area than just York itself. It even shows this within the York article. This paragraph is taken from the demography section on the article;

"The York urban area had a population of 137,505 comprising 66,142 males and 71,363 females in 2001. Also at the time of the 2001 UK census, the City of York had a total population of 181,094 of whom 93,957 were female and 87,137 were male"

(Acklamite (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

Ok so now new data has been released pertaining to the new classification of Built-up areas in place of the previous urban areas. The 2011 data provided by the ONS shows considerable change in the way urban areas are defined in England & Wales [2][3] and therefore the way in which the urban area or built-up area subdivision of both Middlesbrough and York are viewed. According to the National statistics, as of 2011, the Built-up Area Subdivision of Middlesbrough had a population of 174,700 whereas the Built-up Area Subdivision of York had 152,841[4] (excluding Earswick which is counted as a seperate subdivison). This puts Middlesbrough as the largest settlement in terms of built-up area as this new method pays no respect to council boundaries. This said, York is still the largest City in North Yorkshire and is a considerably larger district. So in an urban sense, Middlesbrough is the larger settlement, but as a municipal corporation/district sense York is larger. Acklamite (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bus routes

Request to put on Bus routes due to List of bus routes in North Yorkshire being proposed for deletion and the information to be put on to this instead although links can be provided so it links up this stopping deletion DF2 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you will get much support for this as you may judge from the responses to the AfD on List of bus routes in North Yorkshire. It is not only lists of bus routes in North Yorkshire being nominated for deletion, it for all similar lists in all other counties too. There is also a lot of opposition to bus routes being put on individual town/city/village articles. Main reason being given that the level of detail being given is not appropriate to an encyclopedia and the amount of effort required to keep details on routes and sources up to date . There are plenty of other sites dedicated to providing this information, such as the bus companies themselves, local council web sites and independent web sites like Traveline.info There is some support for this information to put on the new sister project of WikiVoyage as it has more to do with helping travellers. If you look at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements this will give a guide on what sort of things are expected to be seen in articles on places. Personally i have only ever mentioned that a particular place is served by a bus route stating only the termini (no number or bus company) and this only for rural places where it might have more relevance. It is more or less a given that that large towns and cities will have a choice of bus services.Rimmer1993 (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1974 Formation

Is anybody working on a 1974 formation map in the style of, for example: South Yorkshire 1974? If not, I've got the maps, and can do it. Jgharston (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Towns and Villages

The list omits Ingleby Barwick which is wholly within North Yorkshire witha population of 19,600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.63.199 (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure Ingleby Barwick is a town or village. I know it is often regarded as a town by some and yes it does even have a town council which was granted in 2007, but has it ever received any charter of incorporation? Perhaps the term 'township' would be better, although personally I still see it as Europe's largest housing estate. Acklamite (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the recent changes in the legislation I think there is no longer any need for there to be a charter to be called a town. It can be done by the parish council in a resolution, so if the council calls it a town council then we have to go with it. Keith D (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Settlements

What is a settlement? Is it not an urban area as oppose to an administrative structure i.e. a borough? Well in terms of this article its clear its about urban area so why does the article use figures for the Built-up Areas of every settlement except the Middlesbrough area which doesnt show the settlement of Middlesbrough but uses the figures for its district? Why has the article been changed back to put York as the largest settlement, this is simply and obviously not the case. Middlesbrough is clearly a larger settlement than York and here's why...It is a more populous sub-division! The Middlesbrough BUASD (Thats Built-up Area Sub-division) which defines urban areas or Settlements in the UK has a population of 174,700, whereas the York BUA (Built-up Area) which is made up from the York Sub-division and the Earswick Sub-division has 153,717!! Middlesbrough's population as a settlement / Built-up Area is 174,700, not 138,400 which represents the district which is not what the article is referring to at all. Why does it use the population figure for the smaller council area when the article isn't even talking about the administrative area its talking about the settlement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.38.253 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it appears that nobody, other than myself, is bothered by the fact that the article is still incorrectly stating that Middlesbrough, as a settlement, has a population of 138,400 when in fact it has 174,700 as of 2011. The ONS defines settlements by using the census data for built-up area subdivisions and not council areas which pay no respects to a settlement. If council areas are to be used then yes that would indeed put York as the largest district in North Yorkshire, however this is not the case. Need I remind everyone that this section of the article is in reference to settlements and not council areas and settlements are essentially urban subdivisions or built-up area subdivisions (BUASD's). Here is an excerpt taken from Wikipedia's own article on Human settlements,

 "...settlements are "a city, town, village, or other agglomeration of buildings where people live and work."  

The important part of that excerpt in this case is "agglomeration, which the Middlesbrough BUASD is and so has nothing to do with council areas at all. Middlesbrough is clearly the largest Settlement within the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, I will try to put it into a bit more perspective;

• York - settlement = 153,717, district = 197,800
• Middlesbrough - settlement = 174,700, district = 138,400

As a settlement, Middlesbrough has 174,700 and York has 153,717. Its blatantly obvious which settlement is the largest!!

I strongly suggest that if no one is going to recognise the use of an incorrect population figure for the settlement of Middlesbrough, and continue to use the population for the council area whilst still referring to it as a settlement, then perhaps the way in which the localities are defined should be changed. It is misleading to refer to Middlesbrough in this article as a settlement, which would include the full extent of the built-up area subdivision, when in reality it is the council area of the borough of Middlesbrough which is represented here. Maybe its the terminology used that I find misleading, instead of using settlements something else should be put in place as I do not think council areas define settlements or perhaps using the correct built-up area subdivisions figures would suffice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.38.253 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on North Yorkshire. 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/20120206110859/http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/public/site/NYCC/menuitem.72980bf1db3dfb9fd7428f1040008a0c/?vgnextoid=cfa68f0788110110VgnVCM100000420f1cacRCRD to http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/public/site/NYCC/menuitem.72980bf1db3dfb9fd7428f1040008a0c/?vgnextoid=cfa68f0788110110VgnVCM100000420f1cacRCRD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120726194651/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/marilyns/chapter6.htm to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/marilyns/chapter6.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

. Lists need trimming to essentials rest in sub articles. For example the villages should all move to the List of places in Yorkshire article. References required More detail on the georgaphy of the area More details on sports/culture of area Relevant photographs Keith D 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) ==Assessed as a C== I reckon this is more than good enough for a C. I was thinking of making it a B but it would definitely need some of the present material referencing - in particular the geography and transport sections - and perhaps a bit more about geology. Opinions will vary on illustrations of such a diverse area, particularly with the careful excepting of the cities, but there are LOADS on Geograph now. But this is easily a grade C --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 01:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Yorkshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807154511/http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12525&p=0 to http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12525&p=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201002538/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230185431/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Error re: population?

This article claims a population over 1million but these Web sites indicate around 600,000

North Yorkshire has a resident population of 604,900 http://reports.esd.org.uk/reports/15?pa=E10000023%3AAdministrativeWard

The population of North Yorkshire has increased steadily from 570,100 in 2001 to 602,300 in 2015, a growth of around 5.6%. https://datanorthyorkshire.org/JSNA/articles/population-in-north-yorkshire/

North Yorkshire has a population of around 602,300 (ONS mid-2015 population estimate). https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/north-yorkshire-population-information

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the figure referring to the the area covered by the county council or the ceremonial county which covers a larger area including places like York and Middlesbrough. Keith D (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A1/A1(M) motorway

Just a note to be a reminder, at some point in 2018 the map needs to be updated to paint the A1 blue along its whole length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.74.15 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Help! How to correct population data in Infobox

For some reason, I cannot find Population when I am in Edit mode.

The box says over 1 million but it's not that high! Can you help me fix this @ User:Vaselineeeeeeee or @ User:Keith D

 North Yorkshire has a population of around 604,900 (ONS mid-2016 population estimate). Harrogate has around 75,070 residents and Scarborough around 52,100.   https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/north-yorkshire-population-information

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean the 1,153,400 figure. This is the new figure supplied by the ONS, in the last month, as the mid-2017 estimate for the counties population, the figures are generated from the codes given, not sure which or may be it is a combination of, ISO 3166-2, ONS code and NUTS. If you are querying the value then you should check out the ref which should be given in the text, but looks as you have tried to put in 2016 figures rather than set-up the text for auto-update to ONS information as per the infobox. See "Mid-Year Population Estimates, UK, June 2021". Office for National Statistics. 21 December 2022. Retrieved 18 October 2023. It could be that the ONS have supplied the wrong information or that the figures have been transcribed incorrectly. Note that the figure is for the ceremonial county that includes part of Stockton-upon-Tees. If there is still a problem then please show where the problem is. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Keith D Peter K Burian (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Flag

I believe the flag to be unofficial. So what to do with it, I guess leave it off. Chocolateediter (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why? If it is unofficial, state that with a source. --Bduke (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t add it myself. I have looked for some references to put it on as it identifies the area but haven’t found any yet. I put it here for others to help. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You may want to consider if this source provides you with an answer (New North Riding Flag)

^the directly above text is not mine it’s unsigned.

I have noticed the flag is a copy of the proper unofficial flag, it should be deleted and the page redirected to the proper unofficial flag file: -this file (File:Unofficial county flag of North Yorkshire.svg) specifically states that the flag should not to represent the county, tell Italy Wiki that as they have it on every North Yorkshire town article. Chocolateediter (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

- now this flag has appeared, this even has unofficial in the name of the file. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

appeared on the South Yorkshire county

appeared on the West Yorkshire article

Does this happen often or just Yorkshire. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

"North Yorkshire" can refer to two different entities - the ceremonial county and the area served by North Yorkshire Council. In law the "County of North Yorkshire" is the area now served by North Yorkshire Council. It was and technically remains a "non-metropolitan county" - it is the districts which have been abolished. No-one refers to the unitary authority area as "North Yorkshire District", so WP should avoid that term - the council refers to it as plain "North Yorkshire". The lead cannot say "North Yorkshire is a ....unitary authority area" and then say "The county has five unitary authority areas" without explaining that "North Yorkshire" is used in two different senses.

The best I can think of is to refer to the wider area as the "ceremonial county" and the narrower area as the "North Yorkshire unitary authority area"--Mhockey (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

North Yorkshire District has been created as a redirect to North Yorkshire Council which is totally wrong, why would you want the council article rather than information on the area. We should not use district to refer to the area. If we are keeping a single article for both uses, then that article should be clear as to the two meanings in the lead. Keith D (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That has now been changed to an article describing the district with another article to exist also for its council (as well as this article for the ceremonial county and one for the defunct NYCC), as per County Durham (district) and Durham County Council which is in a similar situation administratively. Rcsprinter123 (comment) 17:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we need two articles for this? Keith D (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References

A district is quite different from a ceremonial county. North Yorkshire district has the same status as the other 4 districts of the ceremonial county which points to splitting as opposed to say Essex administrative county where the 2 unitary districts have the same status as the other 12 districts that the administrative county contains except for being independent of the council. That said the "new" district covers the same area as the "former" administrative county which makes a distinction murky however like others the article can focus on the situation from 2023 but still contain small amounts of content for before. My instinct would be to keep separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

One problem is that the area served by North Yorkshire Council and formerly served by NYCC is never referred to as a "district" - at least I live in it and have never heard it referred to as a district. It is always referred to as a "county". To disambiguate by "district" is just confusing. It is a county, but a different kind of county from the ceremonial county. We managed without 2 articles for the 2 types of county before, and I don't think we ever have different articles for administrative counties (1889-1974) which covered different areas from geographical counties.

Another problem is what is the "district" article supposed to cover. Is it supposed to cover the geography and history of the area? It is already duplicating material in North Yorkshire. If you want to confine the article to the politics and political history, surely it would just duplicate material in North Yorkshire Council.

Probably in most official contexts "North Yorkshire" refers to the UA area rather than the ceremonial county. Hence the new combined authority is to be "York and North Yorkshire", the mayor is to be Mayor of York and North Yorkshire. That begs the question of which (if either) article is to be the primary topic.

For all these reasons it seems to me best (least confusing) to go back to a single article - which should explain the distinction - as we had before.

Similar issues arises in Somerset and Shropshire as well as County Durham. There may be more to come. Mhockey (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well a unitary district is both a district and administrative county, we have articles on the 4 districts of NY. We don't generally make a distinction with normal administrative counties like Essex including the ones that existed before 1974.

We do have separate articles on most of the other councils from the district like Redcar and Cleveland/Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council though I think they should be merged others disagree.

I think WP:DABCONCEPT would apply, most of the time the entire county would likely be meant by the average reader anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

County collages

I don’t want counties to start always having multiple images, county infoboxes are quite long. Having one to deal with comes the many and the long discussions about each picture. Please can we stick with one. I've already had to start looking at regional collages, full 6 to 8 ones, because somebody added them. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The three picture collages are growing on me. Chocolateediter (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just seen this little exchange, it's quite funny in retrospect! A.D.Hope (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Collage images

@Chocolateediter. If I can get straight into it, what's your aim with the infobox images? The collage as it was contained three high-quality images which represented Middlesbrough and two of the county's distinctive landscapes, which (if I can say so myself) work particularly well together. I'm therefore not sure it really needs changing. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I never really liked the Howardian Hills pic, the viaduct pic was dark and the clock tower isn't of note. They are still relatively spread out, Redcar is coastal so it does bring that other element to the county that Middlesbrough doesn't represent and is still representing the Teesside part of it. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just don't agree in this instance, sorry. I like the Howardian Hills pic, it's relatively high-res and shows the landscape well; the Ribblehead Viaduct pic clearly shows the viaduct and surrounding landscape and is also high-res (and could easily be lightened a bit if that's the issue); and the clock tower is a landmark in Middlesbrough docks (the transporter bridge would be the obvious choice, but it's half in Durham). If I can be matter-of-fact about your choices, the viaduct pic is low-res and doesn't show any of the Dales, the Beacon pic doesn't actually show the coast (which could be an option, I did originally look at Whitby and Scarborough), and the Castle Howard pic is ill-proportioned in that the ratio of lawn to building is way off. If we can throw in personal preferences I also don't think they form a coherent whole.

We might struggle to resolve this if it's just the two of us, so I wonder if the best course of action would be to ask a third editor to chip in? A.D.Hope (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've asked if anyone at UK geography can step in to help us decide, I hope that's okay. To anyone who does choose to step in, first, thank you, and second the images currently being considered are this collage by Chocolateediter and this collage by myself. Feel free to suggest other options. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be awkward, I prefer the more dramatic shot of Ribblehead vaduct in the second version but don't like the hills as they are a bit more of the same, the shot of Castle Howard looks better I feel. Redcar beacon I'm in two minds about but it is probably a better contrast to the trad architecture of CH. Hope that helps. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, much appreciated. I agree with you about an old/modern contrast and have used one in other collages, the issue I have with Redcar Beacon is that it's difficult to tone in with other images because it's purple and yellow. If you look at my collage I spent quite a lot of time finding images which fitted the general colour scheme, and that's something I'm keen to preserve in any new version. North Yorks must have other modern buildings though, surely? A.D.Hope (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't know the county well enough to comment on what modern structures it may have. Redcar Beacon is probably a better choice than the Middlesbrough clock tower as that is another classical building. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the panoramic pic of Ribblehead viaduct is wonderful, including both Victorian heritage and landscape, and more useful than the closeup of the viaduct. The Howardian Hills pic is lovely, and was the sole image for some time, but perhaps we only need one shot of landscape. I don't know Redcar or Middlesbrough, can't comment on how well that aspect of the county is represented. But I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire#North Yorkshire infobox images to try to get people who know the county to join this conversation. Maybe needs something from a village or a town like Richmond? PamD 11:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the basic concept of 1 landscape, 1 trad and 1 modern is the way to go. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's lot of ways to approach a collage to get some sort of broad overview but landscape/trad/modern is a good framework. I do agree with you on showing a village, @PamD, and Helmsley jumped to mind as it's in the east of the county and its castle would fill the 'vertical' collage slot well. Thanks for asking over at the wikiproject, I'm sure that will help. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a particular set of images should be set in stone. There's always going to be disagreement on the 'best' way to portray a county. It may even be better to have no images, if selection is causing squabbling, and keep relevant ones confined to the text. I'm seeing a tendency with some editors to pictorialise Wikipedia articles. Suggest contributors to this discussion take on board the points in MOS:LEADIMAGE especially Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. Rupples (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Rupples. I wouldn't worry about squabbles, Chocolateediter and myself respect each other and are pretty good at working through these sorts of snags. On your other points, establishing consensus for the images is important as it helps maintain the stability of the article, and I don't think the situation is so bad that we need to consider no lead images at all. Thanks for the reminder of the guidelines, that's always helpful. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't see why the images can't be changed around every so often, if editors enjoy contributing in this way; obviously not every day, but say after six months or so. FWIW, if restricted to 3 photos my preference would be for one of the coast (Whitby/Staithes/Scarborough), one of the countryside (Moors/Dales/Vale) and one of a town (York/Harrogate/Richmond). Associate Middlesbrough more with Teeside than North Yorkshire. Personally, don't think the current crop of images is that good a representation of North Yorkshire, sorry. Rupples (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any particular objection to discussions about changing images on an ad hoc basis, but I don't want to create an expectation that they will be changed to a regular schedule as that would create extra work for little gain to the encyclopaedia. We've certainly been looking at the categories you've suggested, but Middlesbrough is the county's largest town so has a good claim to be included. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No wish to offend Middlesbrough, but does an image of Middlesbrough resonate more among a national/international readership than for example, York Minster/Whitby Abbey/North York Moors? If one asked people outside of Teeside/North Yorkshire to name an outstanding landmark in Middlesbrough, what would be the likely response? Rupples (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always bit of a balancing act between representing what a county is and what people think it is; for example, when Cumbria was being made I was keen to include the coast and either Carlisle or Barrow rather than just the Lake District. In this case, although Middlesbrough may not be stereotypically 'North Yorkshire' it is the largest settlement in the county and so including something from it would be valid.

Having said that, it's also a balancing act between representation and image quality. If there are few good images of a place, or if they don't work well with the other images in the collage, it's fair to depict somewhere else instead. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Producing a decent collage is fun but like much on Wikipedia, time-consuming, so if my comments above came across as dismissive of previous attempts, I apologise. Anyway, had a go at my first collage — all comments welcome, including criticism. The York Minster image I slightly cropped, enhanced and reuploaded, the other two are as is. Compare my attempt with this collage by Chocolateediter and this collage by A.D.Hope. Rupples (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

They didn't come across as dismissive, don't worry. It's nice to have someone else on board considering the collages. I think yours is definitely on the right track — it uses images from different areas of the county, you've selected some well-known landmarks, and the Ribblehead image in particular is pretty.

What you might want to look at is the scale — collage images are smaller than normal, so an image which works amazingly at normal size might become indistinct in the collage. Big, obvious landmarks often work well. I've taken the idea of your collage and swapped in some different pics, and while I'm definitely not saying I'm an expert see how it compares. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I nearly swapped to that Yorkshire Minster photo you chose - the only detractor is that damn blue bag/deflated balloon in the tree! Still, in the one I chose there's someone looking straight at the camera - that's photography for you. I do think the coast should be represented, a portrayal of rural scenary as the largest picture, and the contrast and historic importance of York Minster, arguably the most well known and significant building in the county. These amount to a fair and balanced representation. Not too fussed about the specific images selected. Rupples (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Restarting discussion

@Chocolateediter, Murgatroyd49, PamD, and Rupples: Unfortunately the discussion has stalled, and these recent edits [5] [6] demonstrate that the infobox collage still isn't stable. To try and reach a broad consensus I'll ask again for input at the UK Geography and North Yorkshire projects, and at England.

I think a fair summary of the discussion thusfar is that Ribblehead Viaduct is popular and should be included, but the other images are still up for debate. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't think stability can be enforced/guaranteed. The anon. editor who insists on their collage here has made many such edits to various UK articles recently. One could argue that a !vote on this Talk page lends weight to a consensus but an editor who doesn't take part could well ignore. Unfortunately, the viaduct picture at present isn't accurately captioned. Haven't corrected as that selection of images (E) is the worst option IMO, so hoping it won't stick. Rupples (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A consensus over the collage will make it much easier to enforce stability. If we'd already established one then the recent change could simply be reverted and the editor invited to open a talk page discussion, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

So the anon. has placed a new collage which has been been reverted by @Rcsprinter123 and @Chocolateediter and in both instances the anon. has reverted. This on the road to editwarring but hasn't breached 3RR. Rupples (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the collage entirely for now, hopefully that will focus minds on this discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposals so far

Proposal A: Ribblehead, York Minster, Staithes

Proposal B: Ribblehead, Redcar, Castle Howard

Proposal C: Ribblehead, Middlesbrough, Howardian Hills

Proposal D: Ribblehead, York Minster, Robin Hood's Bay

Proposal E: Ribblehead, York Minster, Staithes

Proposal F: Ribblehead, Helmsley Castle, Scarborough, York Minster

Proposal G: Ribblehead, Helmsley Castle, Scarborough, York Minster

Proposal H

Proposal J

Proposal K

Proposal L

These are the proposals made so far, incuding two (E and F) I've made up today. While three images is currently the convention for county articles, the size of North Yorkshire may justify the use of four images in this case (and is in line with the UK:COUNTIES guideline. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Relettered as dual 'E's so yours are F & G. Rupples (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comments: To my eyes the Ribbledale image on options C, D, F & G looks a bit unnatural at the smaller scale used in the infobox: something about the light — it looks much better as a large image. Middlesboro clock tower/Redcar Beacon are noes from me, sorry don't think they fit in well. Howardian Hills, I like (very restful) however isn't really distinguishable from other rural areas in England. Scarborough, yes representative but image in F has too much sky and gives too much prominence to the Grand Hotel and G the colours look a bit flat (although I'll accept as it features the replica Hispaniola — a longstanding attraction). Helmsley Castle - needs lightening/colours toned down a touch. Rupples (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is a good example of how subjective this process is, because that image of Ribblehead is by far my favourite! It's very difficult to find good images of the coastal Yorkshire towns— I've looked extensively at Staithes, Robin Hood's Bay, Whitby, etc, and those two of Scarborough are the best I can find. The Grand Hotel is quite a prominent landmark, so I think we could justify it being so in the infobox, but a better image of the bay would be good. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Let's alert @User:2A00:23C5:DE80:1301:8F:F266:4870:73B6 to this discussion. Oh, they don't have a user page, hopefully they'll still receive this alert. Rupples (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• As a set, A is my clear preference. The Ribblehead image clearly shows a typical rural landscape not just the viaduct (the image in C-D, F&G does this but not as well, E sort of does it but B loses most context) and the Staithes image is a good overview of a small, coastal settlement. I would prefer an image of York minster that put the building into a bit more context (possibly File:York Minster - geograph.org.uk - 5126712.jpg) but the one we have is not at all bad. A also presents all the images at an appropriate scale (E is the worst for this). The Robin Hood's Bay image in D is decidedly meh photographically and the Howardian Hills image in C is rather nondescript so I don't support using them. The selection of images in A also presents a good, rounded view of the county. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'm also going for A (I put together this one, but don't think its bettered by any of the other selections put forward here). I echo Thryduulf's comment — the main image depicts the ruralness and space of the county better than the other Ribblehead images. Rupples (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• I go for A but with a better image of York Minster as suggested by Thryduulf Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Rupples@Thryduulf@Murgatroyd49, what about a four-image collage consisting of the Ribblehead and Staines images from (A) and the Minster image from (F) and (G), all in their current positions, and fourth to fill the gap? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  If we're going for that, and I'm open to it, we need to pick a portrait image that works at small scale and fits with the others. Having spent about 20 minutes browsing Commons the ones I've found that I think would work are below, but I'm also open to other suggestions.

Dock Clock Tower, Middlesbrough

Scarborough Central Tramway

Whitby Abbey

Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge

• The last one is the weakest photographically, if anyone is local and get a photo from a similar angle in sunny weather that would be better. I did consider Studley Royal, Fountains Abbey, the Knaresborough viaduct, Brimham Rocks, Malahm Cove, Ripley Castle and Mother Shipton's Cave but I didn't find any suitable photos. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Happy with the four image format — the larger image of York Minster is fine. North Yorkshire is known for its abbey ruins so I'd go with the Whitby Abbey pic. @A.D.Hope would you put these four images up to see how they combine? Rupples (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Rupples Done!

  Personally I think H and L look the best, and both have the benefit of including Middlesbrough. J is a little indistinct, and although K is a good image we've already included one whopping big ecclesiastical edifice. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with all of that. K is the best photographically but loses thematically. As for H vs L, the latter is my preference thematically as the transporter bridge is a striking modern structure relative to the others and clearly represents Middlebrough's (and thus the county's) industrial heritage in a way that the clock tower doesn't do without explanation. While it is unfortunately photographically a bit weaker I think it does just have the edge over H all things considered. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Concur with your comment. As the format includes the representations of a rural scene, coast and York Minster I now have no objection to Middlesbrough. I would go with whatever is best known between the clock tower and bridge (if there's any difference) but the clock tower is photographically the clearer and better image. Rupples (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've left notes on the talk pages of the Yorkshire and North East England WikiProjects asking for local photographers to try and take a higher quality image of the transporter bridge from that angle. No idea if anyone will be able to assist but I felt it worth a try (I'm in London so I can't easily do it myself). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The joy of all things at the Yorkshire WikiProject has come up trumps and we now have a couple of sunny day photo of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge from the approximate same angle. I think the second image (05) is my preference but what do others think @Rupples, A.D.Hope, and Murgatroyd49:. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd go with the second image too Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've added a third image, which is number 4 with the shadow in the bottom left removed. I think I now favour that one very slightly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  In the context of a multiple image, I think 05 has a more dramatic feel. It doesn't have so much empty space top and bottom. Also the actual transporter carriage shows up better. I've inserted it into proposal L to demonstrate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

04

05

04-modified

Modified

Thryduulf, Murgatroyd49, I did not know you wanted the bench removed. I know that Thryduulf has already done one, but does this fit better (picture No. 8)? I have cloned a neutral area and patched it over the bench. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer No 5 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Nice cloning work from both Thryduulf and The joy of all things — definitely better with the bench and shadow removed. No preference between 05 and the two images with cloning. Rupples (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Looking again, I think I do prefer number 5 to any of the 4s as the bridge fills more of the frame. With @Murgatroyd49 expressing the same preference and @Rupples happy with 5 or either of the modified 4s I'll add proposal L with image 5 to the article in a day or so unless @A.D.Hope, The joy of all things or anyone else objects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  edit: I've just seen @A.D.Hope has noted on their userpage their offline until around the 23rd. As they've put so much work into this we should probably wait until they get back. Comments from others still welcome of course. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for waiting, although I'd have been happy for this to proceed without me so long as a consensus was found! I've taken the liberty of adding the current Proposal L to the article, as the discussion seems to have settled on it being the best. If this isnt right please tweak it A.D.Hope (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)