Talk:Cleveland, England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Cleveland, England is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's assessment scale. See comments for details. |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the Project's priority scale. | |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
[edit] Cleveland borders
Cleveland borders Cleveland? Is this right? --rmhermen
- No. Nevilley 18:53 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
[edit] postal district, mining
I removed the assertion that Cleveland is still in use as a postal district - in what sense is this true? I'd be delighted to discuss this and see some evidence. Also, Roseberry Topping - at the moment we say "Its original roughly conical form was undercut by extensive mining" - is that right? It doesn't quite sound right. Even if what we are trying to say is that the mountain was undercut by mining, the form isn't, if you see what I mean - it seems to give a wrong impression of the shape. Or something. Discussion welcome! --Nevilley 09:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I can confirm that Cleveland is used as a postal district - the residents (including my family) still commonly use it in addresses.
- Also, Roseberry was indeed undercut by mining - the area immediately under the summit was undercut by ironstone mines which collapsed many years ago, effectively cutting the summit in half. -- ChrisO 10:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Aha! Thank you for clarifying that. I am still not 100% sure about the shape-related wording but I am not going to change anything without a good reason to believe the change is an improvement!
-
-
-
- with the greatest of respect, some unknown number of residents using "Cleveland" in their addresses does not make a correct usage which needs documenting. As you probably know the Royal Mail does not require counties anyway, so it's very difficult to produce an official definition of usage as a postal county, because there ain't one. 138.37.188.109 07:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Some random links to .gov.uk sites using Cleveland as a postal county -
-
-
- Mmm yes sorry but I don't think these help either: random is about right - all they prove is that people working in government are capable of using archaic and inaccurate addressing too - they don't constitute any form of usable proof. Occasional bits of usage are not official status. Maybe those web sites were managed by ChrisO's family? :) After all you can find plenty of websites which think that there are London phone numbers which go 0207 xxx xxxx and 0208 xxx xxxx, but the mere fact that some confused people have put this up does not make it correct! Find me an official statement that Cleveland is a correct usage as a postal county, from someone credible, and I'll leave it. But exmaples of bad usage are just examples of bad usage. 138.37.188.109 07:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I shoud add that the last of Morwen's links above has dropped "Cleveland" from its addresses. The first is a statutory instrument which was drafted G*d knows when but does not constitute viable contemporary evidence. The second simply repeats whatever errors householders made when filling in a form. Like I say, find me something official which is actually an official statement on usage, not just a wrong statement which happens to be on an official site - the latter proves nothing. 138.37.188.109 07:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Would it be appropriate to split this into two articles - one about the geographic region of Cleveland, and one about the County of Cleveland? Morwen - Talk 10:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
Morwen asks "Would it be appropriate to split this into two articles - one about the geographic region of Cleveland, and one about the County of Cleveland?" I think no, it wouldn't, but I do think that the article needs restructuring - it has quite a heavy emphasis on the short-lived county and doesn't really differentiate it clearly enough from the historical area. At the moment I find it confusing. I'd envisage something like this:
- General intro saying what and where it is.
- The historical area, its characteristics - towns, landscape, Roseberry etc.
- The country - its history, area, structure, successors etc
I think something like that would be very helpful. 138.37.188.109 07:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cleveland in North Yorkshire
The original 'Cleveland' in the North Riding of Yorkshire extended much further south. The upshot of this is that there are some addresses in what is now North Yorkshire that claim to be 'Cleveland, North Yorkshire'. Deserves a mention.GordyB 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly, by my judgement, still currently a rather faint accent on the entity of 'Cleveland' as that of the area of the North Riding immediately south of the Tees. The 'towns and villages' section seems to be something of a sticking point, as presumably an assessment of the relevant settlements at the disposal of the (many centuries established) ancient region would presumably carry an altogether different make-up. Acklam, Marton, Linthorpe, Ormesby, Coulby, Newham, Stainton, Carlton, Great Ayton, Stokesley, Kirkleatham, Newport et al... crop up in the mind with greater readiness than the likes of Middlesbrough, Billingham, Stockton and so forth. An assertion of the 'authentic' Cleveland is surely still in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRacer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
