Talk:England/Archive 2012-2021

Regions division

As discussing in Talk:Ireland#Regions division, I have another doubt on the correctness of the England regions division. In particular I'm referring to the territory border between Yorkshire & East Midlands.

All the other regions follow the official division shown here, with the exception of these two. Do someone know the reason for this? --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see North and North-East Lincolnshire have switched over, are there any other regions involved? At a guess, it's to make the isPartOf breadcrumbs line up - Lincolnshire is under East Midlands, so there wouldn't be any way to get (say) Grimsby into both Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. (An extension of the problem where Vladivostok ends up under Europe!) I could be wrong, but that's the only thing that comes to mind. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope that behind this swtich it's not only a technical reason, otherwise we should split Turkey and Russia too. Other ideas? --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. There's no rule that we have to follow the government regions exactly (and in fact there is a policy to ignore them as necessary), and especially now that the government itself no longer uses them for anything but statistical breakdowns - whatever's more convenient for the traveler is the local rule. That's why we have simply Yorkshire when the governmental region is "Yorkshire and the Humber", and the part of Humberside that forms the difference has gone through any number of back-and-forth boundary rearrangements in the last 40 years anyhow, both before and after the bridge opened. Right now we have hardly any material for any town in that region, is it problematic that it's categorized where it is? -- D. Guillaume (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree to divide a territoy in a "turistic way" but I've noticed for several countries that because of a lack of study/time/information/knowledge/whateveryouwant, it has been followed "an" administrative division. At the end of the day, if we don't have good alternative, it's ok an administrative division too. My concern regards the hybrid approach. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that England has been divided into the exact administrative division, with the exception of Yorkshire and East Midlands. If confirmed, it's a little bit wierd. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

East Of England not part of the Midlands

It is a separate region in itself, and not in the Midlands. The East of England consists of East Anglia and several other counties. It is different in character to the Midlands. I think it would be better if the ready-made standard economic regions were used to divide England, rather than trying to shoe-horn things into the present arrangement. The regions are the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, London, South East, South West, as described in the Wikipedia article Regions of England. I would be sympathetic to splitting the newly created "Humber" region back into the traditional counties of Yorkshire or Lincolnshire. 92.28.252.163 12:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"England can be divided most generally into three sections...Midlands"

This is arbitrary and unhelpful. You could sub-classify any country or area into top, bottom, and middle. I particularly object to the East Of England being included in the Midlands. Is Norwich in the Midlands? No it is not. Is Ipswich in the Midlands? No. East Anglia is not in the Midlands, it is in the East of England. (Actually although never used, in my experience of living in several places throughout England, it would be more fruitful to divide England into west, middle, and east, since dividing it this way groups together people of similar character much better than the commonly used north south and middle). 92.28.252.163 13:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"bloody"

I'm an American, so I can't say how offensive the word "bloody" is in the U.K. But my understanding is that it is still sometimes censored in 'respectable' media like newspapers. Is it really appropriate for our guides? We don't have a policy on profanity, and certainly the wiki ethos shies away from censorship, but I would think we might want to avoid gratuitous profanity. Powers ^(talk) 01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Several of my English teachers saw fit to use the word in class. So no I don't think censorship of this term is called for. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is probably one of the mildest swear words in British English and I wouldn't fall out of seat upon hearing it. Nevertheless it is a profanity and It shouldn't be used. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we bloody well speak in a bloody informal tone? Is it the bloody conservatives who are keeping us from it? No seriously; what's so bad about this quintessentially British word (which btw crops up several times in our joke article on time travel) Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't so much I'm offended by it personally, but once you allow one mild swear word then where do you draw the line? S word, F word, C word? :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, LtPowers. Within British society, it is pretty mild (though it may offend some older and more conservative people). Speaking anecdotally, "bloody" is definitely used in dialogue on Doctor Who, a show aimed at a family audience. And it is certainly used by the British Establishment in public. But aside from how the word is viewed within Britain, our target audience on this page must primarily be those from other countries, and for them it may have connotations of quaint Britishness (and perhaps Australian-ness too, should our colleagues down under wish to get in on the act).

If we have to draw a line, it is surely where a word detracts from, rather than enhances, the experience and expectations of the reader within the theme of travel. The S, F and C words aren't mild in anyone's books and do not specifically relate to a geographical area. Hopefully none of us are silly enough to think South Park levels of profanity are okay just because we allow one instance of "bloody".

Having said all that, I am happy for "bloody" to go if it turns out consensus is against it. "Blooming" may be an acceptable non-profane alternative if bloody is not allowed. Although I wrote it with WV's informal tone in mind, I noticed "da bomb!" is considered a slang too far, which is why I highlighted "bloody" in my original edit summary for your guys' scrutiny. So scrutinise away, you bloody Wikivoyagers, you :) Best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir Alec CliftonTaylor's "English" towns

In the late 1970's early 1980's, there was a BBC documentary about English towns:-

According to Wikipedia the list was:- Chichester, Richmond, Tewkesbury, Stamford, Totnes, Ludlow, Warwick, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Saffron Walden, Lewes, Bradford on Avon, Beverley, Cirencester, Whitby, Bury St Edmunds, Devizes, Sandwich and Durham.

Should these be listed here or in a seperate article? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds like a sweet idea for an itinerary article. Ibaman (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Time and date formatting

WV:TDF says:

"Use one of these formats: 09:30–17:00 or 9:30AM–5PM. Do not use both 24- and 12-hour formats within one article. Choose between formats by following predominant local usage. Ask yourself which format visitors will see in timetables, on shop doors and in newspapers."

Which format should articles about England use? Ground Zero (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Timetables 24hr format but just about everything else, including every day speech, would be am/pm. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So are we best to stick with 9:30AM–5PM, then? Ground Zero (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• I happen to admin pt:voy as well; consensus was achieved there, some years ago, to use always the 24h format (11h-17h, 10h30-18h15 etc. etc.) I understand TDF on en:voy to have this kind of "legal loophole" which is flexible but prone to inconsistency. I hope this kind of consensus is achieved here as well, and will stick to it. My preference would be a 24-hour format. Ibaman (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

How is it in the interest of travelers to use a format in articles for a country like the U.S. that we don't use and they therefore won't see here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can see the issue that although people in a particular country may be used to both formats but people visiting this site and reading the page may not be. After all this is a travel site so expect people to be reading about other parts in the world. Should we create a template to get round this issue? Can show one format and with mouse-over display the other, similar to what is used in climate table values. Writing the function would be possible but would take some effort to update existing text on the site. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That would actually be ideal. Too bad we can't also do that for dates, because the day/month/year, year/month/day and month/day/year systems are all in use, plus non-Gregorian calendars. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree on dates, very confusing if NN/NN/NN format is used as do not which one the author was using. Would be possible for dates but a little more difficult. I will look at the time one later in the week. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Super! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

While this discussion got sidetracked into a broader discussion about templates, I'd like to wrap this up by concluding that 9:30AM–5PM is the preferred format for articles about England until such time as a conversion template is developed. Ground Zero (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I support that motion. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Scores on the Doors" re health insepctions on food premesis?

Is this inspection/rating scheme only England or UK wide? Asking so I can add a note in the correct article if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I just searched and found this FSA scheme covers England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Scotland has a similar, if not identical system, presumably run by a devolved government agency. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Added a note here, No objections to it also being added on the UK parent page :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

English Heritage overseas visitor pass

You can get 9-day or 16-day passes which allows you to visit every English Heritage site. A variety of passes and prices, but seems very reasonable and worth mentioning in the 'See' section of article. If someone would like to put it in, be my guest. Otherwise, I'll do it when I find the time (and this comment should serve as a reminder - fingers crossed). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That is useful. Do you know if there is a similar thing for National Trust properties (in particular car parks)? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is, and only a tad more expensive, although it doesn't cover every property. Parking is definitely not included in the NT pass, and EH doesn't say, so I guess it isn't with them either. They have a webchat during the day, so I might try to find out tomorrow.

You got me thinking, and Cadw and the Scottish one have shorter 'Explorer passes' that seemingly anyone can buy, whereas the above are just for non-UK residents. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that we should also mention that both organisations have reciprocal membership with some similar organisations worldwide. They don't shout about it, but a National Trust for Canada card will be accepted at a NT site. AlasdairW (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Good spot.

I checked with English Heritage and their car parks are free for members and visitors with an overseas pass.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Quotes

I added a quote from the song, "It's Everyday Bro" to the city section of the England article. Is that how you do it? Because it doesn't really look right the way I did it. Could someone please help me? WVOnline (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Loads of copied content

The large edits of the past few hours contain a huge amount of copied content. For example, our lede is now identical to the lede on Wikitravel. I've checked many other random sentences with a google search and found various origins, including copyrighted websites and other stuff from Wikitravel which wasn't migrated in 2012. All of the content, which hasn't got the proper attribution and may not be copyleft-compliant, will have to be removed. Truthfully, I don't know how much content has been copied and how much is User:BW2aj's own work. It's tempting just to do a hard revert to before their first edit, but I would like to give the user an opportunity to help us distinguish which content, if any, hasn't been copied from elsewhere. I also solicit input from others. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted the copied content, but I was about to undo some of the changes, like putting the map back in Cities. I also thought that some of the content might be better on other pages like Cuisine of Britain and Ireland. However I would assume that the new editor had good intentions. AlasdairW (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed re: assumption of good intentions. I've left quite a long message on their talk page, explaining the situation and stating that we'd consider a hard revert as a last resort but would prefer to work with them to separate original content from copypasta.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Since we haven't had an immediate response, I'll give it until Wednesday, then revert back to how it was before those edits.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, User:BW2aj has had his or her chance; time to revert.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Done --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New national Covid lockdown in England

new national Covid lockdown in England Ottawahitech (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes this should be added as a warningbox. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)