Talk:Cleveland, Yorkshire

Cleveland borders

Cleveland borders Cleveland? Is this right? --rmhermen

No. Nevilley 18:53 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

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 -

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990801.htm

http://www.hambleton.gov.uk/hambleton/environment.nsf/pages/pa26feb2004.html

http://www.childcarelink.gov.uk/whitebox/board.asp?cisid=5178&catid=10

Morwen - Talk 10:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Two Clevelands

This is one of the most confusing articles I've read on Wikipedia. There should be two articles namely:

• Cleveland County
• Cleveland in Yorkshire, geography and history

Hartlepool, Billingham and Stockton residents would find it hard to be included in an article describing ancient Cleveland, the land of Cliffs.

The, now defunct, County of Cleveland article would include its four districts and the goings on of local government and business. The Cleveland in Yorkshire article would include the history and geography of the area south of the River Tees - perhaps to Whitby. It would include the history of the abbeys and industries, such as ironstone and alum mining.

Francis Hannaway 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francish7 (talk • contribs)

The changing boundaries over time are always a problem, but that is no reason for splitting an article and creating articles which cover different time periods. Other articles have similar difficult problems such as the East Riding of Yorkshire which covers the original riding, the new county that is now in existence and the ceremonial county which includes Hull. Keith D (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Cleveland?

Duke of Cleveland refers to Cleveland, and points to this article, but that's wrong, since this didn't exist before 1974. So where is the article on medival Cleveland? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cleveland, 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.

. Requires addition of more references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Switch exitsting references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates Keith D 11:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Political to Geographic article

In the past week I have morphed this article into a geographic article due to it being a geographic name used for politics. I plan to rename or redirect it with the Lower Teesdale name to match it with Upper Teesdale, of which I might need help.

This juggling between type of article has been brought up on this talk page before and I have acted to make sure clarity is made. The heritage Teesdale name should not be forgot and replaced with southern terminology. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

After looking at related articles this article is now geographical covering Ryedale, Pickering, Whitby and former Langbaurgh wapentake area. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename

Should Cleveland, England be renamed Cleveland, Yorkshire or Cleveland, North Yorkshire to emphasise that this article covers a historic area only in Yorkshire rather than county that was made from the North Riding and Durham county. Chocolateediter (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Lets not confuse things while we have a discussion in place at Talk:County Cleveland. Keith D (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cleveland, Yorkshire. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Cleveland, England → ? – discussing Cleveland (county) re-merging ended as declined, I would to request a move from ‘’Cleveland, England'' to ‘’Cleveland, Yorkshire'' or ‘’Cleveland, North Yorkshire''. The article is about an area purely in North Yorkshire/Yorkshire and better disambiguates between this article and Cleveland (county), the county’s former area presently crosses North Yorkshire and Durham. This Cleveland predates North Yorkshire county by a long stretch, so “Cleveland,Yorkshire” is my preference. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a ward in London called "Cleveland" so maybe move because of that but otherwise this article appears to qualify as a broad concept article (see WP:DABCONCEPT) so partial disambiguation may be OK. I'm not sure where we would otherwise move it to anyway since its partly in North Yorkshire and partly in Durham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This article isn’t about the county that is why I am suggesting the move. Historic Cleveland stretched from Middlesbrough to Pickering or further to the East Riding line. It is/was (since archdeacons still use it) purely in Yorkshire, North Riding and modern North Yorkshire. None of it was in Durham’s county. Please read the article. Chocolateediter (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support - so it doesnt get confused with Cleveland (county). Eopsid (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to Cleveland, Yorkshire. BD2412 T 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  It appears Cleveland is partly in County Durham as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's mostly Yorkshire, though, isn't it? BD2412 T 23:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Re-merge Cleveland (county) into this article, and leave title as Cleveland, England. There simply isn't enough material in either article to have two separate articles on these concepts, which cover much the same geographical area, and the recent split doesn't appear to have ever been discussed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.