Talk:East Midlands

Peterborough

Why is Peterborough listed and mentioned on this page as being in the East Midlands? True, that was once the case when Peterborough was in Northamptonshire, but Peterborough has not been in Northamptonshire since 1965 when it left Northamptonshire to become part of the newly formed county of 'Huntingdon and Peterborough'. In 1974, the Huntingdon and Peterborough county was abolished and instead of being returned to Northamptonshire, Peterborough was instead transferred to Cambridgeshire. The administrative area is known as the 'City of Peterborough' and it is a Unitary Authority, considered part of Cambridgeshire for ceremonial purposes. Cambridgeshire is a county in the East of England region; therefore, Peterborough is not in the East Midlands region but in the East of England. I suggest that all the mentions of Peterborough are removed from the East Midlands page, except where Peterborough is being mentioned in a historical context (specifically, prior to 1965, when the city was still in Northamptonshire).

Lincoln

Lincoln is listed as a town when it is actually a city in the East Midlands

Moved into the city list, as the Lincoln, Lincolnshire page shows Lincoln as a city. Feel free to make changes yourself though - that is what Wikipedia is about! (NB please sign your discussion posts with ~~~~ to show who made the comments and when). NickF 20:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln, although it is technically a city, is really an overgrown market town, and the idea that it should be in the 1st paragraph but northampton shouldn't is surely an idea of someone from Lincoln. have changed wording. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Lincoln, although it is technically a city, is really an overgrown market town" which would make it a city. It's you opinion that it's an overgrown market town. Fact is it's a city like it or not. Northampton on the otherhand is actually a town, and correct me if I'm wrong has not been awarded city status yet. Jimmmmmmmmm 9:57 18th January 2006

Dispute

If Derby is the largest city by area, and Leicester is the largest city by population, then by what classification is Nottingham also the largest city. The sentence containing these contradictory statements is therefore a nonsense. Hence the dispute.--jrleighton 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham has the largest urban area by far, although Leicester has the most people within the city boundary. Morwen - Talk 13:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I find the statement that Derby is the largest city by area in the Midlands very unlikely. A quick glance at any ordnance survey maps of those cities shows far more urban sprawl for both Leicester and Nottingham. It is true that Nottingham conurbation is larger than the official city of Nottingham but even so... I think it's clear that the 3 biggest cities in the East Midlands in descending order are Nottingham, Leicester and Derby. MarkThomas 15:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Leicester is the largest city by population. The Nottingham urban area is rather dubiously defined to include some towns in Derbyshire and some in Notts that are fairly separate to the city. Having said that the Greater Nottingham area is still about 500 000 people, compared to around 441,213 in 'Greater Leicester'. The statement 'The largest city and the generally recognized "capital" of the East Midlands is Nottingham.' is, however, incorrect in the first part and hopelessly POV in the second.--Michig 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham was well known in local government circles for having a city boundary which is 'old' and does not embrace a significant part of its 'travel to work' area. Bristol similarly. In both cases the reasons are partly political. It's my understanding that Nottingham is easily the largest consurbation on most objective measures (says a man b & b in Derby) Bob aka Linuxlad 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact Nottingham is one of the English core cities suggests it's the best candidate for a "capital" of the East Midlands. Nottingham's city boundary has little basis in actual common usage, just like Manchester. 82.5.208.124 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

East Midlands Admin HQ

Can anyone clarify why Nottingham is listed as the Admin HQ of the East Midlands? The East Midlands Regional Eassembly is based in Melton Mowbray, Leics. What exactly does an 'Admin HQ' for a region mean anyway? I corrected the URL for the EMRA and the HQ, but it was reverted as 'vandalism'. Would anyone care to suggest why the HQ of the EMRA is not the HQ for government in the region?--Michig 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. When I created the regional infoboxes I just copied over the existing data. Perhaps its only a notional "HQ" as in the most principal settlement in the region. The regional assemblies are under no obligation to select such a place to meet. MRSC 09:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

North Lincolnshire & North East Lincolnshire

Maybe someone could explain why these are listed as being in the East Midlands? I was under the impression they were in Yorkshire & The Humber and they are correctly included in the Yorkshire & The Humber article, it seems confusing to have these districts included in two regions--80.189.245.89 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

These two regions are not included in this article, but it does say the looser area of the East Midlands includes these areas. -- London UK | talk 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Burton

Er _who_ puts Burton in the East Midlands?. The West Midlands has to start somewhere, and across a county boundary is as good a place to start as any. (Especially since it's on the appropriate side (SW) of the defining river - River Dove. Linuxlad 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Burton is practically a suburb of Derby, despite being in Staffordshire. There isn't even a road from there to Stafford, and it has Derby postcodes. It certainly seems to be economically tied to Derby/East Midlands, not Stafford or Birmingham. Walshie79 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Peak District

It might be worth noting that most people in the UK don't consider the Derbyshire Peak District to be in the "East Midlands", despite it falling in the European Parliament constituency. The city of Derby yes, but Buxton, Glossop, Chapel en le Frith etc is usually considered Northern England. In particular the bit of Derbyshire that before 1974 was in Cheshire is very much "Northern" and looks towards Greater Manchester rather than Derby/Nottingham. North Lincs has a better claim to be "East Midlands" than this area, much of which is further west than Birmingham. Walshie79 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Its mostly the area from or north of the line between Buxton and Bolsover which will likely be considered part of Northern England (especially the area covered by the High Peak district), anywhere south of that in the Peak District or its fringes (especially Matlock, Bakewell, Ashbourne and Wirksworth) would probably more likely be considered Midlands. In fact, before the boundary changes in 1974, I think the north west parts of the High Peak of Derbyshire was considered for inclusion in Greater Manchester while the north east part was considered for inclusion in South Yorkshire. I think the Bassetlaw District (which includes Worksop) in Nottinghamshire is also similar as while its officially part of the East Midlands, the area leans closer towards Sheffield and Doncaster and probably would also be considered Northern, so it all comes down to perceptions. I think this is something which could be added into an extent/definitions section or paragraph if it were to be added later, however, for the sake of maintaining consistency in Wikipedia, the official definition of the East Midlands is important especially for the articles on those places regardless of how people perceive it, as it would currently be misleading to say they are in Northern England. Broman178 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this matter, I might just point out that I have given mention in the extent section of the Midlands article earlier this year that the northern parts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are considered to be in the north (due to the formers proximity to both Manchester and Sheffield, and the latters proximity to Sheffield), despite officially being in the East Midlands so that may somewhat solve this issue a bit, although like I mention above, if an extent/definitions section were to be included in this article later, we could then give mention to this matter here as well. Broman178 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Social deprivation

The 2 sentences linking social deprivation with Labour or Tory MPs cite a dead link probably because the 2007 version is currently being updated. I believe these sentences contains wp:original research as constituency boundaries and council districts do not align making any correlation difficult to show, therefore I've removed them. JRPG (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Map deficiency

There should be a map of the whole Britain in the article, because it might be difficult to position E. M. within England and England within Britain for the big picture, without a visual clue (especially for visitors with a foreign background). 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on East Midlands (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regional_Profile_of_the_East_Midlands.png) would be of interest for East_Midlands

FYI, the full gallery, updated weekly, is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not enough citations for the current B class ratings

So much of this article is unreferenced. I can't see how the current B class ratings are justified. I've added a refimprove template rather than change them all to C class. 94.197.122.86 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on East Midlands. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090816091752/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/regional/ltp/theltpprocess to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ltp/theltpprocess
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080522170309/http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk:80/Transport/TP/LTP/ltp06-11.htm to http://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/Transport/TP/LTP/ltp06-11.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 17:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Midlands. 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/20120609171001/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/576659.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/576659.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/downloads/Table6-18.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on East Midlands. 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/20120328060852/http://www.embiodiversity.org.uk/ to http://www.embiodiversity.org.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718021317/http://www.gos.gov.uk/goem/transport/regtransstrategy/?a=42496 to http://www.gos.gov.uk/goem/transport/regtransstrategy/?a=42496
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228222811/http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport_roads/transport_planning/ to http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport_roads/transport_planning/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121223203039/http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/section.asp?sectiontype=fileattachment&catid=2225&docid=41750 to http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/section.asp?sectiontype=fileattachment&catid=2225&docid=41750
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430121221/http://www.derby.gov.uk/TransportStreets/TransportPlanning/DerbyLJTP06-11/DJLTP-06-11.htm to http://www.derby.gov.uk/TransportStreets/TransportPlanning/DerbyLJTP06-11/DJLTP-06-11.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201174457/http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council--services/transport--traffic/transportpolicy/transport-plan/second-local-transport-plan to http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council--services/transport--traffic/transportpolicy/transport-plan/second-local-transport-plan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902055735/http://www.mas-em.org.uk/ to http://www.mas-em.org.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215122456/http://www.ypla.gov.uk/regions/em/ to http://www.ypla.gov.uk/regions/em/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128163537/http://www.emregionalstrategy.co.uk/Home to http://www.emregionalstrategy.co.uk/Home

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Midlands. 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/20060925222424/http://www.direct.gov.uk/Dl1/Directories/LocalCouncils/LocalGovernmentByRegion/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4003592&chk=+JqZK3 to http://www.direct.gov.uk/Dl1/Directories/LocalCouncils/LocalGovernmentByRegion/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4003592&chk=%2BJqZK3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:East Midlands England for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:East Midlands England is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:East Midlands England until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)