Talk:Sunderland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Featured Article - Clean-Up

Not quite sure why this article was nominated for Feature Article status, but we might as well use it as a reason to perform some spring-cleaning. I've made a first-pass effort, focusing on stripping-out poorly written sentences, POV, obvious original material, unreferenced and uncited work. I've tried to generally reduce the overall size of the article, and I've managed to get rid of a chunk of the 'trivia' facts. Summary of changes:

• Moved the Wearmouth bridge picture to the top right of the article. Many of the articles of large cities (i.e. London, New York City) have an iconic picture in this location.

• fine-tuned the population paragraph with some citations.

• Stripped down the 'Mackem' definition, as this is simply a duplication of large parts of the Mackem article itself.

• Cleaned up the geography section.

• Added a citation about the rememberance day memorial.

• Added citations to the history section, i.e. origin of name.

• Moved 'Cholera started in Sunderland' fact into main history section and expanded. Added source to references at bottom of page.

• Stripped out the 'Political Boundaries'section, as it as duplicate of a section on the City of Sunderland (borough) article. As a result, I have also taken out the two politics-related trivia facts and moved them over.

• Taken out the 'Doxford Disaster of 1966' section, as I can't find a reference to this anywhere. If someone can find one, then by all means put it back - but it should probably go in the history section.

• The amenities section was poorly written, and talked mainly about the pubs and clubs in the area. It added no real value and was unreferenced, so I removed it.

• The 'current Socio-Economic Development' section needed (and still needs) a big clean-up. I have removed unecessary lists of things such as shops in the Bridges and companies at Doxford International. I've added a citation for the Empire being the biggest theatre in the region. I've removed some POV regarding underground music and the fact big bands are 'unlikely' to return. The biggest section I removed was the 'impact of Sunderland AFC on the community'. This was largely POV and written like Original Research (attributing the resurgance in Sunderland to the success of the team). It was in a non-encylopedic tone, and repeated large chunks of the article anyway.

• Removed POV from the Transport section and added citations for the cutting of Metro services and Park Lane being the 2nd busiest bus station in the UK.

John the mackem 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Big improvements. We'll have to disperse the 'Other facts' section, because it's just a random collection at the moment. Why are there both 'notes' and 'references' sections? The current 'reference' section should be turned into inline citations as the relevant points, so that they an be cross-referenced like the others.

We should be able to get it up to GA. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JPS. The References \ Notes thing is something I have seen on other articles. Basically, the Notes section is direct in-line citations, while the References section is sources that have been used as background material for whole topics, rather than indivudal quotes. I suppose it's a little like a References \ Bibiliography you would add to the end of an essay. I'm not sure what the formal Wiki standard is - feel free to change as appropriate.

I agree about the the trivia facts - but I have tried where possible to merge into the article. I have an idea of turning the Media section into "Culture, Media & Sport" and dumping the T.S. Elliot, Lowry, and "Malice in Sunderland" trivia facts into there. What do you think? John the mackem 12:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, still not convinced about the notes/references thing... Essays shouldn't have separate bibliography/references sections either: that's a myth perpetrated by FE lecturers who don't understand the Harvard System properly.

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, the layout should be:

• Introduction
• History

• major historical events that occurred in city

• Law and government

• Mayor or City Executive-- current, previous executives
• representative body?

• Geography

• Physical geography (area, unique features)
• Major Parks

• Economy

• Major industries/products
• taxes

• Demographics

• city population
• racial/ethnic makeup
• religious makeup

• Sites of interest
• Colleges and universities
• Sports teams
• Notable natives
• (Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
• External links

The NuT article is sort-of following this. Sheffield is a FA, so I guess we should look at that as a guide. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Newcastle article seems a bit too waffly for me - and I think the Gallery is a bit over-the-top. The Sheffield one is very good though, strikes just the right balance I think. Good article to base Sunderland on.

I'll dig out some facts and figures and have a second-pass when I next get some spare time. As for the References\Notes, i'm quite happy for you to change it to the way it should be. John the mackem 12:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a look at the NuT article today and it's a bit fragmented. Would you like those references to be moved to the inline citations, rather than them being deleted? The JPS^{talk to me} 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the artle has now gone through a few dozen updates and is almost in line with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I've purposely left out the Local government and politics section as this clashes with the City of Sunderland article - a trend that runs throughout this article... For further improvements - in my opinion, the History section needs to be expanded and split into a 'History of Sunderland' article as it's a bit fragmented. At the very least, we could do with a good historical image. The Economy and Industry section could probably do with a tweak as well. Beyond that, I am open to suggestions as to how we can make this better? John the mackem 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wearside

I have recently created the Wearside article, if someone could have a look, add the necessary tags and help me build it, it would be greatly appreciated. Gazh 08:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A19 bridge

John the mackem. Are you sure the A19 bridge is within the City?. Regardless of the parish boundaries, I would say that the A19 bridge is outside the City. It overlooks Hylton to the East, but it is well outside the City itself. Bob BScar23625 13:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair question. I think it falls within the ward boundaries that mark the Sunderland urban area, and probably marks the outer-edge of the city. As Penshaw Monument is to the west of the A19, if we are classing the monument as part of Sunderland, then the A19 would be too. Depends which definition of the word 'city' you are using. John the mackem 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John. I am not going to the barricades over it, but the A19 bridge is outside the City, by any conventional standard. Bob BScar23625 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If Penshaw Monument is included then surely the A19 bridge must also be within the boundaries? The JPS^{talk to me} 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

JPS. The Penshaw Monument is a conspicuous local feature visible from several points within the City. It is also used as a vantage point from which to view the City. Just upstream from the A19 bridge is the Victoria Viaduct which carries the Leamside Branch over the river. I would say that the Penshaw Monument is feature of the City whereas the A19 bridge and the Victoria viaduct are not features. Bob BScar23625 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

lol. An inspired explanation. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

JPS. Well, let me put it another way. Does the A19 bridge "connect the two halves of the City"?. I suggest that the answer is "no" since it carries a by-pass road around the edge of the City. Bob BScar23625 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can evidence of the boundaries of the city be found? The JPS^{talk to me} 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

JPS. I am not too fussed about the precise boundaries of the City. The point is that there are only two road bridges connecting the North and South sides of the City. Nobody travelling from (say) Grangetown to Millfield would go round by the A19 bridge. The A19 is a by-pass road carrying traffic around the City. Bob BScar23625 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ps : While I am on, I notice that you have nominated Jaws 3 for Good Article status. I once sat through much of Jaws 3 and found it to be almost the worst film I have ever seen. I might fail your Jaws 3 article on that ground. BScar23625 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were travelling from Hylton to Pennywell or Grindon then I would say you would be more likely to take the A19 - in that respect, it does connect the two halves of the city. I think there needs to be a level of consistency in our explanation... there is already a high level of confusion over what goes into Sunderland article and what goes into the City of Sunderland met borough article.

The boundary of the Sunderland urban area is fairly vague (I took the ward population stats from here), but we should stick to that as a basis for inclusion - otherwise it just becomes us, as people from the area, arbitrarily picking what we think is in Sunderland and what isn't. No? John the mackem 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John. I take it the journey you refer to is from North Hylton to Pennywell?. I guess that, depending on exactly where in North Hylton and Pennywell the journey starts and ends, you might go round by the A19. But that is the most extreme case which accounts for far less than 1% of North-South journeys within the City. I maintain that the A19 bridge does not connect the North and South sides of Sunderland. Perhaps I am being pedantic?. Bob BScar23625 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be fussed over the precise boundaries of the city. It is in the spirit of a sourced encyclopedia. Common knowledge and assertions of 'conventional standards' are not within our remit. p.s. I am guessing that you are joking about failing Jaws 3 because you didn't like it. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

JPS. The article refers to road bridges "connecting the two halves of the City" and my contention is that only the QA and Monkwearmouth bridges do this. If the article were to refer to "local road bridges crossing the River Wear" then the A19 bridge comes within the latter definition.

The only films I have ever seen that are worse than Jaws 3 are classic stinkers like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "The Wild Women of Wongo". Plan 9 is so bad that they have even made documentary about it and a film about the making of it. I can see why there might be a Good Article on Plan 9 - but Jaws 3 ...?. Bob BScar23625 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the GA criteria. One's mere opinion on the subject is irrelevant to GA status. Indeed, several of the Halloween sequels (not generally considered to be the best in the world) have articles at featured status. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

JPS. Notability criteria are relevant here. A Good Article should relate to a film that is notable - either by being a good film or by being so bad that it becomes notable for that fact alone. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. There are very clear standards for Good Article status, and subjective opinions over a film's merit are not part of them, whether you like it or not. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As the bridge was built to bypass the County borough of Sunderland to the west, and there is a vast area of the City west of the bridge and the renamed A19 the problem is in defining the City - which is the whole of the metropolitan district created in 1974 and granted city status in 1992, and the former county borough.GarryQ12:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Garry. Maybe so, but by any standards of common sense the A19 bridge does not connect two halves of Sunderland. It carries the city by-pass. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Common sense" is a rhetorical concept. It has no factual standing. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JPS. Well, I guess that you and I must part company altogether at this point. regards. Bob BScar23625 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally use the bridge when travelling from Middle Herrington to North Hylton and i would not assume using that route constitutes me leaving the city to come back into it. gazh 14:37, 24 Apr 2007 (UTC).

The area to the west of the A19 is well within the city boundary, which includes Washington and of course the Nissan car plant. I also noticed an error in the population figures in the article. 177K? That figure excludes areas now within the City Of Sunderland boundary, ie Washington, Houghton-Le-Spring and Hetton-Le-Hole, and I'm not sure what relevence such a definition has to the city and its current boundary. The population is listed here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00CM.asp as 280807. This website also lists the population as 280807: http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/Public/Editable/Themes/theCity/Key-Statistics-Environment/Census/dfc-sunderland-revised-2007.pdf 85.211.68.228 17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Dave1966

Whilst the population of the City of Sunderland is indeed 280k, it is entirely erroneous to quote this as the population figure for the actual City. Sunderland proper had an official population of 177,739 in 2001. Please people, stop changing the figure of 177,739 to 280k on this page. If we residents of Sunderland don't understand the difference between the city proper and the metropolitan borough of the "City of Sunderland" (which incorporates the towns of Houghton, Hetton, Washington (parts of it) etc) and has it's own dedicated Wikipedia page, how can expect anyone else to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPBruce (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

B-Class

The article has been rated B-Class, although most of the negative comments seem to revolve around the fact we haven't used the city infobox. In my opinion, the city infobox is too American-biased, which is why most British cities have a different version. Oh well. Anyone got any suggestion on how to go forward, or should we request a reassesment!? :-) John the mackem 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Discussion

Sunderland - has undergone major rework over the last month. Advice on further improvements would be appreciated. Our target is GA quality. John the mackem 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rated B I reviewed the article and gave it a B rating. My comments are located at Talk:Sunderland/Comments. Alan.ca 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan, thanks for your comments. Most of the negative marks seem to revolve around the use of a infobox different from {{Infobox City}}. Sunderland uses {{Infobox England place}} which is the 'standard' for all towns and cities in England outside of central London, with the exceptions of cities which double as Metropolitan Boroughs which use a different template (i.e. Sheffield which is a Featured Article). I believe the reason is that {{Infobox City}} is considered too North-American-biased. If the Assessment is based on this sort of criteria, does this mean that no English city can ever be higher than B? If I want to push Sunderland to GA, do I have to reject the English template and adopt {{Infobox City}}? Incidentally, English cities generally don't have flags, and the seals and coat of arms belong to the metropolitan borough of the City of Sunderland rather than the Sunderland urban area. Incredibly confusing I know, but herein lies the problem of trying to categorise all the different 'types' of city all over the world into one infobox. John the mackem 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I used infobox City as an example. If you read my comments you will note that the underlying assertion is that the facts stated do not have their references cited. I suggest {{Infobox City}} for usage because it is the product of group collaboration and contains much of the information reviewers seek when examining an article. I make this reference because {{Infobox City}} includes what I like to see in an article. If your template or table has a method of presenting the references, I encourage you to use it. Alan.ca 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The most ethnically diverse ward of the city is the Thornholme area - just to the south of the city centre, an area that includes the suburbs of Ashbrooke and Eden Vale. Here, 89.4% are white, 7.8% are Asian and 1.3% are mixed-race.

I removed this as the ward was abolished in 2004. The majority of the Asian population in the ward live in an area now transferred to Hendon ward, but I have no details of the population breakdown for the post-2004 Hendon Ward. --garryq 14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Most demographic stats are based on the previous census, in this case 2001. I think this section adds value so I have replaced it - though in recognising the point about the ward no longer existing, I have amended the text accordingly. John the mackem 15:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I've placed the review on hold. It's made a lot of progress, but I think it needs some more work in places. Detailed comments:

• It needs copyediting (though I am American, and not completely familiar with the intricacies of usage in British English, so feel free to correct me). There are spots in the article where grammar is incorrect, or perhaps simply confusing to the reader. Specifically:

• "likely to be reference to the valley carved by the river Wear" might be better as "likely in reference to..."
• "Sunderland is divided into two by the River Wear which passes through the middle of the city in a deeply incised valley, part of which is known as the Hylton gorge," is one example of a sentence missing a comma, here between 'Wear' and 'which'. Please read through on the copyedit with an eye out for clauses lacking commas.
• "In actual fact this is not the case for the urban area called Sunderland..." is one example of sentences with extra words that could be removed while still maintaining the meaning of the sentence. This sentence could begin "In fact this is not the case..."
• "The area of Castletown is made up of 99.3% white, 0.4% Asian and 0.2% mixed-race," could be better put as "The area of Castletown is 99.3% white..."

• While GA does not absolutely require in-line citation, in an article of this length they should appear at least once per section. The following sections or sub-sections lack citation: Status; Geography; Ethnicity; Religion; 17th and 18th Centuries; Media, film, and television; Sport; Road; Cycle.
• With regard to the section on famous residents, please see Wikipedia:Embedded list.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the article's strengths, which include the broad coverage of the topic and the inclusion of excellent images. Let me know on my talk page when the edits are done. Good work so far. Mocko13 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some guidelines were mentioned previously on this talk as to ordering of content on city articles. However, UK Geography WikiProject offers alternate guidelines which may be more appropriate and consistent with other UK cities, towns and settlements. They are found at this page. Hope they help the article in achieving GA. Jhamez84 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Twin Cities

I was working on this article some time last year, and under the sister cities section added information about the friendship and town twinning between Washington DC and Sunderland. I have now realised that this has been removed, unless I've missed it somewhere. Is there any reason why it has been removed? It's quite common to have a section on sister cities, and I thought the partnership between Washington DC and Sunderland is quite interest, and is surely worthy of inclusion. hedpeguyuk 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, It has just been moved to city of sunderland. hedpeguyuk 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm afraid I've had to fail the article. The content of the article is excellent, but there are a lot of minor fixes needed and the referencing is poor:

1. If possible, replace dead web refs, such as refs 19 and 21.
2. There shouldn't be any citations in the lead, and the lead shouldn't contain any information not mentioned in the rest of the article.
3. "likely to be reference to the valley carved by the river Wear" — "river" should have a capital R.
4. When was it known as 'Sunderland-near-the-Sea'?
5. Capitals aren't needed in many of the words in the 'Employment in Sunderland by sector' table. Ampersands shouldn't be used either.
6. "Currently winners of the Football League Championship" — Phrases involving the word "currently" should be avoided as they eventually become outdated.
7. "top tier of English women's football - FA Women's Premier League" — the 'minus dash' after "football" should be replaced by an 'em dash'. Read Dash for the correct use of dashes. There are also other dashes in the article which need fixing.
8. "In 1589, salt began to be made" — years shouldn't be wikilinked unless they are accompanied by both the day and the month. Other years in the article also need to be fixed.
9. Complete dates in the footnotes also need to be linked.
10. Footnotes need to include the dates the articles were written or published, and also the publisher and writer.
11. "In 1897 Monkwearmouth officially became a part of Sunderland. Bishopwearmouth had long since been absorbed." — there shouldn't be any paragraghs in the article consisting of only one line.
12. "Sunderland has the motto of Nil Desperandum Auspice Deo loosely translated it means Don't Despair, Trust In God" — there shouldn't be any sections or subsections consisting of only one line.
13. "800 m runner Gavin Massingham" — there should be 'non-breaking spaces' between numbers and units. These kind of spaces can be placed by typing  .
14. "In 1719 the separate parish of Sunderland was carved" — sentences that begin "In ----" or "During ----" should have commas after the dates
15. There is an overuse of wikilinking throughout the article. Common words like 'democracy', 'prize', 'tickets' and 'fog' don't require linking.
16. Its probably best to remove the 'Victoria Hall Disaster' section and give it its own article. It goes into too much detail.
17. Words only need to be wikilinked once within each section.
18. "The town was the one of the most heavily bombed areas in England during World War II[16] ." — citations should be placed immediately after fullstops or commas.
19. The 'See also' templates should be moved to the top of the sections.
20. "6.7% of men and 3% of women are unemployed. 12.2% of men and 8.6% women are permanently sick or disabled. Immigration into Sunderland is 2.4%, emigration is 2.2%. 98.1% of the population are white, with 1% Asian and 0.4% mixed-race." — how do these compare nationally and when were these figures taken?
21. "Independent, a city centre nightclub/music venue" — Independent shouldn't be in italics
22. Citations are needed to confirm that each of the notable residents and bands came from Sunderland
23. All of these require citations:

    "Biscop's monastery was the first built of stone in Northumbria."

    "Wearmouth-Jarrow became a major centre of learning and knowledge in Anglo-Saxon England with a library of around 300 volumes."

    "While at the monastery, Bede completed the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People) in 731, a feat which earned him the title: The father of English history."

    "by the middle of the ninth century the monastery had been abandoned."

    "From as early as 1346 ships were being built at Wearmouth"

    "As early as 1100, the Bishopwearmouth parish included a small fishing village at the mouth of the river"

    "In 1589, salt began to be made in Sunderland."

    "Only poor quality coal was used in salt panning; quality coal was traded via the port, which subsequently began to grow."

    "When the civil war began, the mainly Protestant Sunderland sided with Parliament against the primarily Catholic Newcastle."

    "In 1719 the separate parish of Sunderland was carved from the densely populated east end of Bishopwearmouth"

    "when cholera broke out in 1831 the "select vestrymen", as the church councilmen were called, showed themselves completely unable to understand and cope with the epidemic."

    "The first victim, William Sproat, died on October 23, 1831."

    "it rapidly spread across the country killing an estimated 32,000 people"

    "Demands for democracy and organised town government saw the Borough of Sunderland created in 1836, although impatient citizens elected Andrew White to be Mayor in December 1835."

    "much of the town centre was rebuilt in an undistinguished concrete utility style."

    "On March 24, 2004, the City adopted St Benedict Biscop as its patron saint. A patron had never been adopted before."

    "On average, it is around 80 metres above sea level."

    "with 70% of its population living on the south side of the river and 30% on the north side."

    "Sunderland is prone to sea fog known locally as Fret."

    "A Rabbi from Holland was established in the city in 1790."

    "In recent years, a thriving underground music scene in Sunderland has helped the likes of The Futureheads and Field Music gain national recognition."

    "In the past it has also welcomed major bands such as The Beatles and The Kinks."

    "The Manor Quay, the students' union on the campus of the University of Sunderland has also hosted the Arctic Monkeys, the Levellers and Girls Aloud in the past three years." — this will also become outdated

    "and it is considered the company's north-east home."

    "Renowned film producer David Parfitt belonged to this company before achieving worldwide fame."

    "Utopia FM has recently won awards for innovation and broadcasts for part of the year."

    "along the sea front at Roker and Seaburn, and is attended by over 1.2 million people annually"

    "Sunderland also hosts the free International Festival of Kites, Music and Dance"

    "HMS Ocean, an active Helicopter Landing Platform of the Royal Navy, is Sunderland's adopted ship"

    "As such, Sunderland has been awarded prestigious titles by the Britain in Bloom collective in 1993, 1997 and 2000."

    "Sunderland also has the north-east's top women's football team"

    "Sunderland had an Ice Hockey team from 1977 until the late 1990s when the ice rink at the Crowtree leisure centre was closed."

    "From 1976 until 1995, Sunderland had a Basketball team, winners of the national championship in 1981."

    "A multi-million pound transport interchange at Park Lane was opened on 2 May 1999"

    "and has won several awards for innovative design."

    "a stretch that commonly suffers from congestion,"

    "Glass has been made in Sunderland for around 1,500 years."

Once these are fixed, it should easily pass GA. Epbr123 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rainfall figures are suspiciously low

The temperature data is plausible, but the rainfall figures seem absurdly low – an annual total of 363 mm would be less than that of Alicante, Spain. AFAIK nowhere in the UK has less than 500 mm annual rainfall.

I've confirmed that the error was not introduced by Wikipedia, but is present also in the original source data on MSN. --GCarty 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to UK Climate it says "Rainfall amounts can vary greatly across the United Kingdom and generally the further west and the higher the elevation, the greater the rainfall. The Lake District is one of the wettest places in the UK with an average annual rainfall total that exceeds 2000 mm. The counties of Essex and Cambridgeshire are amongst the driest in the British Isles, with an average annual rainfall of around 600 mm.". That sounds right to me.

By my calculation, the MSN source (MSN) suggests an average annual rainfall in Sunderland of 36.05cm or 361mm. That sounds far too low. Here is my guess as to what has gone wrong. I have always believed annual rainfall in Sunderland to be around 36 inches per year - that is around 915mm. Do the numbers offer a clue?. Bob BScar23625 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A Sunderland City Council webpage gives an annual total of 590mm. --GCarty 08:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Could be true, but even 590mm sounds low to me. That would make Sunderland one of the driest places in the country, which I don't think it is. Bob BScar23625 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The 360 mm figure is definitely wrong. The lowest annual rainfall of anywhere in the UK is 466 mm in east Essex. (Rainfall Amount Annual Average). This Met Office map shows that Sunderland is in the broad range of 466–640 mm. I don't know why the MSN source was used in the first place, it is obviously not reliable. If a source from an official weather station in Sunderland can be found, than that should be used, if not, then the rainfall figures could be worked out from the Met Office Maps, or a nearby Met Office weather station could be used for precise figures, such as the one in Durham. The MSN source needs to go though. Rossenglish 08:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunderland is one of the driest places in England due to the Pennines rain shadow cast over our region. Most of the precipitation coming in from the Atlantic hits Manchester and the Lakes and falls there, leaving little for us. Sunderland should be one of the driest places but probably not the driest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.71.211 (talk)

The Climate statement is certainly wrong and should be pulled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.37.166 (talk) 23:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

GA?

This is clearly a well looked-after and highly regarded article - particularly for the NE WikiProject. However, I was a little worried by some of the structuring and formatting of the article, as well as a lot of confusion within the article between Sunderland and the City of Sunderland.

In an effort to drive this towards GA, in addition to some more advanced editting features, I've applied some of the WP:UKCITIES standard for layout, but someone with local knowledge will have to take things further with regards to content.

Try to take a look at some British geography successes for some ideas on sentence structure and types of content one would expect (which use WP:UKCITIES); Manchester, Dundee, Sheffield, Sheerness, Chew Stoke, Shaw and Crompton, Brownhills, Blyth. Hope this helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just made a couple of minor tweaks. The most major (controversial?) is removing the 'Notable people' section. We have the "List of..." article, and it is POV to select some of those. Some of the articles Jza84 mentions don't have such a section. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Of Sunderland, future developments

Shouldn't there be more info related to the future developments such as the proposed plans for a sky scraper 'Spirit of Sunderland' and new bridges over the Wear connecting the North and South of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.189.78 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You can download a PDF of the plans for future developments here, which include the spirit of Sunderland etc.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.189.78 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

History of Sunderland

Since other cities and large settlements have a whole unique about their history, I think sunderland could do with one as there is a lot of detailed history about the city. 81.154.104.153 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable Residents

This section has been hijacked and replaced by an eclectic choice of a few Sunderland people treated in great and unnecessary detail.

The proper list of residents has been relegated to a link and isn't therefore in the box at all.

Bandalore (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion

In the religion section it lists 81% Christian. Can this be split into sub-sections: COE and other as I gather that this is a hotbed of papism? Stutley (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "irreligious" is used incorrectly here. "Irreligious" means someone who actively defies or denies some religion or other. Basically, someone who makes a point of making an arsehole of themselves. I suspect that most people classified as "irreligious" in the article are in fact "unreligious" or "non-religious". The term "irreligious" is vaguely insulting, to my mind....

(....and don't let Wikipedia's link to what they call "irreligion" fool you....THEY'RE wrong too...)

It's similar to the whole "uninterested"/"disinterested" thing....these are used interchangeably, and generally incorrectly. I blame the parents/schools/rap-music/gang-culture/Elton Wellesby/Scientology/the downfall of society, myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Name

The Sunderland is indeed from Anglo-Saxon "sunder-land" meaning "split land", however, it is not a reference to the wear valley. It is a reference to the fact that on one side we have Monkwearmouth and the other, Bishopwearmouth. Yes they were built 300 or so years apart but that is how it got its name.

Also Sunderland was outside of the Danish influenced area by some 40 miles, then a fair distance, and whomever posted the "Danish for southern land" is wrong. "Southern land" in Danish is "syderland", "sønder" does not exist in Danish. Furthermore, at the time of Sunderland's founding, Danish was merely a dialect of Old Norse and thus, it is ridiculous to say "sønderland" is Danish for "southern land" in relation to the etymology of "Sunderland". The Old Norse for "southern land" is "suðrland" (Anglicised to "Soderland" and used in reference to the Isle of Man and the Western Isles when under Norwegian control). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.44.247 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolly Bus

I see "Citation Needed". I think anyone from the area would know that it probably doesn't need debating. There are not many articles online, but the South Hylton History Society mention it, [2], as does the BBC [3]. Do these links cut the mustard (I'd never say that back home in Sunderland)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickt (talk • contribs) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the mention of 'Jolly bus', the thing that needs citing isn't so much the existence of the buses (which have their own article) but the claim that the Metro led to the demise. Do you have any sources for this cause and effect (Metro arrival and Jolly demise)? Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. The feeling was in South Hylton is that the Metro led to it's demise, but I suppose that's circumstantial. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickt (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the Metro wasn't established in South Hylton until a good six years or so after the last last Jolly bus ran, I doubt it was for this reason. In my opinion, it was probably due to the competitive nature of Stagecoach, but I have no sources to support this. Craigy (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of cities

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England#City_disambiguation that affects this article. If passed, it would alter some of the links to this article and related content. The full details and rationale are found at WT:ENGLAND. Sunderland is of particular importance in that it has been tabled to be the first to be restructured as part of the changes. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted this proposal this afternoon. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now there are about 1,300 other Wikipedia articles that used to link to this article but now link to the Sunderland disambiguation page instead. These all need to be fixed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been to Sunderland (not literally!) and I must say the current arrangement of that large disambiguation page leaves a great deal to be desired. Unfortunately I've missed out on the above debate and maybe it will be said that I had my chance to comment on the proposal by Jza84 but didn't. Never mind, I'm looking at it now and it is bad! Obviously the vast majority of people interested in "Sunderland" are looking for information on the city - the city proper, not the wider area. I cannot understand why the wider area of Sunderland city is the "lead" at the disambiguation; it will cause confusion and readers will go there when really they want information on the city itself. Few people will be interested in the article on the wider government area, and it would not detract from Wikipedia if that article didn't even exist; not so for the article on the city - that is the one people will be looking for. Therefore 'Sunderland' should refer to the city, and there should be a banner hatnote to take the reader to other uses of the term via the (large) disambiguation, including the article on the wider area. Reading the debate above it seems the recent change has been been driven by the preferences of a few editors rather than the needs of the readers. LevenBoy (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of this is covered at WT:ENGLAND. An important element of this is that Sunderland (proper) is not a city. It does not have city status. The City of Sunderland is a city, that has city status (the clue is in the title) - only local government districts, civil parishes or places with formal boundaries established by charter trustees can have city status. Forcing the settlement on readers is not only arbitary (given there is clear ambiguation around the name), but caused confusion that the settlement was a city ("Sunderland is a city and part of the city of Sunderland"!?). The "fact" that it is "obvious" people want "the city" and that "few people are interested in the government area" is not only based on this very confusion but is not grounded in any evidence anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot follow that logic at all. Whatever you want to call the city - settlement, city, or anything else - doesn't really matter. What matters is what the readers are interested in. As I noted, most readers are interested in "Sunderland" and for most people that means the city, not the wider area. I actually have no evidence that most readers are interested in Sunderland, proper, but I bet they are because it's common sense, and I bet they will now be mildly irritated by the present cumbersome and unnecessary arrangement. LevenBoy (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

--What evidence is this based on? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did say that I haven't got any evidence. It's just common sense; knowing what people are likely to be interested in. However, it occurred to me that page view statistics may shed some light on it. Unfortunately in many cases, such as Sunderland, there is so much confusion that the stats could be misleading. That said, I looked up a few and here they are (month of October, to date):

• Sheffield 19058
• Sheffield Urban Area 346
• Sheffield City Region 189

• Bradford 9555
• City of Bradford 1097

• Manchester City Council 537
• Greater Manchester 8524
• Manchester 41533

• City of Lancaster 834
• Lancaster, Lancashire 3773

These particular examples comprise a mix of "systems" where, for example, Lancaster is accessed via a disambiguation page but the others aren't. The Sheffield articles are clear in their content, much more so than Bradford, where perhaps some readers got to City of Bradford when they wanted to go to Bradford (maybe even vice versa). However, the trend is clear: many more readers are interested in the city/central conurbation/ major settlement, whatever you want to call it, than are interested in the wider areas or the local government entities. Therefore I suggest this idea of the disambiguation page is taken no further, and maybe in the case of Sunderland reversed, or at least reviewed after one month; page access stats may then be relevant. As said earlier, if the vast majority of readers are interested in one particular strand of a concept, then that strand should not be on a disambiguation page, but should have a link to the relevant disambiguation page via a hat-note. LevenBoy (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a flawed interpretation of the research; it assumes that the amount of views equates to what readers are interested in. It can be contested by the fact that (for example) Bradford takes primacy over the City of Bradford - readers are forced to read about the settlement (what you keep wrongly calling a city) when they search for Bradford. Sheffield is a "catch all" article per WP:UKDISTRICTS and is not comparable to Sunderland. Choose something with disambiguation (Salford or Carlisle), and one sees results much more balanced. Infact, I think this research about imbalanced page views adds value to the disambiguation anyway - we're sending forcing readers to articles about settlements when there is clear ambiguity around the names of these places. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. Of course City of Salford and Salford (proper) are going to be close - because of the confusion; and in the case of Salford, City of Salford is at the top of the disambiguation list as well. To the reader who is interested in, shall we say "the place", they may well go to City of Salford, as a result of most people considering Salford to be a city (whether or not it is, is not at all relevant to the point I'm trying to make). Manchester is perhaps the clearest example of what I'm trying to say. The three articles noted have clear titles and the page counts show without a shadow of a doubt that many more readers are interested in the place than the wider area or the council (or by implication, any council area, whether it be referred to as a city or not). The analysis as it stands is by no means "scientific" but the trend is very apparent. LevenBoy (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's the situation at Newcastle. Again it points to what readers are interested in:

• Newcastle (disambig) 5500
• Newcastle upon Tyne 20900
• Tyne and Wear 3910
• Newcastle City Council 290

LevenBoy (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It shows how many views a page recieved within a specified timeframe. What readers are more interested in is merely assumed by yourself. Manchester is a catch all article per WP:UKDISTRICTS and is not comparable to Salford or Sunderland. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If one page gets more hits than another it is highly likely it does so because more readers are interested in it. Only in exceptional circumstances would that not be the case. Anyway, the data from the Newcastle pages is interesting. There is no confusion about subject matter; each page has an unambiguous title and it shows that the article about the settlement gets five times as many hits as the article about the wider area, and this is virtually the same for Manchester. Again there is no confusion; readers wanting information about the wider area will go to Greater Manchester and those interested in the conurbation will go to Manchester. As for Lancaster, that is also interesting. The settlement gets more hits, probably becuase its article features prominently at the top of the disambiguation page, thereby reducing the possibility of confusion to a certain extent. This is not the case for Carlisle, where the disambiguation page fosters confusion, hence the closer tally of page views in that case. To me it is clear; the disambiguation pages promote confusion. Where there is no disambiguation (e.g Newcastle) it is clear what the readers' requirements are. And because of that clarity we can say that the present attempt to disambiguate place names like Sunderland is adopting flawed logic. I strongly recommend there is no more of it. Incidentally - Jza84 - where is the evidence to back up the assertions you've made to support your case? LevenBoy (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I can't believe what I'm seeing. It doesn't make any sense. I don't know where to begin!

You're suggesting that people are interested in Manchester more than Greater Manchester right? Fine. And Newcastle more than Tyne and Wear. Fine (well it isn't... because page clicks account for traffic not interest). But what's that got to do with the situation of Sunderland? Are you saying that Manchester is the common name for Manchester and that the hatnote for Greater Manchester should be adopted for Newcastle? So people who are interested in Newcastle search for what? -- Newcastle? And get a dab page, and then no hatnote for Tyne and Wear?.... It's got nothing to do with disabiguating two distinct entities that share the same common name.

And what if Manchester has more links in an article, generating more clicks? What if it featured on the main page in a news item or a DYK link? What if Lancaster, Lancashire has more links, or more editors edit it, or have it watchlisted, or it features in the news? Is there a settlement in the City of Manchester called Manchester?

Why should we force the settlement on the reader as the primary topic? Why should it not be the city? Why should neither take primacy but instead be properly disambiguated.

What is your basis that the dab page for Carlisle causes, or "promotes" confusion? What is there to be confused about? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm finding it difficult to understand some of the points you're making. Nevertheless, I'll try to address them tomorrow. In the mean time you might care to address my request to you for evidence to back up your assertions. "Why should we force the settlement on the reader as the primary topic?" No one is forcing anything on anybody. The settlement should be the primary topic because, as I've now said several times, more readers are interested in it. LevenBoy (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence was the article structure, of course! I'm not claiming anything about readers - you are! "Sunderland" was occupied by an article about one of two distinct and verifiable concepts of a place. One, the settlement, took the primary spot without any rationale other than a chance set-up in 2004. When the media, for instance, says "Sunderland", it may mean the city - the district - or the place; it is an ambiguous name that has to be disambiguated per our rules because they each hold weight and claim to the title. So, there's the evidence (it is undisputable fact to be honest). Can you please answer my major concerns about your POV. I have no idea what you're advocating and what evidence it's based on. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to continue this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#City disambiguation. I'll respond there. LevenBoy (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy! I've just read Sunderland, Tyne and Wear and City of Sunderland. What a bloody mess! Confusion, duplication, probably a great deal of POV and because of all this, poor quality material and thoroughly unencyclopedic in its structure. There is surely a case for PRODing one of these articles. 141.6.11.11 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Why are there two articles in the first place? Leeds is a lot less baffling now its equivalent articles have been combined. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

--Against consensus, verifiability and WP:UKDISTRICTS. There are two articles because they are distinct. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

They are terrible, but I believe they can be salvaged. See City of Salford and Salford, Greater Manchester or City of Carlisle and Carlisle, Cumbria. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 80 metres, use 80 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 80 metres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)