Talk:Tees Valley

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tees Valley. 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/20060715060843/http://www.teesvalley-jsu.gov.uk/tvsp/STRUCTURE%20PLAN.pdf to http://www.teesvalley-jsu.gov.uk/tvsp/STRUCTURE%20PLAN.pdf

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) 22:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Valley?

One of the most obvious things about the Tees Valley area that we dont cover is that it isn't a valley. Should we? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article and the Teesside article

A lot of the "History" section was moved from Teesside by User:Chocolateediter. It's left that article very scant, and this article confused. I think it would be more appropriate for these changes to be reverted, as Teesside is the actual area (as opposed to "Tees Valley", a recent grouping of councils for local government convenience). To keep a better division of things, it might be better to only touch on the history of local government (not general history) in this article.

Also, a lot of it can be delegated in the form Template:See also or Template:Main article to Cleveland, England, which more comprehensively discusses the history of local government in this area of the country. --Inops (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Inops: I agree I made history section too big I will move content out to Cleveland and Teesside. Tees Valley, Teesside, Cleveland and Langbaugh were all political entities for the area so either and culture article is set up or the current entity (Tees Valley) gets most current information. Teesside as a name has a heavy industrial link so the article gets that information. Cleveland is more historic than the others and is more nature toned. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. Teesside has never been a political area, nor was Cleveland before the 1974 county (it's a traditional [and ill-defined] division of the North Riding). The history should go where it's most relevant, and that's at Teesside and Cleveland, England. I feel like it would be cleanest to just revert. --Inops (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I said I was moving information out and you dis-proved your own point. The second Teesside was the statistical section of the North East England region so it was political just less prominent due to the boroughs being independent but was definitely political why else would south Teesside be grouped with Northumberland and County Durham for broadcasters and south Humber for Yorkshire. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What is needed is a clean-up of North East England article it is way to big. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I will give an example as to what I think the area is then I will wind down my editing in the article:

Northumbria=Saxonlands

Yorkshire Ridings=Sussex (ER), Essex (NR) and Wessex (WR)

Langbaugh and Norton=old London Town and old Winchester

1st Cleveland =Middlesex

1st Teesside and 2nd Cleveland =Surrey(Southern Middlesex) and 2nd Middlesex

Middlesbrough and Stockton= London city and Winchester City

Teesside and its satellite towns= Greater London and Home Counties

Tees Valley=Thames Estuary and modern London Chocolateediter (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It seems like your own interpretation of things, which would be WP:Original Research. Also what is "1st Cleveland" and "1st Teesside" etc? I see you've used those kinds of descriptions as section headers in Teesside. --Inops (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the text in those sections. The content on the articles before I touched them had all the information I collected the names, sorted dates then put them into in appropriate articles. They has been 2 political areas called Teesside and 2 called Cleveland each alternating in name through time then a grey time when both names became names of parts of the region which exist in name but have not legal status.

I never alter information most is straight forward and I look at links to gain the information of the running of entities. I will change the headers of first and second to clarify what it is being said.

I’ll add references. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that we are getting very confused here and a revert may be in order to restore some semblance of order. I have reverted changed to Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) which implies a recreation but there does not appear to be any such thing. I have also reverted change to point County of Cleveland redirect to Teesside as that appear to be incorrect and should be Cleveland, England. Keith D (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been speculating to myself where everybody lives. ha. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Tees Valley Combined Authority?

This article has a lot of overlap with the Tees Valley Combined Authority article. Other Combined Authority articles do not distinguish the Combined Authority from the Combined Authority area in this way. Either the articles should be merged or the information belonging specifically to the Combined Authority (ie. The Tees Valley website link in the infobox) should be moved to Tees Valley Combined Authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark63424 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Tees Valley into Teesside. I think the content in Tees Valley can easily be explained in the context of Teesside, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Teesside. Tees Valley should then be disambiguated since Teesdale is also called Tees Valley. (Teesside hasn’t got discussions in talk yet so thought to put it here) Chocolateediter (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The two areas are distinct from one another. Tees Valley includes Hartlepool and Darlington but Teesside does not. Eopsid (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Teesside Airport and Teesside University in Darlington

Hartlepool Marina was developed by Teesside Development Corporation . Chocolateediter (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Airports are usually named for where they serve not where they are and universities can have campuses outside of their namesake areas. The County Borough of Teesside didn't include hartlepool or Darlington. Eopsid (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It didn't include Ingleby Barwick, Marske or Saltburn. Chocolateediter (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (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.