Talk:Sunderland

Anglo-Saxon etymology

(Now deleted.) No infinitive soender is currently listed in ang.wiktionary. 99.237.143.219 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Population of Sunderland

The population of Sunderland in this article is wrong, Sunderland takes in the area of Washington which is part of the city of Sunderland. Therefore the total population of the city is 275,506 and not 174,286. Please can this be changed as it is providing a lot of problems and having adverse effects for the City.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.42.197 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your right, the City of Sunderland has a population of 275,506. However, this article is about the 'core settlement' of Sunderland if that's a good way to describe it, the former county borough or modern day ONS Urban Subdivision (USD). Yes, I guess the population figure could be changed as it's the wider borough that's been given city status, rather than just USD that this article is about. Although, locals wouldn't really consider places like Washington, Houghton le Spring etc as part of the settlement itself especially due to greenbelt and the A19 being between these settlements, but obviously they are part of the wider city. I guess there are two definitions for Sunderland.--2.26.154.4 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is the title of this page "Sunderland, Tyne and Wear"?

Why not just "Sunderland"

The Newcastle Upon Tyne page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Newcastle_upon_Tyne) doesn't have the defunct county name in its title.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.56.150 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Because there is no primary meaning for Sunderland without a disambiguator, see Sunderland for the possible uses for the word. Keith D (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is caused by the conflict between City of Sunderland, which is about the modern city (originally the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland, which gained city status in 1992), and Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, which is about the former County Borough of Sunderland (one of the four components that were amalgamated to form the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland), which still has a distinct local identity due to the fact that it is surrounded by Green Belt.

None of the other places called Sunderland has a sizeable population (I think the largest is Sunderland, Massachusetts with 3,684), and all of the other things on the disambiguation page have their own distinct names anyway, so I don't think there is any other justification for not moving this article to Sunderland. There is certainly precedent here - for instance, London is about London, England even though other Londons exist, e.g. London, Ontario.

The only question, then, is how to resolve Sunderland, Tyne and Wear vs City of Sunderland. I can see two main options here:

1. Merge the articles. However, this would create an imbalance, as Hetton-le-Hole, Houghton-le-Spring, and Washington would still have their own articles, even though they were also amalgamated into the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland.
2. Move Sunderland, Tyne and Wear to Sunderland, with the justification that (a) most people who talk about Sunderland are referring to the former County Borough, and (b) most people talking about Washington, Houghton or Hetton would name those places explicitly. I would argue that the most important principle when categorising encyclopaedic information should be to use names and referents that are relatively timeless and widely accepted, which makes local and historical identity more important than local government boundaries, which are frequently changing and not always well understood.

Again, there is precedent here, with the London article existing in addition to Greater London and City of London - and the focus of the former article being on the generally-understood identity-based meaning of London, while the latter two articles go into detail on the current local government arrangements. For instance, the main London article refers to it as the "most populous city of England and the United Kingdom", even though technically the only parts of London with city status are the City of London and the City of Westminster, neither of which is very populous by city standards.

The article already includes a link to Sunderland (disambiguation) at the top. Also, the link to City of Sunderland (also at the top) ensures that people who want that article would not be inconvenienced by the move. I think that this is the best option overall.

This would require an administrator to help with deleting articles so that the necessary moves can take place (delete Sunderland (disambiguation) (the redirection page); move Sunderland --> Sunderland (disambiguation); delete Sunderland (the redirection page that was auto-created by the move); move Sunderland, Tyne and Wear --> Sunderland).

-Spacemartin (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sunderland/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.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==WikiProject Cities== Rated B Positive 42 References, formatted properly by using the citation templates. Negative In the similiar {{Infobox City}} template, the footnote citation sections have not been utilized to verify facts. Figures such as population should have their references included. Much of the population and land area data is missing from the varied {{Infobox City}}. {{Infobox City}} has not be utilized in this article. Using a standard infobox helps keep articles consistent and easier to read. Photographs are sized using px values. Keep in mind that what looks good on your monitor may not be appropriate for others viewing the encyclopedia at different resolutions. Further, large photographs obstruct the readability of the text. Considering removing the px sizing info and allow all thumbs to appear on the right. City flag, coat of arms and seal are absent from the infobox. Excessive usage of subsections obscure the readability of the text and make the table of contexts unnecessarily long. Consider consolidating subsections under one larger heading by use of well written paragraphs.

Last edited at 12:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sunderland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion may now be found at Talk:Sunderland (disambiguation). – wbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Kbb2: Wouldn't the medial schwa drop be covered by H:IPAE § Note 32.? It seems to me that /ərl/, /ərn/ and /ərm/ in most cases are reduced to syllabic /əl/, /ən/ and /əm/ respectively. For instance, LPD gives the UK pronunciation as /ˈsʌnd ə lənd →-^əl ənd/, while CEPD gives only /ˈsʌn.d^əl.ənd/. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Maczkopeti: It is covered by that note. My mistake. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Mackem nickname

It is wrong to say that this name originated as late as the 1980s. I well remember my Dad taking me to a Sunderland-Newcastle derby match in either 1966 or 1967 (when I was 5 years old) and explaining to me on the train (from Newcastle to Seaburn) that the people who supported Sunderland were called, in his words, 'mackems and tackems' which he explained was because they said 'mak' and 'tak' instead of 'make' and 'take'. There was no animosity in this whatsoever and my Dad and Grandad, along with many other Geordies, were in the habit of going to see whichever team was playing at home despite being firm Newcastle supporters. You could argue that shortening this to just 'Mackem' might be more recent, but this shortened form was certainly used in the 1970's. Maybe people from Sunderland didn't embrace it until later... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.4.31 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Bryan Talbot's Alice in Sunderland (which examines both the history of the area and Charles Dodgson's links with it), "The nickname . . . dates from the days of shipbuilding. In the accent and spelling used by Carroll in Sylvie and Bruno, the phrase is "There's those who mak' em and those who tak' em"." This suggest that it was in use at least before 1900. I've also seen the phrase in the form "We mak'em, you tak'em." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Derivation of "Sunderland"

"In 685, Ecgfrith further granted Biscop the land adjacent to the monastery on the south side of the river. As the river separated this land from the monastic community, it was henceforth referred to as the "sunder-land", . . . ."

This general explanation is widely known, but I note that the source cited (a page on a website authored by David Simpson, about whom we do not have an article) actually attributes the grant to King Aldfrith (who succeeded his half-brother Ecgfrith in 685) and presents the "separated by the river" meaning as only one of three "possible" explanations, the others being (a) that the parcel of land in question was "sundered" from a larger landholding, and (b) that the coastal area in question was broken up or "sundered" by wooded valleys.

(I note in passing that we also state in this article:

"Indeed, Bede later wrote that he was "ácenned on sundorlande þæs ylcan mynstres" (born in a separate land of this same monastery); here, "sundorlande" translates literally as "separate land" but could refer to the village of Sunderland."

Bede was born in 672/3, so if the latter is the correct interpretation he was using a name that supposedly originated at least 12 years after his birth and 3 years after he had moved from Monkwearmouth to help build the new co-monastery at Jarrow.)

Another explanation perhaps equally plausible is that the name could have meant "Southern land", (i.e. land on the South side of the River Wear?): in modern Danish "Sønderjylland" refers to the southern half of the Jutland peninsula. Even if the coming of the Danes en masse to North-East England in the 9th century (see Danelaw) is too late for an origin, it might have reinforced an existing name which in Old English/Anglo-Saxon would not have been very different, as the Angles themselves had come from Denmark (as was) as recently as the 5th and 6th centuries.

This last is of course speculation, or Original Research, on my part (and I do not assert that only one origin of the name is possible, as multiple ideas can coalesce), but I suggest that it, as well as the three explanations above, should be looked into more deeply, and that additional and/or possibly more authoritative Reliable sources would be desirable.

In any case, the current situation is that our lede currently gives only one of the three possibilities mentioned in the source cited, and names a different king.

FWIW, here is the full entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names by A. D. Mills (OUP 2nd Ed 1998, page 333):

Sunderland, usually 'detached estate',

OE sundor-land: Sunderland Cumbria.

Sonderland 1278. Sunderland Tyne &

Wear. Sunderland c. 1168.

However, the following has a

different origin: Sunderland, North

Northum. Sutherlannland 12th cent.

'Southern cultivated land'. OE sütherra + land.

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Why 2 Metro sections?

There are two sub-headings of 'Metro', one standing alone under Transport and one under Rail. I propose merging these two sections into one under the Rail heading. - Aelfgifu (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Sunderland Blitz

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.

To improve rather than merge Sunderland Blitz; independently notable despite being currently short. Klbrain (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Not clear to me that the experience of The Blitz in Sunderland is worthy of a stand-alone article – at present the Sunderland Blitz is only five sentences which could be easily reduced to two and included in the history section here. A redirect could be used to the Sunderland history section. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, I'd respectfully disagree, for several reasons.

1. The topic is rather notable, having a 128 page book, somewhere in between a passing mention and in depth cover on the BBC (1 2), an article in SR News, supposedly in-depth mention in various other places, such as Ray 1996. If you would just give me several weeks, my local library would open up (after covid-19 passes) and I could get Ray's book to expand the article.
2. Many of the other articles on the blitz in various UK locales were hit a similar amount, and it is shown that coverage exists of those, so certainly there is coverage of Sunderland if one but looks hard enough

(Also, it's polite to notify involved users when proposing a merge- that has the added benefit of A) encouraging people to respond to the discussion and B) involved editors actually know the article is nominated for merging Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Current quality of an article on a large topic is no reason to merge. The topic is certainly big enough to justify a standalone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Eddie891: If there are reliable sources to demonstrate notability, that's all that matters. My somewhat precursory search didn't reveal much, hence the merge tag. FWIW in cases like these where you have an intention to work further on an article there's two options: (a) be patient and don't publish early, use your sandbox to develop the piece further or (b) tag an early piece as under construction, leave a group of links to RSs on the talk page and invite other editors to contribute via the talk page links (eg using the comment parameter in the {{Under construction}} template to direct others to the talk page). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Goldsztajn, Fair enough. I'd be fine with merging the article for now and I can expand the article in userspace, or we can just leave it for a few weeks until I can get around to my library (i.e. the library opens up). Let me know what you think. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891Apologies for the delayed reply. I'm AGF-ing and happy to be patient for your changes; no need to create more work which will then need to be reverted when the article is expanded. My only request is that at present there is an ambiguity between the first and fourth sentences. The first indicates the Sunderland Blitz was from 1940 to 1941 and then the fourth sentence describes bombing ending in 1943; can this be clarified/fixed?--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, seems like bombing of the city may have ended in 1943, but the 'blitz' itself ended in 1941... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891 The ambiguity stems from the fact that The Blitz is commonly used to cover a specific period (viz 1940-41), which the article's title and first sentence reinforce, whereas the subsequent content of the article suggests that it will be about the bombing of Sunderland throughout World War II. Again, I have not done much research, but during The Blitz (proper) it seems there was only a single bombing raid on Sunderland (which was from what my original suggestion for merging stemmed). However, subsequent to The Blitz (proper), it seems Sunderland was more heavily targeted. So, for example, the articles Bath Blitz, Plymouth Blitz, Hull Blitz all use an introduction which avoids the ambiguity here. I'm just suggesting to reframe the language similarly so as to avoid that.

References

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, well, let's be honest, written. However, the topic is definitely notable enough for an article of its own. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2020 (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.

Merger Proposal - 'City of Sunderland'

The following discussion 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.

---

I know this was touched on in 2017, but I'd like to discuss the topic properly and propose that City of Sunderland be merged into this article.

Outside of the History and City Government sections, the vast, vast majority of that article's content is already present in this one, and in fact much of it seems to have been copied and pasted - there are several identical sentences such as "Sunderland has two local newspapers: the daily evening tabloid The Sunderland Echo, founded in 1873, and the Sunderland Star—a free newspaper." Merging would therefore be fairly easy, would knock out a lot of duplicate content, and would not excessively lengthen the Sunderland article.

Five years ago @Spacemartin argued that a merger would create an imbalance as Washington, Hetton and Houghton would still have their own articles despite also being part of the City of Sunderland borough. This is true, but in my view this makes sense; those are three smaller towns to the west of Sunderland populated by self identified Mackems, and their being part of the City of Sunderland is due to the fact that they are peripheral towns of Sunderland. To use an analogy, we have no City of Newcastle upon Tyne article, because that article's purpose is served by the Newcastle upon Tyne article. However, there is additionally a Jesmond article and a Gosforth article, because those are areas of Newcastle notable in a different context to the city at large.

Martin also cited the existence of both the London and Greater London articles as precedent for keeping the City of Sunderland article. However, I disagree with that sentiment for the reason that (and as a proud Northumbrian it pains me to say this) London is a far more notable and important city than Sunderland, and London's political structure is therefore much more deserving of its own article than Sunderland's. A better comparison would be Newcastle, and as I have said, there is no City of Newcastle upon Tyne page - if Newcastle, a larger and more important city (sorry Sunderland) has no City Of page, and with the two cities sharing essentially the same political history since 1970 as two boroughs of Tyne & Wear, it seems silly that Sunderland would have one.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I'd appreciate some input from others. JayAmber (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge as nominator. JayAmber (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You likely forget that the towns of Houghton and Hetton have their own town councils and were towns way before the City of Sunderland was formed. Washington was founded as a new town around the same time as Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Telford and Newton Aycliffe. These towns are notable and not just mere suburbs of Sunderland. There are plenty of city articles like City of Salford (Swinton, Eccles, Pendlebury, Salford and Walkden) all those are towns in the city of Salford and also Salford being the main city area. Another is City of Wakefield, City of Bradford, City of Leeds, City of Lancaster (Lancaster, Heysham and Morecambe) & City of St Alban's. These articles cover the towns and cities like Sunderland's do.

As for your comment about the self identifying and saying London is more important then Sunderland and Newcastle. Your making it out as an opinion of your own then factual. Yes London is the capital and has the largest settlements no arguments then. But Newcastle is the most populous city in North East England and Sunderland is an important port city. As well as the fact Newcastle upon Tyne is famous for Geordie accents and Sunderland has many landmarks like Newcastle.

The City of Sunderland is a seperate entity to Sunderland for two simple and verifiable reasons...

1: it covers the surrounding towns, villages and suburbs of the city where some have parish councils of their own and Washington being the place where George Washington once lived I believe or visited which gave it its name have to check that.

2: almost all those were in County Durham and seperate from Sunderland until they were moved with the city into Tyne and Wear along with Gateshead and South Shields.

I would oppose merging the articles as the towns are notable but some of the comments and reason you mention are quite to me your own thoughts then reasonable facts using words like Sunderland is not important and London is more notable aren't reasons to merge the article DragonofBatley (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that the simplest and most effective solution is to rename "City of Sunderland" to "City of Sunderland (metropolitan borough)". That way it's immediately clear to a reader - via the title and opening sentence - that this is about the wider area, not just the city itself. The two need to be kept separate as they're different entities. Look at {{Metropolitan districts of England}} and you'll see that many such boroughs have separate articles from the chief settlement that gives the borough its name - and furthermore the council that governs the borough also has a separate article. --10mmsocket (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Echoing what @10mmsocket: says this is not a special case and is quite easily replicated elsewhere. As said before using criticism of people in towns not identifying with Sunderland and calling Sunderland and Newcastle not important cities is not a good reason to merge these articles. Renaming might be better solution but I don't see nothing wrong with it as is. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think renaming the article would definitely be a preferable alternative to the current situation, but even then I think that the City Of article would need to be vastly trimmed to remove the duplicate (and in places copy pasted) content from the Sunderland article. My thinking is, once all the information that's better suited to, and already present on, the Sunderland article is removed from the City Of article, what's left is a stub bordering on failing WP:GNG, and that's why I proposed the merger to begin with. JayAmber (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the history of the Metropolitan Borough / City of Sunderland and of Tyne & Wear, and I'm also not disputing that Hetton, Houghton and Washington are notable in their own right, as is Sunderland itself. I didn't say Sunderland is not important, I said London is more important, and as a result has a more complex and unique political structure. That is a fact. I live in Newcastle, Sunderland is far more important to me personally since I go there quite regularly whereas I have only been to London, like, three times ever. But it's not about me or my opinion, it's about whether or not the contemporary political structure of the City of Sunderland has received significant enough coverage in reliable sources to deserve its own standalone article rather than a dedicated section in the Sunderland article, and personally I don't believe it has. JayAmber (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UKDISTRICTS. Newcastle perhaps should also be split but that's a different discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - thank you for proposing this merge. I'm opposing for the same reasons as @10mmsocket: and @Crouch, Swale: above. I think City of Sunderland potentially falls into the "Metropolitan boroughs with ambiguity category" of WP:UKDISTRICTS. Could rename City of Sunderland to "City of Sunderland (metropolitan borough)" or "Metropolitan Borough of City of Sunderland" perhaps? I fully understand your concerns about duplication between the articles, however. And I'm definitely not convinced that the metropolitan borough article is the place for things like "Dialect". Unexpectedlydian (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  It could be moved but probably unnecessary as the settlement isn't called "City of Sunderland" while the district sometimes is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as Crouch, Swale. We have many cities where we have two articles one for the "settlement" and one for the local government district, Sunderland isn't unique. The Newcastle one could be split too but its more borderline than Sunderland. However in favour of merging the articles, Pretty much everything in the city of Sunderland is part of the Wearside built-up area, although the link between Washington and Sunderland is quite tenuous, it wasnt considered part of the urban area in the 2001 census and the only thing connecting the two is the Nissan factory. Eopsid (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Merge - Wikipedia should have a worldwide view. We have two articles, one for the "settlement" and one for the local government district, quite only about cities in Britain or in some Commonwealth countries. Groningen, a city with a similar area, population and history than Sunderland, has a single article.--11piemontesibellitosti (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  You said "only about cities in Britain or in some Commonwealth countries." The USA is not a commonwealth country yet you'll find articles on both Charleston County, South Carolina and Charleston, South Carolina. Should those be merged? Well I suppose they could still be considered a former part of the commonwealth. So what about Sonoma County, California and Sonoma, California? Bottom line - there is a global precedence for separate articles on Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously they should not be merged because they are separate juridical persons, but the “settlement” of Sunderland is not a juridical person. More, a County is not a City. --11piemontesibellitosti (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  In the case of Sunderland the unparished area would be the equivalent but there are 2 other unparished areas namely Houghton le Spring and Washington, there are also 3 parishes (municipalities) namely Burdon, Hetton and Warden Law. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Sunderland the settlement is considered a settlement within the Metropolitan Borough and a large amount of the population live in other settlements. This is not like Newcastle or Liverpool where the Metropolitan borough only covers one settlement. C. 22468 Talk to me 15:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose They are different things. "City of (name)" is an article about the local government and its jurisdiction while "(name)" is an article about the human settlement. The human settlement might be bigger or smaller than the local government area. Sometimes, several local government areas form a human settlement, sometimes, several human settlements form a local government area, they are not always the same. For example, Sydney and the City of Sydney are not the same thing. See the difference? 2001:8003:913E:5D01:CE2:D59D:BE62:D674 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2022 (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.

Split History of Sunderland on November 2022

I split history to it’s own article and added a reduced history to this article. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Chocolateediter, please use the Copied template on the talk page for material that was moved. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

K Chocolateediter (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sunderland Vs City of Sunderland

This article has an identity crisis. It is supposed to be about Sunderland, but frequently slips into describing features related to the wider City of Sunderland without noting the difference. As suggested previously, perhaps a merger is necessary as it may not be meaningful to talk about one without the other. 2A0E:1D47:410F:3500:14A6:7F30:61DB:2032 (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)