Talk:List of twin towns and sister cities in England

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of twin towns and sister cities in England. 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:

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) 22:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of twin towns and sister cities in England. 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:

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) 04:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

I really really don't like the layout of this page. The multiple columns with county and town headings all over the place...yuk Btljs (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and, as a Tynesider, I find the inclusion of Lincolnshire in my neck of the woods somewhat perplexing. The placement of Derbyshire in North West England seems odd too, I would have thought "The Midlands" a more appropriate option, but I won't labour that point. Of course, arguments about what goes in which English region can go on for ever - we don't have territorially defined English regional authorities or parliaments after all. And how relevant the English regions are to town twinning, the partnership of individual cities, towns and villages with their counterparts abroad, is moot. So here's a solution: Get rid of the regional markers altogether and list the English counties (or just the towns) in alphabetical order instead.Helmardine (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion on this list

If it is a place in England important enough to have gone to the effort of establishing international relations with another place, in Europe or elsewhere, and where signs confirm this or there are primary sources that can be linked to to establish this, then it merits inclusion on this list. Pmberry (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmberry: If you react why I reverted your addition of Silkstone Common, please note that twinning takes place at the level of administrative units, which is in this case the Silkstone Parish. You can also check that Rives de l'Yon recognize only twinning with Silkstone. I don't know why United Kingdom is divided by settlement units and not by administrative units on Wikipedia like other countries are. Sometimes it's confusing.

If you speak about inclusion in general, I'm also in opposition. As I mention in this discussion, the list of such as big country as England is is basically endless and imho there is no good reason to fill the room of the page by every little parish. FromCzech (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur

An editor is repeatedly removing Mirpur from the list of towns twinned with Bradford and Waltham Forest, claiming that "as the sources state, only friendship treaty"[1] and "The fact that a friendship city is included into twin towns section because its quite logical and they don't want/need extra section for it does not make it a twin town".[2] The source cited for Bradford states "Bradford is twinned with a number of places around the world: • Republic of Macedonia Skopje, Macedonia (since 1963) • France Roubaix, France (since 1969) • Belgium Verviers, Belgium (since 1970) • Germany Mönchengladbach, Germany (since 1971) • Republic of Ireland Galway, Ireland (since 1987) • Pakistan Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan (friendship agreement in 1998)",[3] while the source for Waltham Forest states "The council already have five twinning and friendship arrangements. They are Saint-Mandé in France, Wandsbek in Germany, St Johns in Antigua and Barbuda, Roseau in the Commonwealth of Dominica and Mirpur in Pakistan."[4] The sources indicate no difference between the terms "twin town" and "friendship treaty", while the Wikipedia article on twin towns states that "the term is often used interchangeably with the term "friendship city".[5] Nowhere do the sources state that the relationship is "only" a friendship treaty. The removal of Mirpur on the grounds that it is not really twinned with Bradford and Waltham Forest seems nitpicking and misleading. Unless other editors support the removal, I intend to restore these well-sourced and relevant items. RolandR (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: Let's see what we have here:

Bradford – you basically support my point of view. There is a list of 5 its twin towns and then a sixth line with a notice, that it is only a friendship treaty. It's very clear, there is nothing to deal with.
Waltham Forest – if you click on every "+" symbol on the cited website, you will see detail of every relationship. If you click on Mirpur's detail, you can read that "Waltham Forest has a Friendship Treaty with the Municipality of Mirpur in Azad Kashmir." Once again, nothing to deal with, the source clearly indicates the difference between twinning and friendship.

Friendly relationships does not belong here as the title of the page indicates. Same methodology is used for all the twin towns lists, for all the cities. FromCzech (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: without looking at the detail, I would say that I would tend to defer to FromCzech's expertise here. They have made a zillion useful and careful edits in this field and have been very helpful to work with; I think they are working hard to maintain this stuff at a careful and conscientious standard. I believe that they have made a thorough study of how to do this and I have high respect for their approach. Of course they might have gone completely bonkers and/or just be plain old wrong about this, but I have to say that neither would be my first assumption. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as semantic pettifoggery. If I want to look up what places around the world a locality in Britain has links with, I am not concerned at the organisational niceties. Bradford Council lists on its website six cities with which it has such links; Waltham Forest lists five. Neither of these sites indicates any difference between "twin cities" and "friendship treaties", so any suggestion that there is a significant difference can only be based on original research. The exclusion of Mirpur alone from the Wikipedia entries for these places seems invidious. I have lived in both of these places for many years, and I am well aware that each has a significant population originating from Mirpur, and that people are aware and proud of the links. There is no evidence that either Bradford or Waltham Forest relates differently to Mirpur than to their other twinned locations, and the exclusion of Mirpur from this list is both misleading and discriminatory. The entries really should be restored. RolandR (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to find foreign links of England and you are surprised, that on the twin town list are only twin towns? I'm sorry that you were misleaden, but vast majority of users would be misleaden by opposite. All the twin towns lists are created with a high degree of consistency and supported by as many official sources as possible. Mirpur was excluded from twin towns on websites of Bradford, Waltham Forest and Birmingham with the "friendship treaty" notice, that's what you can call misleading and discriminatory, not this list. Change that council's approach first. Until then, this link can be mentioned only on the pages of individual cities as friendship city. FromCzech (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London?

Pretty sure there are no towns/cities twinned with London as a whole anymore. There is no such governing body as 'London' anymore. I have found zero reliable sources for the list of them too. If no one responds to this then I will delete this section of the article. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Style changes

Hi, I have to disagree with the recent site style changes. Overall, this changes are a contradiction to the uniform format of twin towns lists. Presence of flags is not against MOS:FLAG, which says that in lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. But more importantly, removing them is against user consensus (they've been here longer than I've been an active editor and they are commonly used even at the level of sections of individual cities throughout the world). Since I used the lists before I became an editor, I claim that they are a benefit for both faster orientation and visual friendliness. Headings in bold text are also standard in lists and do not violate MOS:BOLD, no matter if they are formatted as section headings or not (example here). Any discussions about changing the format should take place on some parent site like WP:CITIES or Sister city; if there were any, ping me, please. FromCzech (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]