Talk:York

York was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 4, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
August 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
July 31, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Yorkshire Top‑importance

	Yorkshire portal York is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Hanseatic League (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

GAR concerns

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the GA criteria. Some of my concerns are below:

There are sections that need to be updated, such as the "Local government" section talked about above or the "Demographics" section.
There is a lot of uncited sections
At over 9,000 words, WP:PAGESIZE recommends that sections of the article be split off or removed.

Is there anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

York

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced sections, orange "updated needed" banners, sections that need updating of recent elections and events, and at over 9000 words it is recommended that the article be split off and information be summarised. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Towards a GA status for this article

Okay, so we have some work to do - my first proposal would be to lose the table with all the railway destinations and calling points from the transport section. Surely this is too detailed and is covered by the York railway station article. It can be summarised in this article with a section of short prose....?

“

Trains from York Railway station run to London, Doncaster, Peterborough, Darlington, Newcastle and Edinburgh with LNER, and across Northern England between Scarborough, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with TransPennine Express. Northern provide local services to Hull, Leeds and Harrogate, and Cross Country, which connects Edinburgh, Newcastle and York, with Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, and the south-west of England. Additionally, open-access operator Grand Central run trains between Sunderland and London.

”

Thoughts? The joy of all things (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Sectors

Hi, I noticed the recent removal of an edit citing the 2023 York Top 100 Businesses report published by York St John University, which named TSYS and Gear4music as examples of modern digital-sector employers in York, with a neutral tone and independent source. The removal note cited potential conflict of interest due to shared IP activity, but this addition was made in good faith using a highly reputable source that’s directly relevant to the city's economic profile. Would welcome any advice on how to reinstate it in a compliant way, or clarification on whether the source or framing is in question. Thanks. 188.65.101.236 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it but it did read like it was added by someone connected to the business(es) involved. If that's the case then I suggest you step away and leave it to someone else who may deem it appropriate to add that or similar content. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I have refreshed the multiple images in the infobox added to this wiki page. I'm open to discussion of these images are not suitable. If the images are not suitable please change. Be Bold Thanks MatthewDavid41 MatthewDavid41 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]