Talk:Merseyside

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
United Kingdom Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] graphic

Help! That is not at all what Merseyside looks like, to start with the county is not simply connected, while the graphic seems to think that it is. Nor is that a map of England as I know it. Francis Davey

I think it way be that Wales is missing.--Jirate 23:12, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

[edit] Merseyside Police

The Merseyside Police Authority bit really should be put back into its own article, I dont know why it was ever removed in the first place. In fact it would probably be better being put into an article about Merseyside Police. G-Man 20:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a seperate arcticle is best as it is a significant public body in it's own right and has a complex relation ship with the Poice and the burough councils.--Jirate 21:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Most of it looks like an unencyclopædic text dump that can be deleted--a list of phone numbers doesn't make an encyclopædia entry. I suggest deleting the list and then the remaining two paragraphs don't need to be split. Joe D (t) 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
While the phone number and email address probably should go. The members of the committee don't need individual bios like MP's, some kind of record is appropriate. --Jirate 21:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Whatever: anyway it certainly doesn't belong here, no other county article has a section about a police authority stuck to it. Personally I dont really see the justification for two articles about this and Merseyside Police, they would go together perfectly happily on one article. G-Man 22:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On and in

Re "on" and "in" Merseyside: Before the creation of the county the usage "on" referred to the geographical area of Merseyside i.e. those places on the Mersey west of the Runcorn Gap. I believe the current usage by , e.g. the local authorities,is for "in Merseyside" to be used for places within the county. Thus St Helens, which is not "on" the Mersey is "in " Merseyside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.248.225.148 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Revert war

What on earth is this all about? What keeps getting reverted is simple semantics. Merseyside consists of metropolitan boroughs, it does not "contain" them. This is uncontroversial and the continual reverting and name-calling is being perpetuated by a banned user and someone known to stalk and revert my edits for no reason. Give it a rest! Owain (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merseyside exists on the map. It physically contains them. You on the other hand have this pervers view that there are entities called traditiona counties. Which you claim exist. They do not and you have never produced any evidence to show they do. You keep reinserting claims that People in Merseyside still use CHesire and Lancashire. With no evidence. The simple problem is you an dthe other freeks who support CountyWatch and the like. You should be banned simple because you are corrupting the encylopedia and that is your intent. Counties are not a matter of tradition. And Merseyside mostcertainly exists. It has it's own Lord Lieutancy etc.--84.9.195.111 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at a recent Ordnance Survey map. You will find no evidence of Merseyside. You will, however, see the metropolitan boroughs marked. Merseyside cannot physically contain anything because it doesn't physically exist. As an entity it consists of the metropolitan boroughs. There is plenty of evidence that people still use Cheshire and Lanacashire, although you will not agree with it because it doesn't support your blinkered agenda. The fact that a place has a Lord Lieutenancy does not prove anything - that particular office was invented in the 1540s - long after the counties. Read the Lieutenancies Act 1997, it defines the lieutenancies in England and Wales based on groups of local authority areas - i.e. the local authority areas define the lieutenancy, not the other way around. Owain (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Merseyside Most definetly exists. You just a fantasists who claims that some called 'Traditional COunties' exist. They do not.--84.9.195.219 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
When did I ever say that it didn't exist? I am quite happy for administrative areas and traditional counties to live side-by-side for different purposes. The point I made was that it doesn't appear on Ordnance Survey maps. Owain (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

County Watch and "Association of British Counties" (sic) activists are systematically vandalising thousands of Wikipedia articles every month. To give them their credit, they are far, far better organised (co-ordinated) and fanatical than their massed ranks of opponents. However, opponents of the Flat Earthers have Wikilaw on our side:

--Mais oui! 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So when Westmorland had its council abolished it ceased to exist (despite exisitng for hundreds of years before the council was created). But when Merseyside had its council abolished it lived on (despite only being in existence for 12 years prior to this). Great logic there. Why can't you just accept that traditional counties are in widespread popular use for both geographic and other purposes? You may need to be told where you live by the government. Others prefer to make their own minds up based on 1,000 years of history and tradition. Lancsalot 09:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The county of Westmorland was abolished not county council. It seesed to exist. Therefore it could not have a council. Merseyside Council was abolished and it power distributed to the broughts. The county as an area of land still exists unlike Westmorland. You cannot except that there are no such thing as traditional counties. You haven't got a mind to make up. Tradition does not come into this at all. It is you fantasy. Nothingelse.--84.9.194.136 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding to someone with such a poor grasp of history and grammar, but here goes: Please read the legislation, the legal entity abolished in 1974 was the administrative county of Westmorland (the entity created in 1889), not the county that the original administrative county was based on. Obviously the "area of land" still exists - how could it not exist unless it was all dug up and thrown into the sea? You correctly separate the idea of a geographical area from an administrative body, but only for your own example. Huh? Owain (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It works for them all it just that you don't undertand the law. The parcel of land know as Westmorland does not exists any more. The land has been incorporated into a bigger parcel and it's admin changed. It no longer legally exists. --84.9.194.136 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think that the existence or not of an administrative area used for a specific purpose precludes other possibly-overlapping areas from existing for other purposes? As I've already pointed out the administrative county certainly no longer exists and yes, it was incorporated into a bigger parcel and its admin changed, but that entity was only created in 1889 for a particular purpose. So what? The counties are primarily geographic areas that are defined by no one piece of statute, but have been used as the basis of other areas (i.e. local government) over the years. Just because one particular usage stops using them doesn't mean that they don't exist — that is a complete logical fallacy. Owain (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no legilation describing the geography of 'Traditional Counties'. QED traditional counties do not exists.--84.9.194.136 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of the argument being finally lost. There is no legislation defining the geography of Ben Nevis, no legislation defining the River Thames, &c. — but those things CLEARLY EXIST. For goodness sake the boundaries of Berkshire for example, pre-date not only the legislative body that you claim needs to define it, but the Kingdom of England itself! Owain (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Your not very bright are you. The thames is delmited by it banks. A mountain by its summit and flanks. In other wrords natural boundaries. No such natural boundaries exis for a county. They are man made and man unmade. They are created and moved at will by TPTB and in this case they never created any entities called Traditional Counties. They are just a figment of you imgination. To compare Berkshire with the Thames and claim that there existsance is on the same level is truely weird. No that's about the 3rd time you have lost the argument. No go away and get some form of education beyond grammar and syntax.--87.75.131.50 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Tsk tsk, personal attacks? Counties ARE defined by physical/natural boundaries. To use the Berkshire example again, the northern boundary is the River Thames, whereas the current administrative border is arbitrary and subject to change all the time. Your remark that the Thames is delimited by its banks proves my point! No piece of legislation created those boundaries, they simply exist. You have simply ignored the fact that things can exist without legislation! Owain (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The use of a river as a boundary is a human choice. The physical world exists without legislation however all human geography is a matter of human choice and change. You confuse reality with what is in your head, you incapable of differetiating between the two, your a fantasist. --87.75.131.50 12:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a resident of Merseyside. However, I have yet to meet a resident of this county that does not recount misgivings about the loss of the older Cheshire or Lancashire identity. The misgivings have ranged from resignation to active dislike. The Department of the Environment stated on 1st April 1974 that the boundary changes were not designed to alter the traditional geographical or county allegiances. The local government legislation only concerns itself with administrative arrangements. I cannot see any reference or section that provides that the new counties are to be the sole geographic division of the country.

I do not agree with the hacking around with this article. The article makes it clear that this is a post 1974 county. Overlooking the traditional counties presents difficulties in that the historic records of this country are still arranged to reflect the ancient boundaries. Residents of the Wirral still have to travel to Cheshire Records Office to undertake full pre-1974 research. This is not likely to change.

Interestingly in Scotland (where I hail from) a great number of people still use the older counties rather than the monolithic regions that replaced them. So I do find it interesting that opinion is so split south of the border. 85.211.42.171 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This article has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks, but there has been no discussion. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Some people prefer the use of historical counties..."

I'm going to remove this ludicrous (and uncited) statement. I've lived in both Liverpool and the Wirral all my life, and not one person I've spoken to prefers this usage. Common acceptance throughout the entirety of Merseyside is that they live in the county of Merseyside, not Lancashire or Cheshire. Feel free to revert me if you have a citing for this statement or another good reason, but I personally feel this is absolutely incorrect. L1v3rp00l 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people DO! Let's look at what you say here: a) you have concluded that 'common acceptance' is from what you, personally know from those people you, personally, have spoken to. Have you asked EVERYONE in 'Merseyside'? No? Then it cannot be 'common acceptance'. b) You have lived in both Liverpool and Wirral. That's not the 'entirety' of Merseyside; the administrative area they created in 1974 also includes St Helens and Sefton. Have you asked anybody in, say, St Helens, Newton-le-Willows, or Southport which county they come from? I promise you will get a different answer; therefore it is not 'common acceptance' nor is it 'throughout the entirety of Merseyside'. I can also speak personally and I feel this is absolutely *correct* - some people DO prefer the use of historical counties, and I am one of them. I must say that the statement, though uncited, appears far from 'ludicrous' to me and I see no reason why it should have been reverted. 81.31.97.129 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable People from Merseyside

As I was checking out the article for on of my favorite artists, Aidan Hughes/BRUTE! I noticed he wasn't listed in the Merseyside article, nor was anyone else. I would like to see a list of notable people from Merseyside including Brute. Since I'm not an authority on Merseyside by any means, I think it should be left to you fine people - Mandonine 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecesary reiteration of "divided by the estuary"

In three separate places, this article gives the details of Merseyside being split in half by the estuary and which sections are on the east and west sides, etc. This could surely be tightened up a bit, I'm just not the one to do it. Jessicapierce 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears I've copied the text by mistake when making some ammendments. I'm hoping to elaborate on some of the sections soon as this article has been dormant for quite some time. Jhamez84 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! Jessicapierce 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Merseybeat?

It was only the most common sound of 1962-64, why isn't it here? The Person Who Is Strange 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] markets

As an interested user I noticed another user has added on references to markets towards the end of the Merseyside section. I have no particular interest in markets but this article has merit and needs to be placed in a suitable location. I will look at this if nobody objects to opening up a link to this article. It hasn't been edited correctly as it stands. Dmcm2008 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)