Talk:Merseyside

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Revert war

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: 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)
thread_title: "Some people prefer the use of historical counties..."

message: 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)
thread_title: Notable People from Merseyside

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Awesome, thank you! Jessicapierce 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecesary reiteration of "divided by the estuary"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where's [[Merseybeat]]? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

message: 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)
thread_title: markets

message: This is as per current text:
"To express location within the Merseyside area by the preposition on - thus "on Merseyside" as opposed to "in Merseyside" - was traditionally the more usual. However, the logic of suggestions in support of this from some quarters (that, after all, one would always be "on” the side of the Mersey, not "in" it) falls down; since it is, in fact, entirely possible to be situated [both] "in" or "on" [either] “side” of the river Mersey and area(s) thus designated. Therefore, more recent usage tends to draw distinctions between the geographical "Merseyside" - for which "on" is considered appropriate - and the Metropolitan county of "Merseyside", for which "in" is used.".
I have heard 'on' Merseyside in Tv and Radio reports, but what is this all about? As far as I am concerned it is utter nonesense. I am Liverpool born and bred and have never used the term 'on Merseyside' and this above saying one would always be on the side of the Mersey etc is giberish. Does anyone agree or am I the only one puzzled by this statement? Dmcm2008 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have dubious origins, but "on Merseyside" has considerable, even widespread useage according to Google (). I wouldn't be comfortable removing reference to it or speculating on its meaning without a reliable source though. --Jza84 |  Talk   00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity

message: As per actions by Kitchen Knife: I have said the Liverpool City region is in existance. The city region compises of 5 Merseyside boroughs and Halton borough. I have rewritten this inDmcm2008 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liverpool City Region

message: Not sure why this says 645 sq km is equivalent to 245 square miles or whatever, as it's more around 402 sq ml. Can this wierd conversion rate be altered?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopheard (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Square miles/KM

message: Not to moan, but wherever people got the name for the Rainsford Urban Area for is beyond me, the correct name is Rainford Urban Area (I live in St Helens). (Gav235 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban Area name change

message: Is there any good reason why the flag should not be captioned as "Banner of the former Merseyside County Council"?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag of the CC was  --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is :File:County Flag of Merseyside.png?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One is the Flag of the County the other of the County Council. The council is the coat of arms on a flag. That coat of arms or something very similar is still used by . It had more logos and flags, I think as a reaction to it's new newness, but I don't care just pick one.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No flag was shown in the infobox until this edit added it a few weeks ago, without any explanation.  Showing a flag - any flag - in the infobox implies that the flag has some current official status, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the flag in :File:County Flag of Merseyside.png has that status.  If you want to show the flag of the former local authority, with references indicating how and when it was used, and by whom, it would be better to do that as a freestanding image with an explanatory caption elsewhere in the article.  I'll remove it from the infobox as original research and unreferenced.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: WP:INFOBOXREF. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Is 'Merseyside" to be considered "Lancastrian" --that is if one is reading about medieval English political history and so on--?
This seems to be one of things to which a native would think 'obvious...' and leave without saying.  And it seems to be the case here.  To avoid controversies the Introductory
might say that 'Merseyside'--and I think, Manchester, etc., right? are "part of the historical Lancastrian region."  IF that is the case, of course.
For us furriners who want to be less soddish about such things, ok??
Woilorio (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  There is no such thing as "the historical Lancastrian region" - there is Lancashire.  And this part of Merseyside has always been part of Cheshire, not Lancashire.  The name Mersey means "boundary", so "Merseyside" straddles two sides of an ancient boundary between regions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lancashire