Talk:Irish Sea

message: ROI Stats: 3.6m travelers cross the Irish sea each year, amounting to 92% of all sea travel to and from the Republic. CSO This has been steadly dropping for a number of years (20% since 1999), probably as a result of low cost airlines. 
Dublin Airport: 50% of traffic is to/from Britian @ 8.3 million per annum, up 5%. 26% is for London @ 4.5 million. 
Sea-Cargo trade with UK: 19m Tonnes of cargo handled by Irish ports, 40% of all sea trade by weight. Main ports are *Dublin (11,573kT 64%) *Rosslare (1,839kT 85%) *Dun Laoghaire (160kT 100%) *Drogheda (181kT 14%) Waterford (672kT 28%) *Wicklow (2kT 1%) *New Ross (401kT 40%) Galway (611kT 60%) Shannon-Foynes port (1,345kT 10%) (Source: Table 10 of this CSO pdf 2004 figures). 2004 figures are up by 3.4% by weight while number of ships is down 5%. 73% is import and 27% export. *Ports are Irish Sea ports.
UK Ports on Irish Sea: 
:Belfast:  total tonnage through Northern Ireland ports in 2002 was 21,363kT. 70% inward. 60% at Belfast. 20% at Larne, Warrenpoint 8.5%, Derry 5% + others. 46% of inward freight is from Britian, 78% of outward freight is for britian. 570,000 cars travel through NI ports, 30%/70% Larne/Belfast. All are for Britian.
Liverpool (32mT cargo, 734k passangers, up 2% )
Car Ferries of the Irish Sea 1954-2004 by Justin Merrigan
===Ports on Irish Sea===
Republic of Ireland: New Ross, Waterford, Rosslare, Arklow, Wicklow, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, Greenore.
Northern Ireland: Bangor? Belfast, Larne, Portrush?
Scotland: Cairmryan Stranraer
Isle of Man: fishing ports of Port St Mary and Port Erin, Douglas.
North England: Liverpool, Fleetwood, Blackpool?, Preston? SouthPort, Birkenhead, Ellesmere Port.
Wales: Holyhead, Pembroke Dock.
Seabhcán 21:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rough Work - Stats on Shipping  

message: Republic of Ireland: New Ross, Waterford, Rosslare, Arklow, Wicklow, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, Greenore.
Northern Ireland: Bangor? Belfast, Larne, Portrush?
Scotland: Cairmryan Stranraer
Isle of Man: fishing ports of Port St Mary and Port Erin, Douglas.
North England: Liverpool, Fleetwood, Blackpool?, Preston? SouthPort, Birkenhead, Ellesmere Port.
Wales: Holyhead, Pembroke Dock.
Seabhcán 21:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ports on Irish Sea

message: I removed the map from the page because it is wrong; it was replaced, the argument being 'its accurate, if not precise enough for you then improve it'.
First of all, it is not accurate. Heysham and Fleetwood are both 50-100 miles too far north on the map, on the wrong side of Morecambe Bay. Including this makes Wikipedia look amateuristic [almsot as much as my spelling :)].
Secondly, I have searched for a more accurate and appropriate map on the internet and could not find one available. However, I would argue that we should not be including inaccurate material just because there is nothing better available. Robdurbar 09:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was excessive to remove the whole map because two ports were not in the right place. You should have fixed the map. Why not delete the article if you find another error? I have now removed the two ports from the map. If you find the time, please re-add them in the correct positions. Seabhcán 11:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I have been googling around and get conflicting answers but I have not come across a reputable citable source.  Can you help?
--Publunch 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The most radioactive sea in the world?

message: I think the map could be improved, to show such features as The Solway Firth and Cardigan Bay.
--Publunch 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The map

message: I've just come from Islands of the North Atlantic. Is this still an appropriate name in that context?
If not, what should it be: British/Welsh/Scottish/Manx Sea all seem unexceptable, and the mind boggles as to variations on the "Sea in the North Atlantic Islands". --User:Jimfbleak, June 2003
:I believe many Welsh people find this term "Irish Sea" offensive, and it is not used in the Welsh Assembly. The article should reflect this. What we have here is a naked example of republican politicization of a purely geographical feature. I'll have you know that many of the fish swimming in this so-called "Irish" sea are in fact protestant.--feline1 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fish being protestant doesn't preclude them from being Irish. What a sectarian rationale!--Damac 11:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, down with political offensiveness. It should be called the English Sea. It is clearly a sea designed to keep the English out of Ireland. Seabhcán 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't work so well now, did it? :) zoney  ♣ talk 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. How about the "Unfortunately narrow sea" Seabhcán 11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive Political Term

message: Smiled when I saw this...
:"Despite the pollution, there is still plenty of interesting flora and fauna to be seen."
Am I the only one who'd love to add "such as the lovely radioactive lobsters and oysters".
Yes, yes, it's exaggerating things a bit. I still wouldn't want to eat such things from the Irish Sea, the pollution levels on the West coast (Atlantic) just being that much lower.
zoney  ♣ talk 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radioactivity 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of  , , compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: The headings should follow a more thematic or chronological order.  Origin first, then history (like shipping), notable incidents... It's current order is a bit random.  Also, subheadings should be more than one paragraph long.  If there is not sufficient information for more than one paragraph, it should be merged into a relevant heading.  And does "U-Boat" need it's own sub-heading? It could probably be developed into a history section.
:2. Factually accurate?: The article is well-referenced overall, although there are a paragraph or statistic here and there that are unsourced.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Some expansion needed in the aforementioned areas.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Looks pretty good in this area.  Great job.
:5. Article stability? Not bad here.
:6. Images?: One nice picture.  A couple more wouldn't hurt, and as for the existing pic, the image's tag is obsolete.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far.
--Esprit15d 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Anyone have any idea how the territorial waters work out in the Irish Sea? Obviously, everyone gets their 12 nm around their own coast, but does the UK claim any sort of archipelagic extension based on the Isle of Man?
-- Tom Anderson 2007-05-02 19:46 +0100 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.40.81.196 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial waters 

message: I have edited the Environment section in an attempt to provide a more comprehensive description of the impact of discharges from Sellafield on the environment. I am aware that the environment of this area is not solely informed by radioactive discharges from Sellafield, but it does appear to be the highest profile of influences so I think more detail on this specific subject is warranted. 
I have removed some subjects that the previous revision only touched upon, on the basis that they seemed to consist only of “may be” and “possibly” which doesn’t seem particularly encyclopaedic to me.
I also think that there was an element of listing nuclear related installations located on the west coast of Great Britain without stating their relevance to the environment so I have removed these. On the same principle of limited relative impact I have removed mention of Chernobyl and Irish sources of contamination. All of these inevitably have some contribution but my research indicates that compared to Sellafield they are comparatively negligible. I will endeavour to cite sources here if anyone feels there is sufficient cause to challenge this.
The use of scare quotes in the previous version to imply reservations about the statement that radioactive levels were safe seems inappropriate to me given that evidence seems to prove quite conclusively that they are indeed safe (certainly as far as the Irish population is concerned and certainly for everyone in terms of limits on exposure set by the EU). I am aware that the final paragraph might read like a defence of the nuclear industry. It is not meant to be. I include it as an attempt to put the issue into some perspective. The information is almost entirely sourced from the reports published by each body charged by their respective governments with monitoring radioactivity in this environment. The only exception is the UK figure for average annual dose, sourced from a different report in order to match the information provided by the Irish.
Finally, I am new to Wikipedia so if I have perpetrated any errors of style, formatting, etiquette etc please forgive me and please help me to get it right.
--FactotEm 12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making what I am assuming will be new content on biodiversity the main 'Environment' content and creating an Environment sub-heading of 'Radioactive Contamination' for the existing content? --FactotEm 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks great to me. I encourage you to add it in to the article. --FactotEm 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment 

message: The populations given in this table are pretty meaningless. Dublin has not got 500,000 people it has 1,500,000 or something (see Dublin). The borders of the county pretty well define the City of Dublin as it is commonly spoken of and understood - I live in Sandyford which is part of "Dun Laoghaire" according to this table (or maybe not - where does that figure come from?) but anybody asked "where is Sandyford (or Blackrock)" would say "Dublin". Maybe delete the table if it can't be made more meaning full. And Liverpool 400,000 people? I thought it had 3 million or something? (Sarah777 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities and Towns

message: I made a new Irish Sea Tunnel so the stuff in here that isn't really relvant I removed.  Anyone apart from Tangerine have a problem with that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem at all with your adding content and a new article to wikipedia. However, you have competely removed a whole sourced section from this article without explaining why you have done so, until finally you left a message in here. Initially you provided no edit summary and then after I mentioned this on your talk page you left an edit summary just stating "removed section" but not why again. Without knowing why you were removing content it was/is difficult to know why you were doing so. Providing edit summaries helps other users to understand edits.  I have though explained that if you wish to edit the section and remove anything that is not relevant that would be fine. However, just because you have created the Irish Sea Tunnel] article that is not a valid reason to simply remove the content from here. I will not be reverting your last edit, but I would ask you one last time to restore the section. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: all the stuff that was in the section is now in the article if it is any good, some of it i moved but not the sources -- rtf article. btw, you can't sepll Irish Sea Tunnel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an article is fine. However, what you have done is remove virtually all mention of the discussion about the tunnel from this article and replaced it with a very short unsourced sentence. Despite your thinking it was "crap", the content was sourced and is relevant to this article. As I have already explained to you, the way to deal with this was to edit the section, to remove and parts that were not relevant to the Irish Sea and put a link to the Irish Sea Tunnel article, but not to simply remove a whole sourced section simply because you believe it to be (in your own words) crap. I will be adding the tunnel section back into this article with a "main page" link to the article you created. I would ask you not to remove it again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will not.  It is not relevant to I trimmed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already said the section is relevant to this srticle and should not simply be removed and replaced with a short sentence that does not even link to the Irish Sea Tunnel article which is a good addition, however there still needs to be discussion of the tunnel within this article. There is a big difference between trimming the section and simply removinf it, which is what you did. And I added the "main article" link.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Discussion of any proposed tunnel is pertinent to this article and a summary section should be contained in this article and linked to the main article using . --sony-youthpléigh 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please provide sources stating that "it's wrong" and that it's "just a lot of hot air".  If you cannot and revert again, I will report you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What about cutting this piece? 
There could be an economic case for such a link. The Irish sea is one of the busiest shipping regions in the world and has the world's largest car ferry—Irish Ferries Ulysses.[31] In addition, half of the air traffic at Dublin Airport is to Britain, with 8,300,000 passengers per annum. The Dublin-London air route is the busiest in the European Union and the second busiest in the world, with about 50 daily flights and 4.5 million passengers per annum. The success of the 15 km Oresund Bridge, inaugurated in 2000 and linking Malmö, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark, which has led to important economic integration between the two cities, suggests that the Dublin–Holyhead route may be the most promising.[32]
With the addition of High-speed rail, such a tunnel could cut journey times from the northern English cities of Liverpool and Manchester to Dublin to under an hour. The combined population of the three metropolitan areas is over 5 million. The line would probably be built to standard gauge, which is narrower than the Irish broad gauge, meaning that onward trains would have to use variable gauge axles, or some Irish lines would have to be regauged to standard gauge or dual gauge to overcome the resultant break of gauge. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "It just an editor with a pipe dream." - agree. There is a serious issue with neutral point of view and verifiability in the section as it is currently written. This is a case for a serious re-write backed up by sources (not it's complete removal). --sony-youthpléigh 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what I have been saying all along. This article should still retain some discussion of a tunnel as it is 100% relevant. I've no idea who wrote the tunnel section but editing it is what should be done and not the whole section removed.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've cut the speculative text out but feel free to revert/change what I did. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Irish Sea Tunnel]] 

message: I often wondered. Do the British object to the name Irish Sea (as the Irish are claimed to object to British Isles)? Does anybody have any citations for it? If so, should it be added to this article? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Living in Blackpool on the Irish Sea coast, I must say that I have never seen nor heard of any such objection. It has always been the Irish Sea to me and I've never thought to object and nor would I. There may well be someone, somewhere who objects but I doubt it would be anything significiant enough to be mentioned, I wouldn't have thought. Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I too am not a million miles away from it and have never heard of any objections to the name. Bear in mind that Ireland has not always been independent which may have some bearing on the issue. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Living in Dublin I feel ashamed that we appear the be claiming ownership of the Isle of Man. I have some very happy memories of that place, the crack was ninety there. But I think the sea was christened back when we were all British so there may not be any Imperial implications. But if you folk want to rename it the Blackpool Sea I'd have no problem with that. After all, "Dublin" is Vikingish for "black pool". Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm very much mistaken, "Irish Sea" means the sea you sail to get to Ireland, in the same way that Dublin Road, anywhere in Ireland, is the road to Dublin.  It does not imply ownership.  That's also why, in Irish, it's called the Man Sea (Muir Meann).  So it's a red herring, I'm afraid, GoodDay.  Scolaire (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They don't, because that's what it's bloody called. No political agenda there at all. Irish republicans take note. Jonchapple (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to the name 

message: The lead section claims that the Isle of Man is the biggest island in the Irish Sea, but I would have thought that was Anglesey. Am I missing something? -- Avenue (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. Well spotted.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Is Anglesea in the Irish Sea, or just surrounded by it on three sides?  I suppoe it depends on whether the Menai Strait is considered part of the Irish Sea. Wardog (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Menai Strait is not a river - it's an arm of the sea. Bazonka (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest island 

message: I propose removing the Cumbric language name for the Irish Sea. Cumbric is an extinct language not spoken since the 12th century. There is very little written evidence of Cumbric, so the name as stated in the article would, I assume, be someone's attempt at "re-creating" a Cumbric variant for the term. There is also no reference for the source of the term, indicating Original Research in my opinion. Thoughts anyone? --MacTire02 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbric name? 

message: Should some mention be made of Chester in this article? - either as one of the "surrounding towns", or elsewhere.  Historically (especially before the growth of Liverpool) Chester was a major port for trade and invasions from England across the Irish Sea - see History of Chester#Middle Ages - although subsequently the Dee estuary silted up.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chester? 

message: I visited the article to find out who named the sea, and when. My previously unquestioned assumption was that it was named by seafarers (Britons or Continentals) to designate the body of water that conveyed them to Ireland, but it would be interesting to find confirmation of the actual source of the name, if this information is reliably recorded. — O'Dea (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who named the Irish Sea, and when? 

message: I was seeking depths of the Irish Sea after learning that Ireland separated from Great Britain 2,500 years before Great Britain separated from the Continent.  There is not mention of the sea's structure or its depths anywhere in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcider (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology and depths? 

message: The following towns are not on the coast of the Irish Sea:
*Belfast - in Belfast Lough, which flows into the North Channel
*Bangor - in Belfast Lough, which flows into the North Channel
*Carrickfergus - in Belfast Lough, which flows into the North Channel
*Larne - on the coast of the North Channel, which flows into the Irish Sea
*Wexford - on the coast of the St George's channel
I haven't looked at the islands listed in the table below it.
--75.176.181.60 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to Belfast, Bangor, Carrickfergus and Larne, I think you are correct in so far as they are located beyond the northern limit of the Irish Sea as defined by the IHO.  Wexford is north of Carnsore Point, so is within the definition; but Ramsey Island is south of St David's Head so is outside the definition.  However, Belfast, for example, is commonly regarded as an Irish Sea port (for example here).  I think the solution for those ports is to add a note in the table to explain that they are located outside the IHO definition, but are commonly regarded as being on the Irish Sea more loosely defined.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towns on the coast of the Irish Sea 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Sea. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927093611/http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/pdfs/R3C4.pdf to http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/pdfs/R3C4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927093611/http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/pdfs/R3C4.pdf to http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/pdfs/R3C4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Irish Sea. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304174323/http://www.liv.ac.uk/manxstudies/laare-studeyryes_manninagh.htm to http://www.liv.ac.uk/manxstudies/laare-studeyryes_manninagh.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.dil.ie/results-list.asp?Fuzzy=0&cv=1&searchtext=(id%20contains%20M)%20and%20(column%20contains%20103)&sortField=ID&sortDIR=65602&respage=0&resperpage=10&bhcp=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117171204/http://www.gov.im/treasury/economic/census/2006/ to http://www.gov.im/treasury/economic/census/2006/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235706/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/sellafield-nuclear-reprocessing-facility to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/sellafield-nuclear-reprocessing-facility
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312191429/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0384/D.0384.198811160027.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0384/D.0384.198811160027.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129085451/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0434/D.0434.199310190089.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0434/D.0434.199310190089.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307105337/http://www.fyldecoastmarinelife.btik.com/ to http://www.fyldecoastmarinelife.btik.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I updated most populations in this table to current figures, per their articles. Except for the top 3: Dublin, Liverpool and Belfast. For these cities there are a number of figures: city proper, urban and metro. Using metro figures would put Liverpool first. None of the Belfast article figures seem to match what's in the table. So I'll leave the top 3 update to others. Declangi (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities and towns: updated populations 

message: Is this section necessary or helpful?  It covers the formation of the sea in geological time, and then moves on to a poorly written summary of invasions across the sea which are covered better in other articles.  I propose that the section be deleted.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Delete it. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Can we get some more consistency in the "Region/province" section of the "Cities and towns" section?  I don't have an obvious solution, but it's a bit of a mess.  At present, the table shows, for England, the statistical region of each town; for Wales, the preserved county; and for Ireland, the historical province.  None of these equate to current administrative areas, which would probably be more useful, and they are not consistent with each other.   If we think it's best to use historical divisions, it would make more sense to use the historic counties for England - or just delete that column as we already have "County".   Any thoughts?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I've also noticed (see my 2014 post above!!)  that the cities and towns in N Ireland - Belfast, Larne, Bangor, Carrickfergus - are outside the definition of the Irish Sea as shown on the second map.  Should this be explained, or made consistent?  I've now added a note to cover that point.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If the definition says that Belfast, Larne, Bangor (both) and Carrickfergus are not on the Irish Sea, then it is the definition that is wrong! IMO, the North and StG Channels are part of the IS and would need to see quite a few RSs that say differently to be convinced otherwise, --Red King (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense - and this report - suggest that you're right. The anomaly is with the pink lines on this map, included in the article.  If it's not an issue, I'd be happy to revert the note I added to the table.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please. Maybe the map needs to be changed too but I doubt that anyone would notice. --Red King (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy to see the "region/province" column deleted as I don't think it adds much. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Red King (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it again, I see that the column is being used to show (for example) both Merseyside and Lancashire. So I recommend using 'ceremonial counties' (which also gets over the challenge that NI is administered by district councils nowadays, not county councils. --Red King (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Region/province" column in table