Talk:Cheshire West and Chester

message: this seems to support West Cheshire and Chester. Any other sources? MRSC • Talk 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of, but, if it was up to me, I wouldn't have created these articles at such a premature moment before the new administrative changes were settled:. Leaving them till later, with some mention in other articles in the meantime, would have allowed for changes of names to go through, etc, without having to engage in difficult renaming, etc edits on wikipedia. Just my view, however: it wasn't up to me, and others obviously felt different.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Better to keep it all contained in 2009 structural changes to local government in England than scattered over several articles. MRSC • Talk 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: West Cheshire and Chester

message: The successful proposal for two unitary authorities to replace the county council was put forward jointly by Chester City Council, Vale Royal District Council, Macclesfield Borough Council and Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council. The People and Places proposal document states:
Most of historic Cheshire's people now live in unitary authorities, from Wirral to Tameside, that adjoin the region’s two big cities of Liverpool and Manchester. Most are proud still to live in Cheshire, though they live outside the current administrative county. Now it is time to establish a common unitary structure across the area of historic Cheshire.People and Places - Chester City Council Retrieval Date: 12 February, 2008.
This explains the rationale behind moving to a unitary structure. It is a direct quote from the People and Places microsite of Chester City Council. I wouldn't say that it is only relevant to "Historic Counties activists" (whatever they are). Owain (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale

message: The additions look interesting, but I wonder if they have grown sufficiently to justify them being put in a separate article which deals just with the administrative body that will be in charge of the new area? Doing this would be consistent with the way the separation between the area and the council has been handled in, for example, Chester (district) and Chester City Council, and they wouldn't then dominate the article so much as they do at the moment. I think it would look better, though others may disagree on that point. Comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Council Election Material

message: The notional result seems to assume that all three members will be elected for the same party, but this seems a bit spurious to me as there's the potential for split results. Has anyone done a more specific analysis of the results of the county wards compared to the district wards covering the same  geographical area? DWaterson (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notional result

message: The following material has been added twice to the article at the end of the introduction:
"The council name is still an area of contention with the district of Northwich and its people as they have argued since 2007 that a more befitting name considering the geographic differences of nearly 20 miles would be Cheshire West and Mid Cheshire Council."
This material is unsourced and I removed it on two occasions. However, what do people think of its addition? There are three issues here:
1. Is the material suitable for addition to this article?
2. If it is suitable, can a reliable source be found which backs up its claim, if so, what is it?
3. Should it be added in the place it was added?
I think we must pay attention so that we do not add even more unsourced material, wherever possible, but this may not even be suitable for being added. So, what do people think?  DDStretch  (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of unsourced material