Category talk:Merseyside

This category 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 articles

Merseyside

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles

England

This category 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 articles

Merge[edit]

We appear to have some duplicate categories which need to be merged.

I propose merging back into the original categories. The convention has been for area categories to cover districts rather than settlements. These categories have usually just used the district names without descriptors (e.g. Royal Borough of , District of, Borough of, London Borough of etc.). To be clear they cover a district/borough (and not a settlement) a line of text is usually added to the category page. Any objections/comments on this merge? MRSC • Talk 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MRSC on this one to bring it back into line with the other categories, see Category:Hampshire, Category:Greater Manchester, Category:West Midlands, Category:Staffordshire where the council areas are different from the names, but there is no need for the long form. There has been no confusion. Regan123 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only comment on the St.Helens article along with the Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens article. The 'Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens' contains a number of different townships and settlements, several of which have articles of their own on Wikipedia. St.Helens is one of these places and gives it's name to the 'borough'. This is the only connection between these places and St.Helens. They are in the same borough. I am of the opinion that the 'Borough' articles be scrapped giving to each individual place/town/township having it's own article, each containing one line of text stating that place's membership of a particular 'Borough'. To merge the two would create problems, as is happening in the Wigan Matropolitan Borough article. All surrounding places will be regarded as being 'in' the place which gives it's name to the borough and that will not be factual. 80.192.242.187 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)JemmyH.[reply]

We can't delete the Met Borough articles. They are verifiable and notable things and in place for all over the UK. That's not to say that the sub towns, villages, suburbs etc can't have their own article, but without an explanation of the council, it would not have any coherence. There certainly is not a proposal to merge them together. Anyhow, here the issue is the name of the Categories. We have used the short form all over the UK, as exampled above, but here in Merseyside, they are being renamed to the long form. So, to use your example, St Helens (the town) sits in the Category of St Helens which covers the whole of the Met Borough. MRSC has given some good examples above. Regan123 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as full name because. It is in keeping with Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham and the majority of other see Category:Metropolitan boroughs and avoid confusion with the name sakes.--Idris Ginger Beer 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples are of naming of articles rather than categories. For those we have Category:Westminster not Category:City of Westminster and Category:Hackney not Category:London Borough of Hackney etc. As we are not expecting to have cats for the namesake settlements it would be over-disambiguation. MRSC • Talk 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any cat should have the same name as the article. The ones you site are not Metropolitan boroughs. These have a different status to the ones you are talking about. There existance is not well known. There is confusion there are several "people from x" were x is part of the borough of st helens then there is the people from st helens cat which contains anyone from the borough that is not in the other cat. In order to make a distinction and make the heirachy meaningful we need a cat for the borough and one for the town. This applies potentially to buildings from, companies in etc. It therefore makes sense to use the full formal name for these recently created boroughs.--Idris Ginger Beer 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the whole point of Category:Natives of XXXX by settlement where XXXX is the short form of the borough name. What I can't see is why Merseyside has to be different from Greater Manchester or West Midlands, where the Met Boroughs have the same status. These would seem to be relevant: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Maintain consistency within each country, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it. This does seem rather silent: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). My primary concern is consistency here and I, for one, don't intend to engage in a mass renaming of the rest of the UK.Regan123 21:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a vote somewhere if you want to establish a hierachy and standard. There was one that worked happily until MRSC messed about with it to suit his idea of non existant met boroughs in which he cannot find a hierachy.--Idris Ginger Beer 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster and Hackney are exactly the same as the metropolitan boroughs. In both cases there are smaller settlements and much-larger districts which share a name. In each case, and in the metropolitan boroughs, the districts are diffentiated from each other only by one of several possible status values: City, London borough, Metropolitan borough, etc. MRSC • Talk 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Your revert behaviour is unacceptable.--Idris Ginger Beer 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments by banned User:Irate evading ban using sock accounts were striken as at this time stamp. MRSC • Talk 08:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this debate as I assumed good faith of User:Idris Ginger Beer, however this was yet another sock of User:Irate. I have re-merged the categories back how they were. MRSC • Talk 09:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that we have some sub cats like Category:Birkenhead which are for the towns. If we are keeping these (and I thought local authority was the level we set as the maximum with the short form), should these remain? If we do, then do we need to manually add the People from cats? Regan123 14:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything against sub cats by settlement in principle, but they need to be viable in terms of size (enough articles) and have clear reliable boundaries (which are often hard to get below local government districts). I think these sub-cats should probably go back into the metropolitan boroughs. None are so large as to require further splitting and there are already some sub-cats by feature in the Merseyside scheme. These seem to be the preferred method of sub category elsewhere. MRSC • Talk 14:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towns and Villages in Wirral[edit]

There's quite a long list of these in the article on Wirral Peninsula, but none are listed in the category. Lou Sander 19:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]