Category talk:Yorkshire

Introduction
I'm not convinced the current introduction for this category is remotely helpful. It steers readers towards articles regarding administrative divisions covering some of the Yorkshire area, not the pages about the county/region itself. Unless someone can come up with a more neutral re-write I propose the intro is simply deleted as the administrative divisions are all covered in Yorkshire. 194.203.110.127 09:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Yorkshire was never an administrative county and so it cannot have been disestablished in 1974. Counties disestablished in 1974 is a wrong category. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yorkshire was a county, with statutory existence, until 1974. It was replaced by West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and others. Neither it, nor any of these, were administrative counties. MRSC (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Statutory existence? Which statute would that be?  Yorkshire is/was a county at common law only.  The 1974 date can apply only to administrative counties (and to pre-existing county boroughs, districts and parishes), all of which were in that year abolished by the Local Government Act 1972. Howard Alexander (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been through this all before and it forms the basis of our policies as set out in WP:UCC. The 1888 Act and 1972 Act deals separately with counties and administrative counties. You know full well they are different things. Stop pretending otherwise. MRSC (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of that blather justifies a 1974 date for the "abolition" of Yorkshire. I have not "pretended" any confusion between counties and administrative counties, and indeed my argument is that they are very different. Administrative counties were all abolished on 1 April 1974, but Yorkshire was not one of them and there is no other abolition in the 1972 Act, as well you know. If the argument is that the 1888 Act did away with common law counties, then the abolition date would be 1889, and yet you stick to 1974 without citation.  It is not within the policy cited either.


 * Nevertheless, the policy you wrote contains a lot of "We know it's not true but let's say it for ease and consistency", so I can hardly object that accuracy ought to break in at some point.


 * Howard Alexander (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)