User talk:Idris Ginger Beer

{| align="center"
 * - valign="top" width="100%; style="text-align:center;margin:0px -10px 0px -10px; font-variant: small-caps;"
 * colspan="2" |
 * style="padding: .3em .7em .4em; border: 2px solid #b9ffb9; color: #0F0 ; background-color: #FFAAFF"|

Ships
 category=Mersey built ships addfirstcategorydate=true count=20 
 * }

Merseyside
Hi! Sorry to bother, but I was just tidying up the People from XXXX in Merseyside and I notice you've created a series of Metropolitan Borough of XXXX cats which then have the original cats inside. The problem with this is it doesn't match Category:Greater Manchester or Category:Kent. I appreciate you are trying to avoid confusion, but I think this may add to the confusion by being different from other parts of the UK. If I may take Knowsley as an example, it is unlikely that we would need to cat for the village and cat by the borough should be enough. What do you think? Regan123 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. I think the categories should be put back as they were. We can add descriptors to the category pages to make clear they are for the borough (as we have done in many other such categories). MRSC • Talk 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No you are both wrong there is a place called sefton and the met borough. Also It is in keeping with Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham and the majority of other see Category:Metropolitan boroughs.--Idris Ginger Beer 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No one said there isn't before a place and a Metropolitan Borough, but no other place in England does it this way with the categories. This is not about the article names.  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. I would be grateful if you didn't move any more articles or cats until a consensus is reached, please? Thanks, Regan123 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the borough field as it is simple duplication. If the category scheme was renamed as you have suggested the longer names could go in the district field. There is no need for a "borough" field. MRSC • Talk 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, are you absolutely sure Category:People from Knowsley really contains people from the met borough? It would be retrospective use for all but one of them. MRSC • Talk 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not duplication. If nothing else it signals a met borough which is in my opinion usefull. I think it best if a category for an area is the same as the name for the article. As for retrospective use. I'm happy to do that as as far as I'm concerned the borough is a description of the land it occupies if you were born on the land you are native to it whatever it's called now. You are native to described bit of land not the description.--Idris Ginger Beer 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia conventions seem to be that if someone was born in an area when it was in Lancashire, then they are stated as being in Lancashire. The hierarchy created (and know frankly all over the place with cats being sub catted virtually of themselves) was designed to put those transferred areas both in the cerimonial and historic counties.  That has all been removed, so if you are looking at people born in an area when it was Lancashire you can't then work your way through to Merseyside for more recent persons, or vice versa.  Can we all stop moving things or editing templates around and centralise the discussion on Category Talk:Merseyside so it easier to keep up?  Whatever consensus is developed could have a complete recategorisation inplication for England. Regan123 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No that's not true. People were happily put in the modern counties. It was only when the traditional county battles were fought did it become important, to one side to mention the previos county. Wikiepedia has no conventions just rules.


 * I'm yet to see anywhere else on Wikipedia that contemporary units have been anachronistically applied in this way. Presenting someone as being 'native' or 'from' a place that did not exist until long after they died is bad practice. MRSC • Talk
 * I think you 'll find the land has always existed. On the contary the world use Native to refer to the territory not the entity.

Misunderstanding
Having read your talk page comment at Template talk:England people message it is now clear to me that there is some misunderstanding about metropolitan boroughs. I've read a variety of texts on the subject of UK local government and can dig out some sources if you like, but I can assure you that the districts of the metropolitan counties as created in 1974 continue to have the status of metropolitan district. Most are known as metropolitan borough as they inherited municipal incorporation from their predecessor district. The Local Government Act 1985 did not affect their status, i.e. they remained metropolitan districts (with the status of borough). If there is any point of this that is not clear I can go into more detail. MRSC • Talk 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry you going to have to provide some evidence the the term metropolitaibn borough which is used all over wikipedia is a symomin for district.--Idris Ginger Beer 23:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's 'Synonym', Idris. 80.192.242.187 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.