Talk:Merseyside

Graphic

Help! That is not at all what Merseyside looks like, to start with the county is not simply connected, while the graphic seems to think that it is. Nor is that a map of England as I know it. Francis Davey

I think it way be that Wales is missing.--Jirate 23:12, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Merseyside Police

The Merseyside Police Authority bit really should be put back into its own article, I dont know why it was ever removed in the first place. In fact it would probably be better being put into an article about Merseyside Police. G-Man 20:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a seperate arcticle is best as it is a significant public body in it's own right and has a complex relation ship with the Poice and the burough councils.--Jirate 21:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Most of it looks like an unencyclopædic text dump that can be deleted--a list of phone numbers doesn't make an encyclopædia entry. I suggest deleting the list and then the remaining two paragraphs don't need to be split. Joe D (t) 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

While the phone number and email address probably should go. The members of the committee don't need individual bios like MP's, some kind of record is appropriate. --Jirate 21:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever: anyway it certainly doesn't belong here, no other county article has a section about a police authority stuck to it. Personally I dont really see the justification for two articles about this and Merseyside Police, they would go together perfectly happily on one article. G-Man 22:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

On and in

Re "on" and "in" Merseyside: Before the creation of the county the usage "on" referred to the geographical area of Merseyside i.e. those places on the Mersey west of the Runcorn Gap. I believe the current usage by , e.g. the local authorities,is for "in Merseyside" to be used for places within the county. Thus St Helens, which is not "on" the Mersey is "in " Merseyside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.248.225.148 (talk • contribs) .

Revert war

What on earth is this all about? What keeps getting reverted is simple semantics. Merseyside consists of metropolitan boroughs, it does not "contain" them. This is uncontroversial and the continual reverting and name-calling is being perpetuated by a banned user and someone known to stalk and revert my edits for no reason. Give it a rest! Owain (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merseyside exists on the map. It physically contains them. You on the other hand have this pervers view that there are entities called traditiona counties. Which you claim exist. They do not and you have never produced any evidence to show they do. You keep reinserting claims that People in Merseyside still use CHesire and Lancashire. With no evidence. The simple problem is you an dthe other freeks who support CountyWatch and the like. You should be banned simple because you are corrupting the encylopedia and that is your intent. Counties are not a matter of tradition. And Merseyside mostcertainly exists. It has it's own Lord Lieutancy etc.--84.9.195.111 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at a recent Ordnance Survey map. You will find no evidence of Merseyside. You will, however, see the metropolitan boroughs marked. Merseyside cannot physically contain anything because it doesn't physically exist. As an entity it consists of the metropolitan boroughs. There is plenty of evidence that people still use Cheshire and Lanacashire, although you will not agree with it because it doesn't support your blinkered agenda. The fact that a place has a Lord Lieutenancy does not prove anything - that particular office was invented in the 1540s - long after the counties. Read the Lieutenancies Act 1997, it defines the lieutenancies in England and Wales based on groups of local authority areas - i.e. the local authority areas define the lieutenancy, not the other way around. Owain (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merseyside Most definetly exists. You just a fantasists who claims that some called 'Traditional COunties' exist. They do not.--84.9.195.219 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever say that it didn't exist? I am quite happy for administrative areas and traditional counties to live side-by-side for different purposes. The point I made was that it doesn't appear on Ordnance Survey maps. Owain (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

County Watch and "Association of British Counties" (sic) activists are systematically vandalising thousands of Wikipedia articles every month. To give them their credit, they are far, far better organised (co-ordinated) and fanatical than their massed ranks of opponents. However, opponents of the Flat Earthers have Wikilaw on our side:

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Counties_of_Britain ("Metropolitan counties should be treated as counties - the fact that they no longer have councils has no relevance on their legal status.")

--Mais oui! 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So when Westmorland had its council abolished it ceased to exist (despite exisitng for hundreds of years before the council was created). But when Merseyside had its council abolished it lived on (despite only being in existence for 12 years prior to this). Great logic there. Why can't you just accept that traditional counties are in widespread popular use for both geographic and other purposes? You may need to be told where you live by the government. Others prefer to make their own minds up based on 1,000 years of history and tradition. Lancsalot 09:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The county of Westmorland was abolished not county council. It seesed to exist. Therefore it could not have a council. Merseyside Council was abolished and it power distributed to the broughts. The county as an area of land still exists unlike Westmorland. You cannot except that there are no such thing as traditional counties. You haven't got a mind to make up. Tradition does not come into this at all. It is you fantasy. Nothingelse.--84.9.194.136 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding to someone with such a poor grasp of history and grammar, but here goes: Please read the legislation, the legal entity abolished in 1974 was the administrative county of Westmorland (the entity created in 1889), not the county that the original administrative county was based on. Obviously the "area of land" still exists - how could it not exist unless it was all dug up and thrown into the sea? You correctly separate the idea of a geographical area from an administrative body, but only for your own example. Huh? Owain (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It works for them all it just that you don't undertand the law. The parcel of land know as Westmorland does not exists any more. The land has been incorporated into a bigger parcel and it's admin changed. It no longer legally exists. --84.9.194.136 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that the existence or not of an administrative area used for a specific purpose precludes other possibly-overlapping areas from existing for other purposes? As I've already pointed out the administrative county certainly no longer exists and yes, it was incorporated into a bigger parcel and its admin changed, but that entity was only created in 1889 for a particular purpose. So what? The counties are primarily geographic areas that are defined by no one piece of statute, but have been used as the basis of other areas (i.e. local government) over the years. Just because one particular usage stops using them doesn't mean that they don't exist — that is a complete logical fallacy. Owain (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no legilation describing the geography of 'Traditional Counties'. QED traditional counties do not exists.--84.9.194.136 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of the argument being finally lost. There is no legislation defining the geography of Ben Nevis, no legislation defining the River Thames, &c. — but those things CLEARLY EXIST. For goodness sake the boundaries of Berkshire for example, pre-date not only the legislative body that you claim needs to define it, but the Kingdom of England itself! Owain (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your not very bright are you. The thames is delmited by it banks. A mountain by its summit and flanks. In other wrords natural boundaries. No such natural boundaries exis for a county. They are man made and man unmade. They are created and moved at will by TPTB and in this case they never created any entities called Traditional Counties. They are just a figment of you imgination. To compare Berkshire with the Thames and claim that there existsance is on the same level is truely weird. No that's about the 3rd time you have lost the argument. No go away and get some form of education beyond grammar and syntax.--87.75.131.50 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, personal attacks? Counties ARE defined by physical/natural boundaries. To use the Berkshire example again, the northern boundary is the River Thames, whereas the current administrative border is arbitrary and subject to change all the time. Your remark that the Thames is delimited by its banks proves my point! No piece of legislation created those boundaries, they simply exist. You have simply ignored the fact that things can exist without legislation! Owain (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of a river as a boundary is a human choice. The physical world exists without legislation however all human geography is a matter of human choice and change. You confuse reality with what is in your head, you incapable of differetiating between the two, your a fantasist. --87.75.131.50 12:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a resident of Merseyside. However, I have yet to meet a resident of this county that does not recount misgivings about the loss of the older Cheshire or Lancashire identity. The misgivings have ranged from resignation to active dislike. The Department of the Environment stated on 1st April 1974 that the boundary changes were not designed to alter the traditional geographical or county allegiances. The local government legislation only concerns itself with administrative arrangements. I cannot see any reference or section that provides that the new counties are to be the sole geographic division of the country.

I do not agree with the hacking around with this article. The article makes it clear that this is a post 1974 county. Overlooking the traditional counties presents difficulties in that the historic records of this country are still arranged to reflect the ancient boundaries. Residents of the Wirral still have to travel to Cheshire Records Office to undertake full pre-1974 research. This is not likely to change.

Interestingly in Scotland (where I hail from) a great number of people still use the older counties rather than the monolithic regions that replaced them. So I do find it interesting that opinion is so split south of the border. 85.211.42.171 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This article has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks, but there has been no discussion. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Some people prefer the use of historical counties..."

I'm going to remove this ludicrous (and uncited) statement. I've lived in both Liverpool and the Wirral all my life, and not one person I've spoken to prefers this usage. Common acceptance throughout the entirety of Merseyside is that they live in the county of Merseyside, not Lancashire or Cheshire. Feel free to revert me if you have a citing for this statement or another good reason, but I personally feel this is absolutely incorrect. L1v3rp00l 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people DO! Let's look at what you say here: a) you have concluded that 'common acceptance' is from what you, personally know from those people you, personally, have spoken to. Have you asked EVERYONE in 'Merseyside'? No? Then it cannot be 'common acceptance'. b) You have lived in both Liverpool and Wirral. That's not the 'entirety' of Merseyside; the administrative area they created in 1974 also includes St Helens and Sefton. Have you asked anybody in, say, St Helens, Newton-le-Willows, or Southport which county they come from? I promise you will get a different answer; therefore it is not 'common acceptance' nor is it 'throughout the entirety of Merseyside'. I can also speak personally and I feel this is absolutely *correct* - some people DO prefer the use of historical counties, and I am one of them. I must say that the statement, though uncited, appears far from 'ludicrous' to me and I see no reason why it should have been reverted. 81.31.97.129 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, some websites don't list Merseyside as a region, such as this one http://www.jobsbehindthescenes.com/jobboard/cands/searchCriteria.asp They list Lancashire and Chesire but not Merseyside, therefore people still have to use Lancashire when using these search engines. I have also received letters in the past that say Lancashire instead of Merseyside and if you put Southport, Lancashire it is allowed too. User:sweetie_candykim 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.168.125 (talk)

Notable People from Merseyside

As I was checking out the article for on of my favorite artists, Aidan Hughes/BRUTE! I noticed he wasn't listed in the Merseyside article, nor was anyone else. I would like to see a list of notable people from Merseyside including Brute. Since I'm not an authority on Merseyside by any means, I think it should be left to you fine people - Mandonine 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecesary reiteration of "divided by the estuary"

In three separate places, this article gives the details of Merseyside being split in half by the estuary and which sections are on the east and west sides, etc. This could surely be tightened up a bit, I'm just not the one to do it. Jessicapierce 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears I've copied the text by mistake when making some ammendments. I'm hoping to elaborate on some of the sections soon as this article has been dormant for quite some time. Jhamez84 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Jessicapierce 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's Merseybeat?

It was only the most common sound of 1962-64, why isn't it here? The Person Who Is Strange 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

markets

As an interested user I noticed another user has added on references to markets towards the end of the Merseyside section. I have no particular interest in markets but this article has merit and needs to be placed in a suitable location. I will look at this if nobody objects to opening up a link to this article. It hasn't been edited correctly as it stands. Dmcm2008 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Identity

This is as per current text: "To express location within the Merseyside area by the preposition on - thus "on Merseyside" as opposed to "in Merseyside" - was traditionally the more usual. However, the logic of suggestions in support of this from some quarters (that, after all, one would always be "on” the side of the Mersey, not "in" it) falls down; since it is, in fact, entirely possible to be situated [both] "in" or "on" [either] “side” of the river Mersey and area(s) thus designated. Therefore, more recent usage tends to draw distinctions between the geographical "Merseyside" - for which "on" is considered appropriate - and the Metropolitan county of "Merseyside", for which "in" is used.".

I have heard 'on' Merseyside in Tv and Radio reports, but what is this all about? As far as I am concerned it is utter nonesense. I am Liverpool born and bred and have never used the term 'on Merseyside' and this above saying one would always be on the side of the Mersey etc is giberish. Does anyone agree or am I the only one puzzled by this statement? Dmcm2008 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It may have dubious origins, but "on Merseyside" has considerable, even widespread useage according to Google ([1]). I wouldn't be comfortable removing reference to it or speculating on its meaning without a reliable source though. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool City Region

As per actions by Kitchen Knife: I have said the Liverpool City region is in existance. The city region compises of 5 Merseyside boroughs and Halton borough. I have rewritten this inDmcm2008 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Square miles/KM

Not sure why this says 645 sq km is equivalent to 245 square miles or whatever, as it's more around 402 sq ml. Can this wierd conversion rate be altered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopheard (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Urban Area name change

Not to moan, but wherever people got the name for the Rainsford Urban Area for is beyond me, the correct name is Rainford Urban Area (I live in St Helens). (Gav235 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Flag

Is there any good reason why the flag should not be captioned as "Banner of the former Merseyside County Council"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The flag of the CC was [2] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So what is File:County Flag of Merseyside.png? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

One is the Flag of the County the other of the County Council. The council is the coat of arms on a flag. That coat of arms or something very similar is still used by [3]. It had more logos and flags, I think as a reaction to it's new newness, but I don't care just pick one.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No flag was shown in the infobox until this edit added it a few weeks ago, without any explanation. Showing a flag - any flag - in the infobox implies that the flag has some current official status, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the flag in File:County Flag of Merseyside.png has that status. If you want to show the flag of the former local authority, with references indicating how and when it was used, and by whom, it would be better to do that as a freestanding image with an explanatory caption elsewhere in the article. I'll remove it from the infobox as original research and unreferenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The flag (which I've reinserted) is the official flag of Merseyside County Council. Note that, though the council has been abolished, Merseyside still exists (as a ceremonial county) and so the flag is still official. Bodies such as the Flags Institute refuse to recognise any but the Historical Counties of England and so if their approval is necessary for a flag to be official, you're basically saying that Merseyside does not have (and cannot ever have) an official flag. I'm also not aware that it is necessary to reference information in infoboxes - perhaps you could point me to the Wikipedia rules that state this is necessary?Steve3742 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lancashire

Is 'Merseyside" to be considered "Lancastrian" --that is if one is reading about medieval English political history and so on--? This seems to be one of things to which a native would think 'obvious...' and leave without saying. And it seems to be the case here. To avoid controversies the Introductory might say that 'Merseyside'--and I think, Manchester, etc., right? are "part of the historical Lancastrian region." IF that is the case, of course. For us furriners who want to be less soddish about such things, ok?? Woilorio (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No. There is no such thing as "the historical Lancastrian region" - there is Lancashire. And this part of Merseyside has always been part of Cheshire, not Lancashire. The name Mersey means "boundary", so "Merseyside" straddles two sides of an ancient boundary between regions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

@A.D.Hope and Chocolateediter: Can you guys agree on a stable infobox image here please, changing it every week is starting to get annoying. I am open to all options, but if deciding of three images, I would prefer a solid criteria, i.e. urban, coastal and inland, or Liverpool, Southport and Wirral as the three BUAs. Also pinging @DragonofBatley: who also edited the infobox image here. DankJae 12:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we are pretty much set. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I am getting a bit fed up with collages I've spent time working out a solid rationale for being tinkered with for reasons of personal preference. There was a bit of a flaw in the previous Merseyside infobox in that it omitted the Wirral, but I chose the Three Graces, Dream, and Southport deliberately to show the county's major city, a cultural landmark, and a coastal landscape. Having that changed because Chocolateediter 'didn't like' one of the images is a bit irritating. If they'd swapped out an image with the intent of including the Wirral I'd understand and have no objection — something similar happened at Cumbria, where I couldn't find a good image of Carlisle but Chocolateediter eventually did. It doesn't help that the replacement images are sometimes less than ideal. It can be tricky to find quality ones sometimes, but I don't understand the rationale behind changing this image of Southport pier for this one.

I realise these collages are quite new and so a bit of fine tuning is to be expected, but at the moment the changes feel restless. I also really don't want to have a go at Chocolateediter. We've made a lot of progress, as changes at Yorkshire and Buckinghamshire are being discussed on their talk pages and they did let me know about the changes here in an existing user talk page discussion. I think they've improved their own collages, with West Yorkshire being a particularly good example. Still, I'm rapidly reaching the point where I just want to get things to a 'good enough' stable state. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

May be best to discuss it here, hence why I started this section. My recent reversion is not support of the now existing images, but I unfortunately find Dream out-of-place surely Crosby Iron Men are more iconic IMO. If you two are clashing, best discuss these changes and hopefully also have a local discuss what they believe best represents their county if possible, or a third opinion. Once consensus is reached, it can be enforced for stability. DankJae 13:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a discussion being opened here before the changes were made. For minor issues like swapping out one image for a similar one an explanatory edit summary is generally fine, but this is a bigger change.

Another Place (the iron men) was my initial thought as well, but I struggled to find an image which fitted the infobox format. Dream isn't as well-known, but I'm not averse to using lesser-known landmarks if they still represent a county reasonably well. Staffordshire, for example, has a bottle kiln in its infobox as a nod to the pottery industry despite that particular kiln not being especially notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Options

Previous infobox images as options (A–J)
In order of current to oldest: Ignore any white spacing issues, they did not appear when actually in an infobox Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I Option J

New options discussion

@A.D.Hope and Chocolateediter: I'd argue we should create a new one from scratch under new criteria, unless we reach a conclusion similar to one of the options above. While we could exclusively choose one from above, may be it is best to come to an agreement on what three best images represent Merseyside, in principle. Although tbh, all the collages above were disputed by one of us.

• If using only three images, my criteria would be:
  • Urban, coastal, inland
  • Liverpool, Southport, Wirral (three significant areas; St Helens etc are kinda part of Liverpool's BUA, and we only have three images)
  • or in light of UKCOUNTIES: Liverpool, a natural landmark and the Beetles (most famous cultural icon)?
  • or just what I feel like rn in the example below-right, loosely based on the point above, where the Beetles replaced with the first civic park :) (as two statues won't work)

DankJae 00:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Test example, not for certain – DankJae

A test infobox is to the right, not concrete, but just testing ideas. Chose Birkenhead Park as the first civic park, which surely should be of some importance? The UK Gov made it part of the World Heritage Site tentative list. The image of the Crosby Men is alright, but not ideal, but struggled to find some, so would accept not using them at all. While Dream (sculpture) has been used, I'd argue that is it unfortunately really not known nor represents an important industry of Merseyside? Is there an alternative structural landmark? DankJae 00:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've considered Another Place and Birkenhead Park before as they're obvious choices. At the time I wasn't as impressed with the available images as with those of other landmarks, but at this point I'm happy to go with them. All I'd suggest is swapping that image of Birkenhead Park for this one, as the pavilion fills more of the frame so it might be clearer. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

​Yes obvious choices, which is why I want to try them out, although if you're not impressed be free to suggest alternative landmarks, it is not my opinion above all. Although personal taste of images is subjective, so preferred a more logic based criteria (i.e. most known/iconic) as if the last multiple disputes show, personal taste quickly changes. Better see if there are any good images of the obvious landmarks, and if there aren't, slowly move to other landmarks.

The image of Another Place is just a test, but I am slowly leaning for that to be replaced with a image of Southport/Sefton. The Pavilion image is the best one of Birkenhead Park I can find or this, and wasn't specifically chosen to show the Pavilion tbh, with the current one chosen as it showed more of the park. Although your proposed is good too. I am looking through other Birkenhead Park images, but if they're not good, open to choose a different landmark, ideally from Wirral, with Port Sunlight, New Brighton or Thurstaston beach, coming to mind, but not required (Fort Perch is used on Wirral). DankJae 14:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not unimpressed, it's just unfortunate that the images are good rather than excellent. It's rare that the most obvious landmarks also have the best images available on Wikimedia, so there's usually a choice to be made between prominence and image quality. The image of St Bees Head at Cumbria is actually quite small, for example, but at that size it works.

I have had a look at quite a few landmarks at this point (Speke Hall, Formby, New Brighton, Port Sunlight, etc.), and it's proved tricky to find three excellent images. On that basis I'm quite happy to go with the above, I'm sure with some editing tweaks it'll look fine. If better images come along in the future we can always swap them out. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Second test example, not for certain, be free to suggest alternatives – DankJae

@A.D.Hope:, yes agree that better images can be added in the future, although hopefully with no disputes. Struggled to find excellent images (especially outside Liverpool) of the known landmarks. Be free to suggest any others, although of the previous images used in the (collapsed) infoboxes above, none stand out to me, aside the ones of Liverpool and Southport pier, but that is used at Southport so better try a different one. Tested your pavilion image to the right and alternative images of the same landmarks above, be free to state preferences between the two tests, or any new images. Changed the another place image, while lesser in quality, I wanted to test this image that also had the docks in it, which could indirectly represent the area's shipping heritage? Although a cropping in lesser quality, and may be a stretch to balance cultural meaning and image quality. If not using the Crosby men, I'd consider these three I found this, this or this. Ofc, any others you'd propose, and that don't need to be in Sefton. DankJae 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're getting the collage bug, Jae? I like this new version — either pavilion image works, and I like the idea of showing the docks behind the statue. It's a shame the statue isn't a bit bigger, but given the images we have available it's a very good effort. I certainly prefer it over the other beach photos, which are perfectly fine but less distinctively 'Merseyside'. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, Collage bug? Do you mean a technical issue with the images? Or the obsession? If for the latter, I just want a collage that sticks, this was one of the few articles that I noticed changed constantly. I guess such bug spreads if there is a clash on it, meaning a discussion needed. A bit involved more than I expected as I expected the disputes before to be here but I guess some may be tired of collages.

I don’t aim to push my sole opinion, and want consensus but a bit quieter than I hoped. Just trying to prevent image wars again that's all and want the best collage I can make so no more wars surely.

@Chocolateediter, it would be great to get your views, especially as you had changed the images while this discussion is on going, and I hope for agreed stability. But you’re not required to in the end and many other articles need (an update to) images, which would be fine with the other images suggested here.

If no major opposition is raised in maybe two days? I’d insert maybe the two images in the latter infobox but the pavilion in the first as it is brighter. If there are any issues please raise them.

Regards DankJae 10:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I just mean that you seem to enjoy the process. It can be fun to puzzle out the best images, I think so anyway. I'll take a back seat while we wait for Chocolateediter to respond, which I'm sure they will. I agree with the proposal in your final paragraph. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I think we can be safe to assume that they is going to be a coastal picture since they seems to be a number of good ones. The suggested File: Sand Dunes at the Edge of Crosby Marine Lake - geograph.org.uk - 4951096.jpg is one I like.

Here are some Liverpool suggestions:

File:St George's Hall, Liverpool (2023) (2).jpg

File:Beatles Statue, Liverpool Waterfront - geograph.org.uk - 4894164.jpg

A Matthew Street portrait pic (Cavern Clubs)

I'll be back with some more suggestions for other areas in a bit. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Natural landmarks:

Sand dunes at Formby Point - geograph.org.uk - 2586058.jpg

File:Formby Hills Sand Dunes - geograph.org.uk - 3332748.jpg

And a personal favourite of my is

File:Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) on Lunt Meadows Nature Reserve - geograph.org.uk - 5064237.jpg Chocolateediter (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As a gallery, ex. Mathew Street DankJae 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Liverpool St George
• 
  Liverpool Beatles
• 
  Formby Point
• 
  Formby Hills
• 
  Canada Geese
• 
  Gorsehill

Be free to insert more into the gallery above. DankJae 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, Any specific Mathew Street ones? Like as Merseyside is more than Liverpool, best there is only one image of it here, so I am open to using St Georges instead of the Waterfront, although with less traffic light poles potentially?

The coastal images, not sure, I guess using my vague and multiple proposed criteria (you can propose your own ofc), is it to replace the current Another Place? Did consider Formby, but as they were simple sand dunes decided against, although the one of Formby Point is nice although basic. The Canada Geese is also good, but my only (minor) issue is that Canada Geese aren't really associated with Merseyside? Also open to use the Beatles statue in any of them as Merseyside's most important icon IMO, although a cropped version?

Wbu @A.D.Hope. DankJae 19:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the Pier Head rather than St George's Hall — it's the most recognisable view of Liverpool, really. Formby is famous for its red squirrels and they are very cute, so that's an option, although the Crosby statues are fine. I'd leave the Beatles for Liverpool, they're more closely associated with the city than the county as a whole. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Pier head is still an option. I just like the that it is the whole St George Hall building, getting the three graces and the Beatles is most ideal but it is hard to get it all in, I visited last year but the photos I have me family in. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, remember this is on Merseyside not Liverpool, and ceremonial counties are now limited to three images, so best not have it all be Liverpool. DankJae 00:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They isn't exactly a real liver bird but at least they is some large birds in a pool of water, yea I thought Lunt reserve pic is more colourful than sand dunes. I was working my way out of Liverpool, I quickly sent the pics through as I needed to do summit before looking for more it is hard finding a third pic and the Beatles one would help as the portrait one. St George's Hall is my top Liverpool pick traffic lights are permanent so good look finding another atleast traffic wise it is only a black cab others have more cars and they don't age well, thinking of Matthew Street for the Northern England article's transport with the York Shambles alongside.

On the third pic what about

Gorsehill water tower 1 cropped.jpg

Chocolateediter (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Added a infobox to kinda understand what you're proposing below be free to move or switch the images in the second one to your liking.

Still prefer the lighting of Pier Head over St. George's, but thats me. Did look for other St. George's, nothing stuck out as a easily replacement tbh. Would consider the Beetles, but as ADH says they also can be solely for Liverpool.

Also, there are already quite a few images at Northern England#Transport, and as a FA, it may be stricter on adding more images. DankJae 00:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Final proposal – DankJae

Fourth test, be free to move these around to your liking.

So we kinda have these two? DankJae 00:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy with your Three Graces pic and my bottom two.

I think 3 Graces is decided 2 to 1 and to be fair the 3Gr pic is probably way better. (I've went and adjusted the 3graces pic by the way so feel free to ask if you want it adjusted closer to before).

@A.D. Hope: your the casting vote unless a 4th user comes in, what do you think, could wrap it up or throw some pics in that you like in. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the Pier Head, Another Place, and Birkenhead Park. It's a logical selection and the images are pretty good all things considered. Chocolateediter, thanks for editing the Pier Head image but you might want to tone down the saturation, the sky looks a little too blue. It's also slightly wonky (and always has been), so if you could rotate it a few degrees anticlockwise that would be fab.

That's my vote, hope it helps! A.D.Hope (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Pier Head (geograph 3059094) cropped.jpg

Getting the tree line straightened while keeping the buildings straight, lost a lot of picture so I created a new file. It's hard to keep definition in the buildings without darkening the sky they is two versions so you could revert the second if you prefer the first.

I find Another Place weird but both of you chosen it, so be it. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm with User:DankJae's final proposal. Think Merseyside - think Liverpool. Defining image of Liverpool is the Liver Building/Waterfront. The beach sculpture is pretty well known and we need a coastal image — though close call with the Formby Point. Wirral bit more problematic, can't picture a defining image — suppose the park is OK. Rupples (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Added my proposal for now, this discussion is still open however. DankJae 23:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)