Talk:Birkenhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.	United Kingdom Portal
This article has been rated "stub" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following has been identified as specific improvements this article needs: Add population data Add an infobox Add photos Cite sources Prose is better than lists

[edit] Scousers?

I've heard that people in birkenhead don't class or refer themselves as scousers. is this true?

See Plastic Scouser and Woolyback.--IanDavies 02:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in Birkenhead and I do not at all consider myself to be a scouser, the accent is not at all alike. I also hate living in this area and am ashamed to admit it to fellow Brits as it's such a chav-infested area.

Liverpool was (and still is) a place you went to rather than the place you lived in. They had different councils and were in different counties. When I worked during a vacation for Birkenhead Corporation's Parks & Gardens Dept 38 years ago, there was an old gardener there, who reckoned that there were small differences in the words used. Examples of the words he gave are 'jigger' and 'entry' to mean an alleyway. Of course being a scouser isn't just about the accent but shows there were different histories. Inevitably, after the first tunnel was built there was greater mixing and the differences in language may have been vanishing fast even then. In the 1950s, there were certainly people in Woodchurch with the old Cheshire accent,which was more of a country accent, but the next generation went to the local schools and assimilated. JMcC 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I was born in & live near to Birkenhead. I was born in sight of the Pier Head, if that counts for anything! I'm happy to be called a 'Scouser'. Scouse is quite tasty. Though this isn't the Wiki definition, I would consider the most modern version of a 'Plastic Scouser' to be someone who has disowned the 'Liverpool conurbation', to any extent, & now lives in another city.

Liverpool & Birkenhead are, essentially, a single conurbation, these days, courtesy of the ferries, underground railway &, particularly, the road tunnels. As JMCc, pointed out, the western Wirral accent has, or at least did have, a more rural inflection.

n.b. Skaus is a Norwegian-Viking word, & may be a word which was introduced to the area much earlier than C19. Wirral was occupied by Norse Vikings during the early 10th century. Viking Wirral

EP111

[edit] Towns in Cheshire category

The banned User:Irate, using the unregistered IP address 84.9.194.111 in order to circumvent his ban has removed this article from the Category:Towns in Cheshire despite the fact that it clearly says in the article that the town is in the historic county of Cheshire and was administered as part of the former administrative county of Cheshire. I propose the article is re-added to Category:Towns in Cheshire - any objections from registered users? Yorkshire Phoenix 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has now been corrected. WikiPedia is not a democracy no matter how many times you try to use it for your propoganda purposes, no matter how many of your mates you get to vote it will still be free for anyone to delete as it is simply wrong. It is indicative of your campaign that you introduce weasle words, then try to use them as justification for further corruption. BTW this is what it says on the main page Welcome to Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. no ban on me their hey.--84.9.195.178 08:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit is clearly unacceptable. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain lists Middlesex was a county of England. It was abolished in 1965 after being gutted in 1889 to form the County of London. The end. as an unacceptable example and your over simplification of the situation regarding Cheshire falls into the same category. Yorkshire has never existed as an administrative county in any form: are you therefore trying to tell me I'm not a Yorkshireman? The county of Cheshire is a traditional and historic entity, not just a former administrative county. An encyclopedic article must reflect this. Yorkshire Phoenix 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A distinction should be drawn between the content of the article and which categories it's in. The system of categorisation we have uses the modern ceremonial counties (which is why Cleckheaton, for example, is in Category:Towns in West Yorkshire rather than a "Towns in Yorkshire" category, and why Bilston is in Category:Towns in the West Midlands rather than Category:Towns in Staffordshire). For that reason, this article should only be in Category:Towns in Merseyside. Categories are not the place to explain complicated situations about what county somewhere is/was in. By all means, explain in the article that Birkenhead has historically been in Cheshire, and remains so for certain non-administrative purposes. But having it in more than one "county" category defeats the point of categorising.

Also, it was this talk page that was added to Category:Towns in Cheshire rather than the article. I've removed that link: it should always be the article that is added to a category, regardless of anything else. --RFBailey 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merseyside and Cheshire co-exist as metropolitan county and traditional county respectively: therefore Birkenhead should be in both categories, just as it can be in Category:Towns and villages in Wirral and Category:Towns in Merseyside, for example. Likewise all towns in Yorkshire should be in Category:Towns in Yorkshire regardless of their administrative arrangements, otherwise the category would be empty! Yorkshire Phoenix 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Towns in Yorkshire, you'll see that it's divided into subcategories for North, South, West and the East Riding: the current ceremonial counties (aside from having had Earby added to it, which (personally) I don't think it should have been). I still think it's confusing to list Birkenhead in both categories.

Thanks for putting back my signature, by the way. --RFBailey 10:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I'm inclined to agree with you about Birkenhead and towns within the ceremonial counties falling wholly within Yorkshire. What would you do about Earlby and other Yorkshore towns administered by other authorities, such as Lancashire County Council or Co Durham? (I presume the towns formerly in Cleveland but south of the Tees are now listed under North Yorkshire?) Yorkshire Phoenix 10:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To take another example, Sedbergh is listed in Category:Towns in Cumbria, but also in Category:Yorkshire. That makes sense because (i) it's currently in Cumbria and (ii) it is a Yorkshire-related article, having historically been in Yorkshire. Similarly, Kendal is listed in Category:Towns in Cumbria and in Category:Westmorland. Thus Earby should be listed in Category:Towns in Lancashire, but also could be in Category:Yorkshire. It looks like the former Cleveland towns are listed in Category:Towns in North Yorkshire (e.g. Redcar) or Category:Towns in County Durham (e.g.Hartlepool). --RFBailey 11:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that your latest examples appear to support my argument that Birkenhead should be in Category:Towns in Cheshire and Category:Towns in Merseyside do I take it your objection is based on the confusion caused by the existence of a current local government division called Cheshire, which doesn't include Birkenhead (a problem not apparent with Yorkshire or Westmorland)? Yorkshire Phoenix 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What I was suggesting was the following: that an article on Anytown should be listed in Category:Towns in Countyshire, where "Countyshire" is the current ceremonial county. If there are good reasons why another county should be listed, then list Anytown under Category:Traditionalshire (but not Category:Towns in Traditionalshire). I know it's a subtle and, on the face of it, seemingly pointless distinction, but it keeps Category:Towns in Countyshire and Category:Towns in Traditionalshire consistent as listings of towns currently in each ceremonial county.

Thus, under this approach, Birkenhead should definitely be in Category:Towns in Merseyside, could legitimately be in Category:Cheshire (although this isn't absolutely necessary), but should definitely not be in Category:Towns in Cheshire (which would include only towns in the current ceremonial county, e.g. Winsford, Runcorn).

Similarly, Earby should definitely be in Category:Towns in Lancashire, could possibly be in Category:Yorkshire, but should not be in Category:Towns in Yorkshire.

Likewise, Christchurch, Dorset (a much less controversial example) should definitely be in Category:Towns in Dorset, could possibly be in Category:Hampshire, but should not be in Category:Towns in Hampshire.

That there is still a local government division called Cheshire which doesn't include Birkenhead (or West Kirby, or Altrincham, etc.), unlike Westmorland, does indeed cause confusion. --RFBailey 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree here. Without a Category:Towns in the historic county of Cheshire it would have the capacity to cause confusion (even with Category:Cheshire), and Birkenhead being part of the traditional county is covered in the body of the article (so long as that vandal leaves it alone). As for Yorkshire towns in other local government areas, however, I'd have to stand by the argument that the towns themselves never left Yorkshire, and so the likes of Earby should remain in Category:Towns in Yorkshire. Yorkshire Phoenix 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)