User talk:EP111

Hello EP111! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.

If you are a Wikipedian then you may notice some differences in policies and the style of our articles. These include:
 * NPOV &rarr; be fair (not quite the same thing!)
 * be bold &rarr; plunge forward
 * Village pump &rarr; travellers' pub
 * External links &rarr; We do not use a separate external links section, but incorporate primary links only into the text itself.
 * sandbox &rarr; graffiti wall
 * stub tagging &rarr; Article status

It may also be very useful for you to check out Welcome, Wikipedians. If you need help, take a look at Help, or else post a message in the travellers' pub or on my talk page. Thanks for contributing!--ϒpsilon (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. EP111 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :) --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice contributions to various Wirral destinations. Welcome :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad to be of service. EP111 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Regions of Merseyside?
Hi. Please have a look at Talk:Merseyside. I'm confused by what you're doing, especially as I now see you're moving listings from city articles to region articles, which is the reverse of what we normally do on this site. But you seem to be considering Wirral/Central North and Wirral/Central as city articles, rather than region articles. So do you plan on merging all information from the articles of cities in those areas to these sub-region articles of Wirral and then turning the city articles into redirects? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:Merseyside. If there's any further problem with it, please feel free to correct it without discussion. EP111 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think it would make any sense for me to make unilateral decisions, especially not about areas I'm not personally familiar with. The question is what's the best way to divide up Merseyside within this site's system of breadcrumb navigation, in which it's normal to either subdivide a region completely into other regions or not subdivide it except into bottom-level articles (city, rural area, park, etc.). Right now, Wirral is called an "Other destination" in the Merseyside article, but it seems like a region, and Central Wirral is breadcrumbed to Merseyside instead of being breadcrumbed to Wirral. Since you're a new user, I'm probably losing you in this discussion, but think about things this way: If you look at the top of each destination article's page, you'll see something like this:


 * Europe > Britain and Ireland > United Kingdom > England > North West England > Merseyside


 * That's called the "breadcrumb trail". If you navigate to every term to the left of Merseyside, you'll see that it's divided into countries or regions completely and in an orderly way. When we get to Merseyside, Merseyside and Merseyside look normal, but in fact, Merseyside is treated mostly as a bottom-level region (one that's not subdivded into any other regions) but is partly subdivided, and Wirral is not actually treated as an "Other destination", which would be a bottom-level article not subdivided into any further destination articles. The problem is further compounded by the Wirral subregion articles not being breadcrumbed to Wirral. Does that make any sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. I see the problem now. should be adjusted for every bottom-level place in Wirral. They shouldn't be just Merseyside > Place, but Merseyside > Wirral > Place. Ideally, there should also be similar for Merseyside > Knowsley, Merseyside > St Helens and Merseyside > Sefton, also. These are all Metropolitan boroughs within Merseyside, and bottom-level places should be within the Metropolitan boroughs. EP111 (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute... Wirral's already being treated as an extra-hierarchical region. In which case, Central Wirral should be placed within Merseyside. Category:Wirral has already been previously deleted. EP111 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize Wirral was being treated as an extraregion. But if so, why is it an "Other destination" in Merseyside? That puts it in the breadcrumb trail, I think? That said, the regional subdivisions of Wirral are OK as bottom-level destinations within Merseyside if they're treated as rural areas. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know why Wirral's being treated as extra-hierarchical now. The Metropolitan borough is wholly within Merseyside, but the southern third of the geophysical peninsula (Neston, Ellesmere Port, Willaston, Parkgate, Saughall, Burton, etc.) is mostly in Cheshire, with the Deeside slice being in North Wales. The thing is, Neston and Ellesmere Port are more closely related to "Merseyside-Wirral" than they are to Chester, even though they're in Cheshire, because they're quite near to Heswall and Eastham respectively. Central Wirral is mostly in Merseyside, but Willaston's a bit of an either/or case. Willaston could be treated as part of Central Wirral or South Wirral. Capenhurst, Dunkirk, Ledsham, Puddington, Two Mills and Shotwick are definitely South Wirral. That area is possibly limited by the A494 to the south, but there is potential to include Saughall and Mollington in the area, even though they're very close to Chester. EP111 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'm not sure Wirral should be an "Other destination" in Merseyside, though. ThunderingTyphoons!, what do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of local knowledge, I have to defer to EP111. But as someone with some knowledge, I have a couple of ideas.
 * Firstly, (( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) the) Wirral's a bit difficult, because it's the part of Merseyside that was always in Cheshire, with the right bank of the river (including Liverpool) historically being Lancashire. Then there's the fact that there are only a couple of tunnels and a famous ferry to link it to the rest of Merseyside, whereas it's obviously physically attached to Cheshire. And finally, there are the difficulties alluded to above, with the peninsula being split between several administrative areas, all of which are breadcrumbed separately on Wikivoyage. So, with this in mind, I see three potential solutions:
 * Keep the Wirral as an extra-hierarchical article, but expand its scope to cover the entire peninsula, rather than just the Merseyside borough. Most extra-hierarchical regions have fairly limited content, primarily acting as vectors towards the city articles. This should be no different, and should list all city-level articles on the peninsula, even those in Cheshire and Wales.
 * Do away with the Wirral article altogether, but keep the city-level articles, including the newly-created ones, and breadcrumb them directly to their proper county (Merseyside/Cheshire/Flintshire).
 * Completely rework Merseyside, so that it evenly splits into subregions based on its five boroughs (there are lots of weird little parallels with New York in Merseyside) . Alternatively, you could make the whole county into a huge city, and the subregions/cities under would be districts. Either of these approaches is not ideal, because it introduces an extra layer of hierarchy just for the sake of symmetry with the Wirral, and the latter reduces the great city of Liverpool to the status of mere district. It may be the case that some city-level articles could be merged into subregions/districts, but that would be quite a lot of work. Finally, this doesn't actually solve the problem of those areas on the Wirral that are not in Wirral the borough.
 * Overall, I'd prefer #1 or #2 as solutions, but which one to choose would largely depend on whether the Wirral as a whole is really a travel destination. This is important, because it determines whether people are likely to search "wirral travel guide" and whether there's any demand for an article about the Wirral as a whole. I would say people definitely visit individual towns or attractions on the peninsula - like New Brighton, Ness Gardens, Port Sunlight - but my hunch is that they don't visit "the Wirral" as a general destination like they'd visit the Isle of Man, for example. But then again, I could be wrong about this and, if so, expect to be put right by EP111.
 * Thoughts on these suggestion / other suggestions? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think option #1 is the best to ensure no information hole. It's probably the one that would require the least work, as well. Wirral isn't really treated as a destination, in its own right, to anything like the same degree as Liverpool. Though, it does have its moments, particularly when international golf comes to Hoylake. EP111 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. In that case, the Wirral article should presumably be breadcrumbed to North West England and removed from Merseyside. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly what I was thinking. I've treated Wirral as one of the "other destinations" in North West England, and has been bumped up accordingly, rather than just Merseyside. (The Welsh part of Wirral is really only an industrial estate!) EP111 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the best solution was chosen.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)