Jump to content

Talk:Crosby, Merseyside

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greatest sea disaster of all times

[edit]

"Crosby has been home to some of the main protagonists of the greatest sea distasters of all time, including the RMS Titanic"

The sinking of RMS Titanic was a first rate disaster, but not the worst ever. The sinking of the Gustloff at the end of WWII with roughly 6000 casualties compared to 1500 for the Titanic is considered to be the worst ever maritime disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.220.220 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the Wilhelm Gustloff was a casualty of war, when massive casualties are the norm. It was not a "sea disaster" in the commonly understood definition of the term. RodCrosby (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I think your additions are a bit untimely. Demolition work is about to begin on Central Buildings, and the George has been renamed as Yates's! RodCrosby

Red Dot

[edit]

Why is the red dot placed on Kirkdale, about 3 miles south of Crosby?

I have updated the dot

Merge?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no merge D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Great Crosby be merged with this article? For practical purposes the places are indistinguishable. RodCrosby (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Crosby is a historical entity, as is Little Crosby, Waterloo, Seaforth, etc. It should be retained as such, but not confused with contemporary Crosby. I'm not even sure if Great Crosby still exists, but it is certainly no longer current in reality. Its entry should refer to its historical roots, not more contemporary references, such as recent inhabitants of Crosby or political changes since the Crosby/Sefton restructures. John Crow, Aug 2009. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.200.185 (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know too much of historical Crosby but it seems to me what is Great Crosby is Crosby. In fact the Great Crosby page is full of stuff that is better served elsewhere, ie the transport section. Well hyped up, hardly relevent to Crosby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am observing that the discussion on the merger has gone quiet? I am going to give it some time and if nothing happens I am going to downgrade the Great Crosby page. It is full of a lot of nonsense and the real information is basically Crosby one and the same. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile raising the matter at WT:MERSEY, that might attract more input. Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Crosby and Crosby articles should not be merged, Great Crosby today is mearly the main area of the town of Crosby which gave the town and the old municipal borough its name, despite the confusion that exists, Great Crosby is not the actual town itself but is the largest area of it which was a urban district in its own right, which also contained Blundellsands and Thornton as well as the area that is modernly defined as Great Crosby which merged with Waterloo with Seaforth urban district to form the Municipal Borough of Crosby and defined the town of Crosby in its present borders. The areas of Blundellsands and Thornton today are considered to be Culturally, Socially and Historically a part of the modern town of Crosby and Historically part of the urban district of Great Crosby but are now separate neighbouring areas to Great Crosby which has an area today which is much smaller than the historical Urban District, So therefore Great Crosby today is mearly an area of the modern town of Crosby and is thus not the town itself. I have indicated this difference between town and area on both the Great Crosby and Crosby articles by listing the areas that are considered to be part of the town, in the Crosby article, and by stating that it is an area of Crosby and not the Town of Crosby itself, in the Great Crosby Article. Gr8opinionater (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable residents

[edit]

What has happened to Notable residents on the Crosby page? I dont normally do anything on Crosby but i did remember a small list of people. Upon checking history there seemed to be a huge list of people and now there were none. I have added Anne Robinson for starters. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an over-zealous administrator deleted them on spurious grounds.RodCrosby (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babydoll you are quite correct, there are several spurious entries in the notable resident's section .May I suggest removal of :-

1.Martyn Andrews- wiki page seems to be a cv. He's unknown outside his own professional sphere.

2.Ron Dellow, a man associated with football who left Crosby many years ago to pursue a sports career away from Merseyside without any further visible links.

3.Luke Shackleton. What association does this man have with Crosby at all?

As noted by Babydoll9799, I think it would be fitting to delete these 3 names. There is plenty of time for them to prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.161.207 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. How do such people as 

   Martyn Andrews
   Ron Dellow
   Janet Finch
   Luke Shackleton

make it to this list ? If such people made it to this list , then there's nothing to stop us listing every resident of Crosby on the same basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.161.207 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Quite correct.None of them are known outside of rheir immediate families and friends. Logan 23:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdDBall (talk • contribs)

Seaforth in Crosby?

[edit]

Is Seaforth in Crosby? Discuss. I think yes, since Waterloo and Seaforth was merged with Great Crosby in 1937. RodCrosby (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is not true, considering that "Waterloo with Seaforth" is old hat. I have never heard of Seaforth as part of Crosby and as advised to you earlier the fact that this borough existed does not mean Seaforth is in Crosby. (my example is that Crosby is in Sefton MBC but that does not mean it is part of Bootle or Southport). It is fair to note the link obviously but Seaforth aint in Crosby.
Also, with reference to the Urban District, (above), it became part of the Municipal borough of Crosby, but this itself ended in 1974.
I think user RodCrosby means well, however i can't help but wonder if the input is based on old boroughs. (As an example Liverpool used to be part of Lancashire but people on Wikipedia would go mental if 'Merseyside' was replaced by 'Lancashire' here)Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "not true"? Btw, I didn't design the organisation of these pages, but it appears logical to me to group areas in their pre-1974 configurations and prior. This is what this page appears to do. If not that, what? We should just have one page called "Sefton" containing everything? RodCrosby (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mean not true that Seaforth is in Crosby.
I can see your point regards "pre-1974" etc. But surely that is why there is a link to them in the first place (Waterloo with Seaforth & Municipal Borough of Crosby); that the pages themselves carry all that information as to you refer. (If they dont the ought to).
What you last point is about one page being called Sefton, again this exists (Met Borough of Sefton). Babydoll9799 (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been no further input, i have removed Seaforth from the list of associated districts within Crosby (re above). Seaforth is linked through a succession of boroughs and this remains with Sefton MBC. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make is that the article is now inconsistent. It says Crosby was formed from the merger of Great Crosby and Waterloo with Seaforth, and goes on to list the individual districts. Except that now you have removed Seaforth from the list! This really needs to go to some arbitration with the moderators who have designed/approved the structure of the Merseyside pages. At the end of the day it isn't about which districts you or I "feel" or believe comprises the entitity known as "Crosby", it's about logic, consistency and historical accuracy. RodCrosby (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply, I dont know what is inconsistent but although i am certainly no expert on Crosby, i would suggest Crosby was never "formed" from the merger of Great Crosby and Waterloo with Seaforth. Crosby is many many years old. Politically speaking the place appears to have changed down the years, as you point out, and now exists within Sefton MBC. This may be what is confusing but this has nothing to do with the place/town of Crosby. Does that makes sense? Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is my observation that user Gr8opinionater has made some considerable changes and of these changes this list form of parts of Crosby is one of them (mid June 10). I would argue that it is this users text that is misleading over the word "formed". Of the different boroughs that existed back then i dont believe they would be the boundary of a newly "formed" Crosby. My argument of the borough of Sefton the same appliesBabydoll9799 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the Sefton MBC website, the situation isn't necessarily clear cut and from the pages on Seaforth and Crosby don't make things any clearer. On page 578 of the Pevsner guide to Liverpool and the surrounding area, Seaforth is described as a "nondescript N[orth] extension of Bootle", so this ambiguity over the relation of Seaforth to other towns isn't restricted to Wikipedia. What might help is searching a history book on either Crosby or Seaforth and see how they treat the subject after 1974. Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting piece from "a local historian", whom I happen to know is respected locally as such. [1] The problem is there will always be differences of opinion. Seaforth was not originally "part of" Crosby, subsequently it most certainly was part of Crosby. Now, what is it? It's certainly an indentifiable locality of its own (which no-one is denying, btw), perhaps now socially more similar to Bootle than Crosby, but many people there strongly identify with Crosby rather than Bootle. And what of Crosby Radar Station, Crosby Road South, and certain businesses named "Crosby...(whatever)" - all located in Seaforth? The article was accurate to include Seaforth, as being legally part of Crosby until at least 1974, but what is the "legal" position now? What is this article intended to reflect? If the Crosby of 1974 no longer exists, then surely the Great Crosby of 1937 no longer legally exists, or Waterloo, or Seaforth for that matter. But they still exist on maps, roadsigns and in the minds of people. Whatever the consensus, it surely has to be consistent both within and across articles. This article is currently inconsistent because it still says Crosby was formed by the merger of Great Crosby and Waterloo with Seaforth, but a user has gone on to delete the link to Seaforth. RodCrosby (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I take on board users RodCrosby's confusion, but somehow it must be seperated that "Waterloo with Seaforth" and the "Municipal borough of Crosby" are merely boroughs and not Crosby the place. Neither borough exist now anyway, and as boroughs are political (ie council and electoral boundaries) they are prone to change and they did so to form Sefton MBC. The other issue over the text, well, this is new to the page as of June2010 and i would suggest pre-June is more accurate.
The other confusion such as "Crosby Road South" which is in Seaforth is, in my opinion, taking things a little too literal. There are many such anomalies.
Also in modern boroughs there are more anomalies. Such as "Wigan MBC" including the town of Leigh, and "St Helens MBC" including Rainhill. Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"mere boroughs and not Crosby the place" You still haven't answered the question I posited. What comprises Crosby "the place"? What is this article intended to reflect? It can't be just a matter of opinion between editors. What is wiki policy on a dispute like this? RodCrosby (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what your question is. I couldn't tell you exactly what constitutes the 'place' of Crosby, but in light of the subject of this discussion being Seaforth (not in Crosby) my very point was that the "boroughs" that were formed did not mean an expansion of Crosby. I added other such example notably close to home the borough of Sefton does not mean Crosby, Southport, Maghull, Bootle etc are all joined as part of Crosby. You did not acknowledge this. Indeed the boroughs that you refer are now historical. It is like the constituency of Crosby that is now historical. I dont quite know where your arguement is coming from. As you mentioned another example of Seaforth having Crosby Road South in it and i suggested that you were taking that too literal. Liverpool city centre has London Road in it does that make it part of London? Course not. However you did not acknowledge this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CROSBY

[edit]

I've been reading these comments with interest, and would just like to add my thoughts as a resident of "Crosby". To me Seaforth, Waterloo and Great Crosby (known locally as Crosby) are all separate areas and locals see them as such. The town of "Crosby" refered to in the article no longer exists and was abolished in 1974, to be replaced by Sefton. Confusion exists because the historical area of "Great Crosby" is now refered to by most as "Crosby". Also Crosby Police station, Civic Hall, Town Hall etc are all in Waterloo, which adds to the confusion. However, this is historical from when Waterloo was part of the old Crosby Borough and not Crosby town, it's now a district in it's own right. I believe the boundary for Crosby (or historically Great Crosby) begins by Merchant Taylors school, where as the boundary for Crosby Borough (no longer existing or relevant) starts at the Seaforth flyover. Therefore, in my opinion the article is fine to include Seaforth, and also Waterloo, if it's historical and about Crosby borough not contemporary about Crosby Village/Town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.105.100 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Crosby "no longer exists", abolished 1974, and Great Crosby "no longer exists", abolished 1937. There are other considerations, apart from arbitrary and transient local government boundaries, you know. Like Waterloo being carved out of Crosby... RodCrosby (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the difference between "Crosby" and "Great Crosby" and when did "Crosby" become a town? Checking back I can only find reference to the "Municipal Borough of Crosby". Of course Great Crosby still exists but I never hear anyone refer to it as that, it's always "Crosby". "Waterloo" was originally called "Crosby Seabank", still distinct from Great Crosby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.192.193 (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions never got concluded. Does anyone still retain an interest? For my opinion i agree with the original (unnamed) writer. Also, why no merger between Great Crosby and Crosby as the pages are basically two of the same. You are talking about "Crosby". Everywhere else has its own page, ie Little Crosby, Thornton, Blundellsands. These may have been part of the municpal "town" but they are all just part of Sefton MBC now and are their own areas. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely appears to be some level of confusion / duplication between actual locale vs historic entity vs government entity. Unfortuntely I am not well versed enough on the background to make the changes required, but I will see what I can identify. A starting point is Vision of Britain - Crosby which will give local boundaries and government divisions / subdivisions throughout the years. Koncorde (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Crosby, Merseyside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crosby, Merseyside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crosby, Merseyside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crosby,_Merseyside&oldid=1206830224"