Talk:Cross Hills

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Cross Hills is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

County confusion

I propose that the County Confusion section be removed as this is nonsense and is not referenced. Evidence that can added later confirms that the Land Registry (the absolute authority on where a place is) views Cross Hills as being part of Keighley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakey82 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Cross Hills lies within the post town area of keighley, and the infobox in the article states this. That doesn't mean Cross Hills is "part of Keighley". It just proves that Royal Mail delivers mail to Cross Hills via a sorting office in Keighley. Any postal address in Cross Hills, whether that address is published by the Land Registry or appears anywhere else, will therefore include the name keighley. But you only have to check an Ordnance Survey map to see that in fact Cross Hills lies within the parish of Glusburn, North Yorkshire. (The article incorrectly said the parish was Skipton, but I have corrected that.) See post town where it says "Post towns rarely correspond to political boundaries and often group places that for all other purposes are quite separate". -- Dr Greg talk 22:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crosshills has never been part of Keighley. The only connection is that Keighley is part of the postal address. 82.41.18.19 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rates from Crosshills were paid to Skipton; I always went with my mother when she went to pay them in the 1940s. 82.41.18.19 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My propperty registry system, which is nothing to do with post, tells me quite different. As far as all the information I have is concerned (and I'm also a local resident), the area is actually part of Keighley. The post town link is irrelevent. (Wakey82 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Cross Hills is in North Yorkshire and its governance is within North Yorkshire County Council, Craven Council and Glusburn Parish Council. It has nothing whatever to do with Keighley, which is in West Yorkshire and within the governance of Bradford Met, other than the fact that the Post Office sorts its mail at Keighley rather than Skipton sorting office. May I point out that article content is determined by WP:CONSENSUS and you appear to raising a lone argument without any WP:CITE. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What county it is in and what governs it is not important as counties and councils do not determine registration of town boundaries. Historically Cross Hills was a part of West Yorkshire and was classed as part of what was known as the Keighley outerlying area. The fact that some politicians moved a few political boundaries for their own purposes does not change the fact that it is still in Keighley. If you use the search property feature at http://www.landregistry.gov.uk you will see that all homes in the area are correctly registered as Keighley. This has nothing to do with governance, post offices or counties as those things are not relevant to town boundaries. If you believe that those things make up where a place is then you are wrong and on your logic Ilkley would not be anywhere as it is governed by Bradford, is votes under Keighley and has a Leeds postcode. Now see the flawed logic in your argument? Further more, I would add the County Confusion section in question does not have any citations. Basically is unproven nonsense. Are you saying the information of whoever wrote this holds more weight than the Land Registry? Wakey82 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC) m[reply]

I don't understand what you think is "unproven nonsense". That "a common misconception is that the village is situated in the county of West Yorkshire rather than North Yorkshire"? That the postcode is BD20? That the dialling code is 01535? That's all the section says. -- Dr Greg talk 01:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The property search facility on the Land Registry site is nothing more than a POSTAL address finder, such as you find on numerous retail sites. The Land Registry does not carry any weight on this site and, if you think the Land Registry is always right, I know someone who was landed with a load of extra conveyancing last year because of mistakes made by the Land Registry. As for your comments on Ilkley, the lead of that article is spot on when it says: "Ilkley is a spa town and civil parish in West Yorkshire, in the north of England. Ilkley civil parish includes the adjacent village of Ben Rhydding and is a ward within the metropolitan borough of Bradford". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What general consensus? The consensus of one user called Black Jack who has some kind of problem with Keighley that is probably in need of medical attention. All the incorrect edits of places in the area seem to come from him. The section has no citations and thus is unproven so it should be removed. I have provided evidence to it's actual location and he has tried to dispute that blaming postal services. Clearly he is too stupid to realise that this is nothing to do with postal services and is to do with land registration. Bottom line, what is more reliable the land registry or the the unproven comments of one poster? I notice how he has changed Airedale hospital, claiming it is not in Keighley. Well that's funny because I was born there and my passport and birth cerficate (plus Airedale's own website) state that it is in Keighley. But I suppose again the Royal Mail are to blame for my birth oh great knowledgable one. Wakey82 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the edit history of this article alone, you will see that at least three independent editors have undone edits claiming that Cross Hills is in Keighley. You are the only person making this claim, and the only basis for your claim is your inability to understand the concept of a postal address and a post town. Wikipedia contains over 10,000 articles about villages and towns in the UK, and amongst these you will find thousands of examples where the post town does not correspond to the parish, district or county structure. To give just one example, Ingleton in the district of Craven, North Yorkshire, has a post town of carnforth, Lancashire, and an LA postcode. Nobody claims the Yorkshire village of Ingleton is part of the Lancashire town of Carnforth, despite all the envelopes and Land Registry documents with carnforth on them. -- Dr Greg talk 23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section is uncited. Do we have a source that says it is a common misconception? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably best to remove the section as the postcode, dialling code and postal town are all in the infobox. I see the admins have decided to warn "Wakey82" because he is new. I recommend that he is banned immediately if there is any repeat of the infantile abuse demonstrated above. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your place to recommend anything regarding my existance on this site and frankly I find the above comment offensive. The fact that the section was removed proves my point and I feel it is not proper for you to be suggesting anything. Post comments like the above again regarding myself and I will report you Wakey82 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't ban people for disagreeing about what an article should say. Let's try to focus on the article and not one another, please. As for what the article should say, we settle questions of accuracy based on what can be proven by citing reliable sources, per our verifiability policy. -- Atama頭 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counties

There is no such Geographical County as N Yorks S Yorks or indeed any of the others created by Harold Wilson in 1974. They were removed in the late 80's. Where the counties exist is as postal entities to aid sorting.(Horse's mouth from Stoke-on-Trent sorting Office) There is a tendancy to also use Greater Manchester and West Midlands. This is actually completely wrong. I live in Shropshire but my postal address is Wales(Montgomery). So in order to assist the smooth running of the PO, I'm in another country. I make no contribution to the argument other than to say that places exist Geographically ie; Liverpool, Lancashire and postally, Liverpool, Merseyside. KestevenBullet (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

To the two experienced editors with a content dispute [1]: you know our policies and guidance. Polite discussion is the only way :) —SMALL JIM 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amenities

Hello, I came here from the teahouse. The amenities section currently appears to be a collection of information on non-notable businesses in the area, without any kind of independent sourcing. Perhaps some of it might be of use on WikiVoyage, but it hardly seems encyclopedic, and also an advertisement magnet. I plan to remove this section, but I thought since this page is fairly active, I would post here first. If you have any objections, please let me know. Thanks. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I am satisfied with Bilrov's edit. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously attempted to remove promotional advertising edits, back in April, see this diff, though I was more generous in leaving some details. Regrettably I was reverted by an editor who's edit summary indicated he would edit war. I am happy that others concur with my original edit. :). The childrens nursery edit was purely promotional as the editor who put it in has no constructive editing to any other article. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New editors are allowed to start anywhere, being new doesn't Make their first edits promotional automatically. I didn't think the edit in question blatantly promotional, considering the rest of the section at the time. DES ^(talk) 13:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cross Hills/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires photographs
Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires copy edit for WP:MOS

Keith D (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)