Talk:Wirral Peninsula

Work to do

In listing all places on the Wirral, we still have a long way to go. For example we could add Barnston, Frankby, Leasowe, Tranmere, Saughall Massie, Brimstage, Raby, Gayton, Grange, Landican, Storeton, Woodhey, Liscard, Ness, Childer Thornton, Hooton, Great Sutton, Ledsham, Puddington, Shotwick, Two Mills, Whitby, Overpool and Woodchurch. I have even discovered some even smaller places that I had never heard of before. Would it be sufficient to use the categories called 'Wirral' and 'Towns and villages in Wirral' so we do not need to list them all on this page. If so which ones do we keep on the page? Furthermore where do you draw the line: Backford Cross, Mollington, Grimsby(!)? JMcC 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments about Content

"Previously it was entirely in Cheshire as a hundred." - not, presumably, the Welsh bit? --Faddyw 13:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that The Wirral/Wirral is now considered a part of Cheshire, once again. A referendum a few years ago led to a majority of residents expressing their favour for this, probably for reasons of property value. While still considered a part of Merseyside, postcodes for the area where altered from L ( Liverpool coding ) to CH ( Cheshire coding ). 82.163.113.85 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement above is factually incorrect - the Wirral remains in the county of Merseyside - thats a fact, it is not 'considered'. The postcode changed because the post changed from being sorted at the Liverpool sorting branch, to the Chester office. Changing the postcode from L to CH did not affect house prices or insurance - as wait for it, houses remained in the same place! People like to consider themselves to live in Cheshire, but this is for snobbish reasons, and not based on reality.

82.26.64.160, as the author of that post, I agree with you about the snobbishness behind much of West Wirral voting for that change. I would have personally preferred Wirral remain with an L postcode as a symbol of the strong links with the rest of scouseland. You are also quite correct in that Wirral remains a part of Merseyside. However, as I recall, the vote asked 'Which county should Wirral be a part of', not 'Shall we change the postcodes'. As far as the effect of the change on property values, one of my neighbours bought their home just before the change. Since that time, their home has quadrupled in value, even in a Chav infested area. No effect on property values? I'm inclined to disagree. 88.212.174.4 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've even decided to have a little look on Google for some evidence on this. The amount you can locate is suprising. According to http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0002/ea0002P42.htm, Arrowe Park Hospital is now addressing itself as part of Cheshire, if you believe the addresses posted at the top of the article. http://www.civicmc.nhs.uk/ states the address of a health practice in Bebington as in Cheshire, too (check the top right corner). http://www.thekitesociety.org.uk/events.htm is currently showing that the Kite's over the Mersey event will be held in New Brighton, Wirral, Cheshire(!) in July 2007. 88.212.174.4 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Since that time, their home has quadrupled in value, even in a Chav infested area. No effect on property values? I'm inclined to disagree." Post hoc ergo procter hoc! If you consider a 'chav infested area' to be somewhere like Birkenhead, are you really trying to say that a house that used to be valued at £90,000 is now worth £360,000? That postcode change had quite an effect. As for your 'research' this just shows that the websites that you have selected publish factualy incorrect information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.64.160 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 June 2007.

No, I'm saying a house valued at £20,000 about five or six years ago is now worth around £70,000. Interesting, it seems you made an assumption I'm living in a semi-detached house. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Ok, if that's what you mean, I'll see what I can find out when time allows. The tone of your post makes me think more that you meant 'procul menguis, homus sceleste', though. If you would like to posit that the information on those websites is incorrect, fine, but how about producing some documentation to back up your position? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.212.174.4 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Oh, while you're at it, you should probably read the Postcode lottery entry, which states there's a group of people wanting to rezone their post code for insurance reasons, near Greenwich. Strange that this should affect their residences and not homes on the Wirral, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.212.174.4 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

It's nice that you can bicker about this, but I live on the Wirral, but in Cheshire. The reorganising of the postcode was great because I wasn't addressed as 'Merseyside' any more. Snobbishness does play a major part in this, but I'm sure that people don't want to be referred to as a county they were spared of joining :þ.Big Moira 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a problem with this article is that the author has overlooked the important fact that Merseyside is one of the manufactured 1974 counties on the same level as Humberside, Tyne and Wear, Avon, Cleveland, West Midlands and Greater Manchester. The Wirral belonged to Cheshire. The other side of the Mersey to Lancashire.

There was a press release from the Department of the Environment on 1st April 1974 that stated that the boundary changes of 1974 were purely administrative. They were not designed to enforce a change in geography or traditional county loyalties. The Local Government Act 1972 does not seek to abolish the traditional counties; it purely regulates the local government arrangement of England and Wales.

In my view it is a matter of personal choice whether you treat the Wirral as still being in Cheshire or you choose to adopt the administrative Merseyside tag.85.211.42.171 (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal choice or not...Wirral is not in Cheshire, hasn't been since 1974.Wirral residents do not pay their rates etc to Cheshire (or the newly founded administration), the County boundary excludes Wirral, why delude yourselves ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.210.72 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on your above comment, you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. There is a huge difference between a local government district and a county. Merseyside only exists as an administrative division, although it is recognised by many as a conurbation, which is why some choose to use it in their addresses. For people living within the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, it is correct either way to be known as living in both Merseyside or Cheshire as explained above, although just 'Wirral' suffices for many people.Raywil (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one's paid any rates etc to Merseyside County Council since Thatcher did away with it in 1986: so if that's how you decide where you live, no-one lives in Merseyside (and most counties no longer exist). 89.242.52.6 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the post code changed for the area, Wirral, does not mean it has been relocated or given over to another district, it is merely an indication of its postal town (n.b. CH depicts Chester,not Cheshire).Wirral,remains Wirral, whether you choose to add Merseyside is a different matter, but to add Cheshire is incorrect. Can appreciate the confusion its serves, hospitals,and other establishmnents etc, are choosing (wrongly) to include Cheshire in their address.

The fact that the post codes changed, only serves to depict where amail is sent to for sorting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.77.77 (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a series of small edits to the Lead which I believe give a more detailed introduction with geographic context of sociopolitical dimensions ; "The vast majority of the population live in the urban north east in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral in Merseyside which is part of the Liverpool City Region. The remainder lies within Cheshire." Feedback welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.219.246.239 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You also removed the mention of the peninsula's historical context, which is helpful and necessary basic information. I've now re-edited your reference to the "vast majority of the population", which is both unsourced and weaselly, for style. (How "vast" is "vast"?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree per above. Also Liverpool City Region is a pointless reference. It's a devolved combined authority. You might describe Wirral Council as being part of the Liverpool City Region, but using it as a geographical region currently has little to no significance (and in some of the City Region cases can be very confusing). For example; Newcastle upon Tyne would not be described as being "part of" North of Tyne just as we would not describe as a geographical the concept that Birmingham is "part of" West Midlands Combined Authority. You could say that "Birmingham is in the West Midlands and is represented by Birmingham City Council with powers devolved to the larger West Midlands Combined Authority", but that's going to be very clunky when talking about Wirral Peninsula, rather than its constituent councils. Koncorde (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Wirral administrative areas

I know it is difficult to draw the line as to where a peninsula ends, but I have lived on the Wirral 19 years and never heard of any part being described as in Flintshire, certainly not the SOUTH WEST

The opening lines of the article define the are area of the Wirral: "It is bounded to the west by the River Dee, forming a boundary with Wales [...]". By it's own definition, the article would place the bottom south west of the peninsular within Flintshire; Deeside Industrial Estate is on the north bank of the Dee, placing it on the Wirral, whilst still being within Flintshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.140.122 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

CH on the postcodes stands for Chester...not Cheshire.It's merely an indication of where the mail is sent to be processed.So with all due respect to anyone and everyone . Wirral is not part of Cheshire hasn't been since 1974 when they changed the boundary. Why people think they are now part of Cheshire is wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.210.72 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Wirral is not in Cheshire, it has not been part of Cheshire since 1974, so how any one individual or group can maintain or suggest its presence in Cheshire is doing so out of pure ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.77.77 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Since abandoning its own "postal counties" the Royal Mail have allowed historic counties to be used in postal addresses: therefore there is nothing wrong or misleading about using Cheshire as part of an address on the Wirral. 89.242.52.6 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Better map, please

It's hard to visualize the Wirral from the tiny map that is included. I was on the Wirral once, and I still wonder what it is. Lou Sander 09:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As requested I have added one using public domain data. It's not great but until something better comes along, it will have to do. Maps for whole UK available on Multimap. Type in Wirral and scroll about. JMcC 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks. The new map is great. I'm also thinking that the Wirral is one end of the famous "ferry cross the Mersey." If that's correct, it's worth mentioning in the article. Several years ago my son and I made our first visit to the UK. We stayed in a bed & breakfast north of Chester. The owner talked a bit about "the Wirral," and we hadn't the foggiest what he was talking about. Even when he explained it, it still didn't make sense. This article dispells all the mystery. Wikipedia rules! Lou Sander 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Viking name

Is Tranmere the only Viking name in the Football League? How about Grimsby and possibly Derby? JMcC 12:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I came up with Sunderland - I think this is a very spurious and unsourced claim, have removed it. --Robdurbar 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wirral Geography

There's no easy way to know the actual size of the Wirral. Maybe someone could include its area, or at least some approximate north/south and east/west dimensions. Also, this Yank understands it to be "between Wales and Liverpool," but I don't think its closeness to Wales is mentioned in the article. If population figures or estimates are available, it would be nice to see them, too.

New subject: The external link that mentions a Norwegian view goes to a page that is updated daily. There's no Wirral stuff on today's page. Maybe somebody could find the original page and link to it. Lou Sander 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a little go at creating more og a 'geography' section. --Robdurbar 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"THE" Wirral ?

At the Wallasey page, User:Francis Davey is insisting that the name "Wirral" is correct, rather than "The Wirral". As someone born and bred there, I disagree and have always used the term "The Wirral" - as is done, in general, on this page. Can other contributors give their views, so that we can come to a consensus ? Ghmyrtle 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. When my father moved to Wirral and started teaching in the WEA he was told very firmly that "the Wirral" was not a local form and that it was something ignorant incomers used and that he should not say "the Wirral" in classes. I grew up in West Kirby mostly and both forms were current there, though the "the" form has become more widespread as a result of national media I suspect. I am not sure whether I am enough of a local to comment since my parents weren't. Francis Davey 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I clearly recall the first time I heard the term. On the day after the 2000 U.S. presidential election, I was at a B&B north of Chester, and the innkeeper, a Mr. Baker, gave us some directions to a place on "the Wirral." He couldn't explain what "the Wirral" was, and I couldn't figure it out from road signs, maps, etc. Only when I discovered Wikipedia did I learn about the famous peninsula. (See "Better map, please," above.) Lou Sander 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always hear 'the Wirral' - certainly, it would sound odd to me if someone said that 'Tranmere was in Wirral'. Obviosuly, if there were any sources that used it in this way...? --Robdurbar 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, in Gawain and the Green Knight its described as "the wilderness of Wirral". I am not sure thats the kind of source you were looking for 8-). It may be that "wirral" is the older form (what I've said above suggests so) and that ignorant Cheshire and Lancashire people have started calling it "the Wirral" -- a usage now adopted by us. Francis Davey 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "wirral only" usage is the form adopted by the Wirral Globe, which has some authority. The same is true of Wirral Borough Council, Merseyside Police in Wirral, Wirral Libraries and Wirral Waterfront Project to pick some examples from google. So "Wirral" seems to be the form favoured by authority. Francis Davey 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

From The Independent newspaper, 29 July 2006 : Stephen Hannigan writes from Wirral to point out that in our coverage of the Open Golf Championships at Hoylake we referred to his home territory as The Wirral. "The definite article," he writes, "should only be used when referring to the geographical feature the Wirral Peninsula." I referred this observation to our resident Wirralian who says that in his family it was, in fact, called The Wirral but, he observed, the council now calls itself Wirral... It does seem that official terminology (post-1970s) for the Council area is "Wirral", but in my view local people (not just outsiders) have long preferred "The Wirral" to refer to the geographical area. Perhaps we should raise this in the local press - this one could run and run ! Ghmyrtle 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This Yank, unfamiliar with "councils" and other details of the Mother Country, wants to know: Is Wirral on The Wirral? Lou Sander 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wallasey, for instance, is both in Wirral and on the Wirral. Neston, however, is on the Wirral but not in Wirral. All of Wirral is on the Wirral, but not all the Wirral is in Wirral. Much like New York is in New York, but not all of New York is in New York. I hope that's clear now. Ghmyrtle 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got it now... if a man from Wallasey were buried in his local cemetery, he would be buried in Wallasey, in Wirral, on the Wirral and in the Wirral, thus providing maximum scope for referring properly to his place of burial. Lou Sander 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the difference "Wirral" v "the Wirral" has anything to do with Borough v Peninsula. The Gawain quote I gave is geographical. Dad's memory of teaching in Wirral was pre-1970 and before the existence of Wirral Borough Council. Do you know for a fact this is the difference, or are you just basing your conclusion on the evidence so far amassed? This is something that brooks further investigation. Certainly, to me, Wirral goes right down to Shotwick, I have no doubt Neston is in Wirral. Francis Davey 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my momentary lapse into unwikilike frivolity. I'm coming round to the view that the terms "in Wirral", "in the Wirral" and "on the Wirral" (but not "on Wirral" ?) are all acceptable when the context is the geographical area of the peninsula, but "in Wirral" is correct when the context relates to the local government (note to Yanks: this means "City") area (in the same way that Southport can be described as "in Sefton", for example). I have before me a map which says "The Wirral" on the spine and "Wirral" on the cover. I'm willing to be convinced by further evidence from locals - in the mean time (meantime ?) I don't think there's a case for being overly prescriptive.Ghmyrtle 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

YANK POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY: It varies somewhat from state to state, but Pennsylvania is typical. The entire state is divided into counties (67 of them in Pennsylvania). Each county government has its own countywide responsibilities, for example (in Pennsylvania) conducting elections and maintaining bridges on public roads. All land in a county is also in a municipality, of which there are three types: cities, boroughs, and townships. Cities are generally have large, concentrated populations. Boroughs generally have small, concentrated populations (others might call them "towns"). Townships are geographically large, formerly with diffuse populations, but now due to suburban growth many of them have fairly concentrated populations. These are called Townships of the First Class. Those with diffuse populations are called Townships of the Second Class. Each city, borough or township government has responsibility for things like police and fire protection, and maintenance of local roads. Larger roads are maintained by the state or, occasionally in rural areas, by the county.

YANK RODENTS: Brits pronounce "squirrel" to rhyme with "Wirral." Yanks pronounce it to rhyme with "girl" or sometimes "skull." Lou Sander 03:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis Davey is correct. The forms are either 'Wirral', 'the Wirral Peninsula' or 'the peninsula'. Calling Fylde as 'the Fylde' is also bad form. Would you name Cornwall, also a peninsula, as 'the Cornwall'?! n.b. Also, you can be 'on Wirral', but not 'on the Wirral', or 'in' it, either - unless you're buried (or in one of the caves at New Brighton)! EP111 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The bold assertion that "Wirral" is "correct" and "the Wirral" is incorrect flies in the face of established local practice in the area. Comparisons with the names of other areas elsewhere are wholly irrelevant. To avoid any edit wars, I propose a note in the main text which simply states that both terms "Wirral" and "the Wirral" have been and continue to be used locally - although the merits of each form are the subject of local debate - and that neither is "incorrect". Ghmyrtle 08:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. There's a fair amount of truth to that, but I've tended to notice you'll hear 'The Wirral' more from Birkenhead and Wallsey residents, while those from the more affluent areas such as Hoylake or West Kirby are more inclined to err towards using 'Wirral'. Francis Davey's viewpoint is certainly seems prevalent only in West Wirral. 82.163.113.85 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

English grammar requires the use of, just, 'Wirral' &, on this basis, is correct. The comparison with other peninsulas isn't irrelevant, as this is how standardised English (grammar) should be written. I'll go along with your proposal as, I suppose, it does have some validity with regard to local usage &, most interestingly, local psychology. (I'll refrain from saying what I think of such ideals of usage, though. (Joking, by the way!)) n.b. 'The' Wirral does sound a bit pompous & depersonalising. Would you go around calling yourself 'The' (insert your name here), as though there should be no other (see Objectification)? Another thought, 'The Beatles' & other 60's groups, being the examples, this {'The' (name)} seems more relevant to the urban psychology of the area rather than the more rural parts. I hope that the Ghmyrtle is satisfied! ;) EP111 04:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

English grammar "requires" ...??!!!! Try this as a more relevant parallel. Ghmyrtle 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

English grammar "requires" ...??!!!! Certainly,[1]. Proper nouns (names) are not intended to have 'The' preceding, unless one intends to include the common noun aspect of the phrase, also. i.e. The peninsula. So, it should be 'the Wirral Peninsula' or just 'Wirral'.

I suggest that Objectification may need a tidy-up, also. This is, in essence, the definition I'd wished to convey[2] - the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing - a concrete representation of an abstract idea or principle. In essence, a name is an artificial construct (a subject of mankind) & not an actual object.EP111 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we come to some for of agreement on this. I have always used 'The Wirral', normally with a capital T. Wirral is, at least as far as I have seen, the term used when referring to the Grammar Schools in Bebington to avoid ambiguity. Also, a newspaper is not always the best way to judge language use in an area. Listening to local radio may be a better indication of the name, as the local people are often better sources. Big Moira 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)#

Hopefully we can settle on the approach that has been on the page now for a few months - a mention of the fact that there is local disagreement (or variation of use) between different people / organisations in the area, and the forms are, to all intents and purposes, interchangeable. Personally I prefer "the" Wirral, but I'm not going to try and "impose" that view - however, I would object (and have done) if people try to impose the alternative view. Ghmyrtle 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just rv'ed an attempt to edit the (in my view sensible) opening to say that "wirral" is the borough and "the wirral" the peninsula. Obviously this is nonsense since the "wirral" form existed before the new county structure (when wirral was divided into a number of local government units - 5 I think) and is attested in (amongst other places) Gawaine. I think a bald statement (without justification) like that is clearly wrong. Francis Davey 09:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

'The Wirral' and 'Wirral' are not the same thing. 'The Wirral' is short for 'The Wirral Penninsula'. 'Wirral', on the other hand, is a local council area, which consists of about two thirds of 'The Wirral'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.175.133 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Handel

There is some recent stuff about Handel in the Wirral article. It's not clear whether some claim that he did major work on the Wirral, but it seems that they might claim that. The comment that he could only have put finishing touches on his work just stands out there by itself. Someone who knows the situation should Make this whole subject clearer (or delete it, if such is deserved). Lou Sander 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clearer, but perhaps someone else can try. He is known to have sailed from Parkgate in April 1742 but the work had been completed in 24 days in the previous summer. I can't imagine he would arrange the premiere if he hadn't finished it. He only spent time on the Wirral because his sailing was delayed by bad weather, so it wasn't a retreat to get peace and quiet for composing. Consequently all he could have done is very minor changes, if anything at all. The text I drafted was designed to dispel the notion that significant parts were composed in the area. JMcC 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I deleted the original statement 'Handel wrote "Messiah" in Parkgate' and would have removed the 'untidied' version too. Many myths exist about Handel and Parkgate.

What is known is that Parkgate was the mainland port for the Dublin Packet between 1710 and 1775. Beyond that everything else is speculation. Handel is likely to have travelled to Parkgate to take the Packet for Dublin.

Jmcc150 states in the current version that "Handel stayed in Parkgate before sailing to Dublin in April 1742" I have a book "The Illustrated Portrait of Wirral" (Kenneth Burnley 1987) which (paraphrased) says that Handel came to Parkgate in November 1741 to travel to Dublin but was prevented from doing so by the weather. Subsequently he went to Chester and then to Holyhead from where he travelled to Dublin. So who really knows?

If you are going to leave the reference to Handel in, then at best, you can say he stayed there. That would however be silly, you should then note that Jonathan Swift, John Wesley, Oliver Cromwell amongst others stayed in Parkgate. If you do this then you have created a new category "Famous people who stayed in / Passed though ``location``".

The Wirral and Parkgate articles are better off without reference to Handel. — Iain D 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Iain D, but if there's some notable mythology about Handel and the Wirral, it might be legitimate to discuss it (IF it's notable). As the article is now, nobody mentions the myth. They just say he stayed there and probably didn't do anything to the music (or something like that). Give us the complete story, please, or give us nothing. Lou Sander 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

List of places

I am now unclear about what gets included in the list of places in the article and what doesn't. I think it should be now sufficient to provide a link to the category and not list any at all. Does everyone else agree? User:Jmcc150 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted Bebington from the list because it already features as part of :Category:Towns and villages in Wirral, listed within this section. Looking at the Other towns and villages in Wirral include: list and reading the comments from User:Jmcc150, it seems that this has been composed of those places that are on the Wirral, but are not part of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, with some places such asStoreton that ARE part of the Metropolitan Borough included as an addendum to the category list. (Am I correct with this assumption?) Like User:Jmcc150, I think this makes sense, otherwise we'll end up with a huge list of place names in this article. Snowy 1973 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not expand the definition of the category to include all places on the Wirral and abolish the list completely? JMcC 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Postcodes

Thanks to my OCD's I have looked into the use of addresses in city's such as Liverpool a but further. I also sent an email to the post office.

The Wirral addresses pose a number of questions!!!! The company Zircom Ltd... The address that the Post Office has recorded and works to. Zircom Ltd 29a Woodchurch Lane BIRKENHEAD CH42 9PJ

But the company uses... http://www.zircom.uk.com/contactus.html Zircom Ltd, 29a Woodchurch Lane, Prenton, Wirral, CH42 9PJ The postal code gets used at the sorting centre which will get it to the right sorting bucket. But the person delivering will use the street name. Which makes the town as redundant as the county.

I contacted the Post Office and they say to use their addressing system for "reliable" delivery. Especially for businesses who may lose out if post takes longer to be delivered.

"Customer Preferred Addresses" are a reality of their delivery day to day...and they do cause problems. They generally come about due to Historic purposes and are generally territorial. Local people will refer to the Wirral and will refer to Prenton and Birkenhad. But it will depend on what scale they are talking. So an address that you know locally will possibly be different to how the post office has decided to code it for efficiency. They try and make all addresses the same number of lines as much as possible.

Sending a letter from London to Liverpool means that that the Liverpool local knowledge doesn't exist in London. Hence the Post Office has eradicated the need for the local knowledge by using the postal code system. 14:04, 16 March 2007 217.154.33.122 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghmyrtle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The unsigned comment above has been incorrectly attributed to me. I may possibly (sorry, can't remember) have cut and pasted it here from the main page, but I don't think so - I certainly didn't write it. Ghmyrtle 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Famous people

The list is getting quite long. Like the list of places, I think it needs to be largely replaced with a category. The last straw was the minor Canadian politician that was added. Only in a handful of cases would it be interesting to name someone and they really have to be 'household names'. Any other opinions? JMcC 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's a pretty huge list! The problem is that most have articles attached to their names, so a test of notability has already been established. One possibility is to go through and just check that there aren't any individuals whose entries on the encyclopedia are in the midst of an AfD nomination. They could feasibly be removed since there'd be a case against (as well as for) inclusion. Another option is to consider listing individuals based on source of celebrity, i.e. sports, film/tv, politics/public figures, and so on, and then seeking consensus on the talk page to include only the 'top three' or something for each area; then this could form the overall list. I mean, these are only suggestions, really it boils down to "I think it's too big, but I'm not keen on being bold enough to weed the list myself...! Coldmachine^Talk 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite a few years down the line since this was discussed. However, given that the List of notable people from The Wirral contains plenty of up to date content and that the Notable People section here contains a link to it - is it now time that we delete all the people listed in this section? It's just a blob of text with people of quite varying levels of reputation that looks quite ugly compared to the rest of the article.LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done. I agree with the list instead of the "blob" JMcC (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that a list gives no indication of the degree of people's notability, or of the extent of their links with the Wirral. A prose section could do that - there are always going to be arguments over who should be mentioned, but nevertheless I think that there are merits in retaining a brief prose section in this article, and trying to keep it under control. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

People who are just born in an area are not particularly significant when it comes to the main article of a town. People who are indelibly linked to an area (authors, artists, musicians), significant because of their link (politicians, military, historic figures) or contributed to its development or character (benefactors, business leaders, cultural icons) are all for me significant enough for mention if they have an existing Wikipedia article. Sports is a grey area, as there's nothing particularly notable about lots of Tranmere / Everton / Liverpool players coming from the area. In contrast sports people with strong links (Captains of winning squads, internationals etc) might qualify, however just being the third keeper for Tranmere in 2009 season (old example I remember on another article) is probably scraping the barrel. Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against there being text describing some of the notable people from the region - as long as those described are particularly noteworthy and the listed is well monitored LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Poetry?

This isn't exactly an eisteddfod so really does it merit a place here? Does anyone mind if I zap this paragraph? JMcC 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me: Almost deleted it myself earlier today as thought it wasn't notable enough to retain, but thought I was being too harsh, so relented and added a 'citation needed' tag instead. Snowy 1973 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Hi, this is a note to User:Mark_S who is in danger of breaching the three revert rule by reverting edits deleting this particular URL from the external links section. As links to be avoided notes, under point #10, "links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET" should be avoided". Coldmachine^Talk 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links : Links normally to be avoided

First i apologies, this interface is completely new to me and eventually found my way to this area.
I see now under point #10 about "Social Networking"
i think at a push this wikiwirral does fall into that catergory. But also contains features on the old and the new Wirral.
Pictures of old and pictures of today.
Example : http://www.wikiwirral.co.uk/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/161055#Post161055 it also has a history section too.
If you believe it not to be in the interest of the Wirral where i was born.
I Visit the site regularly and have contributed over the last 4 years. And find it a very good source of up to date information.
Its more than a Forum in my opinion.

http://wirralwideweb.co.uk/
Links normally to be avoided 5 Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
Google Adds Top Side Bottom of pages.
Links normally to be avoided 3 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
(In My Opinion) Its just a big link out site there isn't any original content?

Web cams
http://www.camserv.co.uk/wirralcam/westkirby.shtml
Links normally to be avoided 5 Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
This has sponsorship pages and advertising on all pages, But the content is original / unique.
But if it breaks a rule 5 then should it stay ?

wirralsociety
http://www.wirralsociety.net/index.htm
Links normally to be avoided 6 Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
"Wirral Society annual subscription @ £5.00 (UK Sterling) p/a"

You've misunderstood that link completely. There is no content (that I can see) on the site that requires payment to use. If you want to join the society obviously you pay a (rather modest) membership fee, but the wiki rule is about the access to the content, which is not violated here. Unless anyone objects, I'll put back the link to the Wirral Society, who are a fairly influential Wirral group and whose site does have some useful content (including scanned images of their newsletter). They are a group that is notable in their own right as far as I can see. Note conflict of interest, my mother is or has been a committee member of this society, but that is not my motivation for this remark. Francis Davey 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. I've no objection to inclusion of this link. Coldmachine^Talk 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Viking Wirral
Is probably the only one out of all the lists that meets the criteria of wikipedia. As i cant see where its breaking any of the rules.

So my question to the people who decide, if wikiwirral is not permitted under #10
then its only fair that you also review the information above and removed those sites too.
I don't make the rules wikipedia does that. And to up hold those rules in my opinion those sites
should be removed except for viking wirral, I wont remove them by editing i will leave that up to
some one who can read the rules and act fairly across the board.

Feel Free to reply : Paultheone, Coldmachine.
Mark S 00:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, glad you found the talk page! I know how things on wikipedia can be confusing at first: I remember being told this very same thing about links on another article I was editing, and there were lots of commercial sites listed too, so I appreciate what you're saying. I haven't personally had a chance to go through the other links yet, and I don't want to edit them without consensus (I removed the one link you were adding since it seemed like you were pushing a POV for its inclusion, but what I've done is add the external links cleanup template to the section to give everyone a chance to go through them and see what needs removing in line with WP:EL. Coldmachine^Talk 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm mainly concerned with issues to do with Cheshire (which is how I come to read this article and its talk page), my own thoughts on this are that we should thank Mark for the work he has done in pointing out the unsuitability of the other external sites listed here and remove them as well. I know I and other face a constant battle in removing unsuitable sites on many Cheshire-related articles, and enormous complaints are raised about inconsistency at times. We need to pay attention to those issues and try to be as even-handed and consistent as possible within the guidelines.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---
Removal of the following link :-----http://wirralwideweb.co.uk/

Links normally to be avoided 5 Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Google Adds Top Side Bottom of pages.
Links normally to be avoided 3 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
(In My Opinion) Its just a big link out site there isn't any original content?
Links normally to be avoided 13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article..
(In My Opinion) Its just a big link out site there isn't any original content?
Links normally to be avoided 9 Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
The home page is prodomently RSS Feeds from other sources of information. AKA Search aggregator
Please feel free to reply with the reasons why this link should stay? in my opinion it breaks wikipedia rules which are set clearly (Now i found them) for everyone.
--Mark S 10:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---
Removal of the following link :-----http://www.camserv.co.uk/wirralcam/westkirby.shtml
Links normally to be avoided 5 Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
This has sponsorship pages and Google Ads advertising on all pages.
It does break wikipedia's rules and there for should be removed. Yes i agree its original, but you cant have one rule for one and not another.
Just because its unique isnt a reason to stay as a link as its full of advertising and also sponsored by another company too. It goes agains the grain but RULES are RULES
--Mark S 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

.

---
Removal of the following link :-----http://www.wirralsociety.net/
Links normally to be avoided 6 Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
"Wirral Society annual subscription @ £5.00 (UK Sterling) p/a - "Contact us / join.
It does break wikipedia's rules and there for should be removed. Unfortunately this site requires a fee to be involved.
Links normally to be avoided 3 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
It does have intresting News Letters but that's it, its a link self promoting, looking for members. A Breach of wikipeadia rules.


Please fee free to comment why these sites do not breach the rules and should be included?
Wikipedia makes the rules for all to follow, not the exception because it looks nice or friendly.
--Mark S 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

.

Hi, I'm concerned that your being bold is failing to take in to account the need to consider obtaining consensus on the inclusion of some of these links, at least. I agree that wirralwideweb.co.uk should be removed since it's a commercial site with plenty of adverts, however I dispute the deletion of wirralsociety.net: you claim this site requires people pay a fee to view content, but this is not the case. The fee is for people wishing to join the society itself. Likewise, the webcam site may have adverts but these do not conflict or hinder the use of the page content which is primarily as described (i.e. a webcam view). I therefore dispute the removal of these two links, but agree with the removal of the first one. I should also note: I have NPOV on this issue since I didn't add any of these links nor am I involved in any of the sites. However, the removal of all the links without considering consensus is of concern because this may be considered disruptive editing in response to the removal of your own link. I think the other links should be restored until consensus is reached. Being bold is not an excuse for failure to seek consensus. I'll wait until tomorrow, and then restore the other two links if it's not been done already, so that we can discuss their inclusion or exclusion from the list. Coldmachine^Talk 11:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Coldmine : i have read the rules at face value and acted upon them, i have not pointed any fingers accusing anyone of disruptive editing wirralsociety.net is it asking for members ? Where is the Featured article required of wikpeadia criteria? All there is is scanned News Letters of members concerns about the wirral. Just because it a good cause does not validate its reasoning for being listed. If however you think it should be listed then your allowing the breaking wikipeadias rules and you can no longer be judgemental on any future links provided.

Wirral Cam Coldmine : First take a closer look at the link. http://www.camserv.co.uk/wirralcam/ Its on the home address of http://www.camserv.co.uk which is a site selling Servalance / web space etc items, see "Product Info" "Live Demo" Quote : CAMSERV supply the cameras, network connection, web space.... - everything required to create a successful webcam service tailored to your needs. Along with Google add and sponsor ship.

I have no personal interest in any of the links, but as you say if they are in breach of wikipeadia rules then they can not stay. Just because there pretty, friendly or refreshing if they break the rules they break the rules. You can not make allowance for one and not the other.

As you can see also at the moment Coldmine the Concensus is just us? Well i have someone agreeing with my decisions, but anyway, if its only us debating the inclusion exclusion. You say you want to keep wirralcam, but not wirralwideweb? You say wirralwideweb has adverts and is comercial and must go, now use the same view for exclusion when viewing wirral cam. Now you can see where i'm coming from as in the Rules have been broken so it must go. I think its a great site and now have it bookmarked, but there can be no exceptions if your wanting to enorce the rules on other. --81.108.151.2 14:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The wirralwideweb.co.uk website is purely commercial: there's no part of the content which is free from advertising of some sort. So as I say, I agree it's a link to be avoided per WP:EL. The webcam site is, however, free to use and the small number of adverts which appear on the page don't interfere with viewing the webcam itself. It's directly related to the article too. The wirralsociety.net website doesn't breach any of the WP:EL guidelines at all, in fact, so I'm unsure why you want it removed unless you are making edits purely to prove a point. Let's see if other people have anything to contribute. I'm not opposed to removing these links at all, but it seems that your position is "if my link can't be included then no-one's can" which as I say could constitute disruptive editing and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Your contribs also show you've only been involved in the project to add this particular URL to this particular article, which suggests a conflict of interest here. Accusing me of lacking judgement might also be considered a personal attack so it might be worth just cooling off and seeing what other editors think. Coldmachine^Talk 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a problem that comes along with applying the rules or guidelines too avidly or strictly. It is, that if one wishes to be hard line about conforming to the rules in the way described so far, then one really has think carefully about conforming to all of them as well, not just the ones dealing with External Links. If we did that, most of the article would be deleted and reduced to a mere stub. Why? Because most of the information and claims are not accompanied by the appropriately satisfied requirements for verification and citation (see WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:References.) In cases like this, my own thoughts (which come from a professional academic scientific research background) are that the need for adequate referencing and citations probably outweigh the need for a stringent attention to external links criteria for those who can do the job, and that time for these people might be better spent on (a) tracking down referencing and adding appropriate citations and reference; (b) removing current uncitable and/or unverifiable claims; and (c) making sure additional material is only added if it is adequately backed up by verification and citation. However, all of this may be best done within the context of achieving consensus. In terms of the possible edit conflict now starting, I think the time is better spent on improving the text of the articles rather than searching out fine details about external links.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No intention of edit warring on my part; please note my attempts to encourage discussion and promoting the need to seek consensus before making controversial edits to articles. Coldmachine^Talk 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to coldmine

The wirralwideweb.co.uk website is purely commercial: there's no part of the content which is free from advertising of some sort. So as I say, I agree it's a link to be avoided per WP:EL. The webcam site is, however, free to use and the small number of adverts which appear on the page don't interfere with viewing the webcam itself. It's directly related to the article too. The wirralsociety.net website doesn't breach any of the WP:EL guidelines at all, in fact, so I'm unsure why you want it removed unless you are making edits purely to prove a point. Let's see if other people have anything to contribute. I'm not opposed to removing these links at all, but it seems that your position is "if my link can't be included then no-one's can" which as I say could constitute disruptive editing and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Your contribs also show you've only been involved in the project to add this particular URL to this particular article, which suggests a conflict of interest here. Accusing me of lacking judgement might also be considered a personal attack so it might be worth just cooling off and seeing what other editors think. Coldmachine^Talk 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wirral cam : You missed the fact it hosted on a company website / promotion and sponsorship. (Breaks wikipedia's Rules, see above.)
The wirralsociety.net : Is a close call but where is the Feature Article of refrence / intrest ?

"if my link can't be included then no-one's can" I say could constitute disruptive editing and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point
I would say that its a childish point of view to be honnest.

Your contribs also show you've only been involved in the project to add this particular URL to this particular article, which suggests a conflict of interest here.
I made a contribution YES and that's more than the thousands of other visitors to this page, but does that mean that my input is any less worthy then yours? Or are you more important because i havnt contributed before? I wasn't aware that the link i included would have been a problem and up to only yesturday. I did not realise that those matters can be discussed. So if i was wanting to contribute at the moment, shouldn't i be worried that anything i add would be removed, as some "editors" decide upon themselves to remove items with out checking others first? Ref : leaving in wirralweb. And saying its okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wirral_Peninsula&diff=144765822&oldid=144761837

only to check it later when it becomes a point of intrest. And then agrees that it should have been removed. I say that falls into wikipedia's disruptive editing. Bottom Line : If you wish to use the rules as a tool then do so but i am also permitted to also use those tools also.

Accusing me of lacking judgement might also be considered a personal attack so it might be worth just cooling off and seeing what other editors think.
Its not a personal attack coppermine. Im stating the facts that you put back a link that you now consider wrong, shouldnt the correct procedure been to check out the comments and the link before acting upon it? That is where I'm saying your lack of judgement is. That's not a personal attack that's an observation.

Lets put it this way.
This page is over moderated there is no common sense involved at all, you recommend that i go an cool off? Why? I am cool, its you guys who haven't helped or given a new starter a chance, you have made mistakes and made self judgements which i have proved wrong. If you want these pages to grow and be sucessful (As they already are) dont see every linker as a Mistake or an advertiser as you may have just lost a great source of information due to pathetic accusations and finger pointing.
I can appreciate the hard work that goes into a refrence site? And wanting the information to be correct.
Well if that's what you want then check things out before you act, its only a click away.

--Mark S 16:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) p.s no personal attacks are included ok :)

Please take the time to read through this article. It is unhelpful to refer to the views of other editors as 'childish', or to mock their usernames by using derisive parodies of the correct form. I have issued a warning on your user page accordingly. I've no interest in engaging in an edit war, and on point of fact prefer to err on the side of deletion when it comes to inclusion/exclusion issues such as this; however, the way you are going about this is entirely inappropriate. You are in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and I again repeat my request for you to step back and cool off, restore the links, and allow other editors (beyond the three of us) the opportunity to discuss this issue so that consensus is achieved. Coldmachine^Talk 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding project Banners

I feel some project banners would be helpful to add at the top of this page, but I am unwilling to add all of them. The most obvious ones would be for the England WikiProject and the UK geography projects. I've added them. Since part of the peninsula remains in Cheshire, I'd like to add that project banner as well, but given the squabbles in sections above, I would only do that if it wasn't taken as some claim that Wirral remained the sole interest of Cheshire. There is no project for Merseyside, which rules out a simple solution of adding both. So, would adding Cheshire be judged acceptable by people?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not: it would bring the article to the attention of a wider range of editors, whose views and input would likely help improve the overall quality of this entry in the project. I say go for it! Coldmachine^Talk 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add: if there's no project for Merseyside, maybe this example is a good reason to create one? Coldmachine^Talk 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of The Wirral remains part of Cheshire - I'm a contemporary county advocate, but I see no problem with the Cheshire WikiProject getting involved here regardless; it is one of the strongest UK wikiprojects going. I've just done a little cleanup of the article myself too. Jza84 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. As another contemporary county advocate, I've added the Cheshire project template. Thanks for the comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular Music

I wouldnt class Half Man Half Buiscuit , The Coral And all of the other Music there (apart from scouse house) As Popular Music on the wirral I know the coral are from the wirral i guess half man half buiscuit are as they support tranmere(woo) and ive never even heard of the others.If i asked any of my mates i bet non of them would have heard of any of them -- No1 Tranmere Fan —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Half Man Half Biscuit was very popular in my sixth form (back in '84-'86) surely that's good enough? Francis Davey 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Spose So but there not as popular now -- No1 Tranmere Fan

Utter Rubbish, Half Man Half Biscuit are a very popular band, loved by John Peel, they should definitely be on there. The Coral too are household names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.252.194 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Welsh name

I can understand why the Welsh name was deleted. It is like starting the article on London with: London (French name Londres) is the capital of the UK.... The fact that the Welsh have a name for Wirral is not relevant to the article. JMcC (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I see it has been entered again, and I have removed it again. A spurious claim was made on my talk page that Welsh was spoken on The Wirral. Now, I do not dispute that one may be able to find someone living on the Wirral who can speak some Welsh, but to make such a remarkable claim definitely requires evidence, and I doubt it can be supplied.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually do edit wars but was annoyed by your reference to the "supposed" Welsh name, and I reverted again before seeing this discussion. I've commented at User talk:Ddstretch as follows : The area is close to Wales, was once Welsh, now contains Welsh speakers, and within the recent past (19th/20th century) was largely populated by migrants from Wales (hence the Birkenhead eisteddfod). It is also mentioned, as Cilgwri, in Welsh legends - see [3]. Including the Welsh name adds a point of interest to the article, so what's the problem? If I can find a source, I'll try and add an explanation of why the Welsh name bears no etymological relationship to the English name. As an alternative to having the Welsh name upfront, I'll add a sentence or two concerning the Welsh name to the main text, and also mention its proximity to Wales as an earlier comment suggested. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest this discussion is taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles where I have raised it, some discussion is taking place, and I have proposed a means of reaching consensus about which English settlement articles should have Welsh names added to them. I am sorry you were irritated by my use of "supposed", but that is exactly what it is until and unless the evidence which justifies it addition is provided at the same time as adding the Welsh names. Until then, we have no way of knowing its status, and so it is supposed on the part of others except the person who added the information. In this respect, I am only conforming to what is required for an encyclopaedia like wikipedia, and for what is required for any article to gain GA or FA status, which I think should be present in all our minds when we add material now. I have no objection to it being included so long as it can be justified and souved at the time that it is added. Until then, it really is supposed.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not "supposed" - it is the Welsh name, just as Caer is Chester, and Penbedw is Birkenhead. Moving on ... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is "supposed" to anyone who does not have any of the evidence that you have or any other, for in the absence of it, people just don't know whether what is being claimed or not is correct. It can only move from "supposed" once the evidence is forthcoming, capable of being publically scrutinised, and cited.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wirral peninsula is a poor choice for this debate about Welsh place names, simply because some of it is in Wales.

The border between Wales and England running North does not follow the Dee for its last 20 miles before reaching the sea. In the part north of Chester a small strip of the Wirral lies within Wales not England.

I have included the Welsh place name for Wirral in the leader as, however small the piece may be, Wirral is not entirely in England.

I hope we can all agree that it is reasonable for a geographic feature that is shared between both countries, to carry both names. 80.192.37.143 (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a serious question as to whether it should go in the lead. There is no evidence that the area was "Welsh" in any sense later than many other areas of England (when the terminology "Welsh" becomes misleading and anachronistic). Question is: is this material that should go in the lead? For what its worth it used to be the case (when I lived there) that Wirral did have lots of Welsh speakers, but that is irrelevant. Francis Davey (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it is agreed that the Welsh name be added, the issue of where becomes important. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles (2) including pointers to what may be the best one can hope for from existing guidelines about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved the offending section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wirral Peninsula Map

Although the replacement of Location map|United Kingdom & co-ords with Location map|Merseyside was a good move aesthetically, factually it isn't entirely correct as the southern third of the peninsula is located within the administrative boundaries of Cheshire. I've reverted it back until a consensus can be reached over which map to use at the top of the article:
1. The UK map
2. The Merseyside map
3. The Merseyside & Cheshire maps combined
4. The map used in the Geography section of this article
5. A replacement map
Snowy 1973 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How easily can the Merseyside and Cheshire maps be combined? I don't like the one in the Geography section too much - for one thing it extends too far west. Could one option be to use the Merseyside map but to change the last part of the caption to something like "The boundaries shown in the diagram are those of Wirral Borough Council and Merseyside; as a geographical term the Wirral Peninsula extends southwards, beyond the Borough Council boundary." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly an option. That was what User:Addhoc had done to the Merseyside map that was added. He modified the caption to: The Wirral Peninsula is formed by the River Dee to the west and River Mersey to the east. The boundary shown in the diagram is that of Merseyside. I only noticed this after I reverted the map back. Perhaps we could ask User:Jza84 nicely if he wouldn't mind designing a geographical Wirral map or one more politically accurate for this article... Snowy 1973 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

History

I'm currently undertaking an expansion of the History section. Any views on whether it should be hived off into a separate article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's within the scope of the article, and doesn't create an imbalance in the division of sections (i.e. the article becomes entirely about the history of the place) then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included here. A separate article is unnecessary. Coldmachine^Talk 10:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One factor is that the article is becoming quite long - over 30K - and will only get bigger. Liverpool, for instance, has a separate article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Landmarks

Thingwall was removed from the list of landmarks. I initially reverted the removal, but after checking the Thingwall article there's no real mention of the 'Thing' - if the article could be fleshed out more, then I'd see value in keeping Thingwall in the list of landmarks on this article. I've reverted myself, accordingly. Coldmachine^Talk 15:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists of places

Before the recent local government reorganisation, it was possible to link to most of the places on the peninsula by using two categories: one for places in the Metropolitan Borough and and the other in Ellesmere Port & Neston. With the demise of the latter, do we need a category called Places in Chester & West Cheshire on the Wirral Peninsula or perhaps a category for all places on the Wirral Peninsula whatever the local authority? They would avoid lists. Any ideas? JMcC (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maria V. Snyder

I've added a tag to the mention of Maria V. Snyder - which at first I assumed was a hoax, but then discovered may not be on the basis of this: "Amy came along and we took the train to Liverpool and I talked to about 150 students of the Wirral schools. The students had voted POISON STUDY the "Wirral Paperback of the Year" for 2009. Winning this award set my whole UK tour in motion. The students were fantastic and supportive and they laughed at all my jokes :) I had so much fun talking to them!" But, it needs a verifiable reference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Second World War damage

"80% of all houses in Birkenhead were either destroyed or badly damaged"?? Although there is a reference, I think this statement is highly questionable. Think of the size of the old County Borough. Is it credible that only one in five of all houses escaped unscathed, not just in central Birkenhead, but in Bidston, Claughton, Oxton, Tranmere, Rock Ferry, Prenton, Thingwall, Noctorum and Upton even after allowing for postwar development? "Badly damaged" presumably means more than the odd crack in the plaster in the ceiling. JMcC (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Between August 1940 and November 1941, Birkenhead, Wallasey and the Mersey shore were attacked with tremendous ferocity... Out of a total of 35,727 houses in Birkenhead, 2,079 were destroyed and 26,000 badly damaged. After Bootle, Birkenhead was the second most badly hit town on Merseyside...." Stephen J Roberts, A History of Wirral, p.167. He doesn't really explain his sources very well, but I think we can assume that the book itself is a reliable source, can't we? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess they had tidied it up by the time I was born. Perhaps the meaning of the word "badly" confused me. Thanks. JMcC (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Capital P?

Should 'peninsula' be capitalised? I'm unsure about it. VEO^onefive 18:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The capital 'P' is needed because it is part of the name of a place eg Hibre Island, Mersey Tunnel. JMcC (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Accent

The current text within the Accent section says "The inhabitants of the east side of Wirral have a strong scouse accent. Accents on the River Dee side of Wirral are not as strong [...]", whereas, on following the link, the reference article actually says "On its east side the Wirral shows strong Merseyside influence; less strong on the west side or Deeside [...]"; this may seem trivial, but not all of the residents on the east side speak with a strong scouse accent and not all the residents on the west speak RP. Would anyone mind if I changed it to reflect the reference article? Maybe something along the lines of:

The boundaries between accents is not clear as accents and dialects are both socially and geographically defined[24], however, the east side of the Wirral shows a strong Merseyside influence but less so on its west side.[24]

PennyDarling (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I came across this interesting little nugget: Received_Pronunciation#BATH_vowel Does anyone mind if I reference this? PennyDarling 21:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyDarling (talk • contribs)

Fine, so long as you use the original source - Newbrook, Mark (1999), "West Wirral: norms, self-reports and usage", in Foulkes, Paul; Docherty, Gerald J., Urban Voices, pp. 90–106. It's definitely not a good idea to use one Wikipedia article as a source for another - WP:CIRCULAR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Myrtle

I don't think that a photo of a bog myrtle, taken in Scotland, is relevant to be included in this article. Anyone agree with me? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If it was a rare survivor of the Bidston Bog-grass, now only reliably found in Kew Gardens, then there might be a point to it (cf Wollemi pine). However this isn't even a distinct species (let alone distinctive), it's just a poorly illustrative view of sandstone heathland in general. It's not appropriate and surely there are better ones, of the right locality? Isn't this a classic case for Geograph? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Following Zacwill16's logic, the article would have a photo of a random Neolithic stone axe to illustrate the mention of stone axes, or a photo of a random Boy Scout to illustrate the Boy Scout Jamboree. Images in WP articles should be directly relevant to the article - "significantly and directly related to the article's topic". If people want to know what a myrtle looks like, they can click on the link. It's quite inappropriate to have an image of a myrtle (not necessarily the same species - who knows? - and certainly not the right location) in this article simply because of the connection between the myrtle and the placename Wirral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, your complaint about the picture being Scottish was noted, and so I replaced it one taken in Northumberland (admittedly still not on the Wirral, but not that far away). Secondly, I don't see how an image of myrtle scrubland isn't directly relevant to the article, given that it illustrates the type of habitat that caused the place to be called "Wirral" in the first place. Following your logic, why should we include pictures of Eastham and Birkenhead when they're only mentioned in the article? Can't people just click on the links if they want to see what they look like?

I could understand your thinking if the article was already cluttered with images, but it's actually quite bare. Zacwill16 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Northumberland "not that far away"? I can think of a few locations in the UK that are geologically (thus soil conditions) similar to the Wirral, but Northumberland isn't even one of those. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If you'd care to name some of these similar locations, I could try and find a more appropriate one, though the Commons' selection is somewhat limited. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wirral? Geograph will almost certainly have something suitable. It's probably already on Commons, although uncategorized and hard to find (find it on Geograph first, then search for the ID). Otherwise our policy is to go out there and take a photo of the subject. We don't use unreasonably unrealistic simulations for photos, and for a general shot of an easily accessible location, we go and photograph just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As the article states, myrtle is no longer found on the Wirral. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In which case, the inclusion of a photograph is, indeed, giving undue weight to the plant. If an image of a generic myrtle plant is required, the link to myrtle can be followed to find one. I think the inclusion of a photograph is, in addition, equivalent to overlinking of terms one finds in some articles where almost every noun seems to be a candidate for being linked.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, please resist any temptation to undo changes yet again because some of you are technically over the three revert rule. I don't intend to take action, but some zealot might, or might report some of you, and that would not be good for anyone. I suggest you just take a step back from being tempted to revert/re-revert, and continue just to discuss here if required without editing and reverting the changes under discussion any more. (just trying to make a helpful suggestion here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wirral Peninsula. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726051937/http://www.wirral.gov.uk/my-services/leisure-and-culture/wirral-archives-service to http://www.wirral.gov.uk/my-services/leisure-and-culture/wirral-archives-service

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) 05:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New article...

Greetings, Wirralians everywhere. What do we think about the creation of this new article? It seems unnecessary to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: I have now partly rewritten the article (here) so that it is more accurate, but I still believe unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Although it merely seems to be a grouping for statistical purposes, there are many similar articles in Category:Urban areas of England. I think we have to keep it, though I would like to know if this complies with an official ONS list of urban areas. Incidentally I would like to know why the article on Wirral Peninsula, a comprehensive description of a major part of England, is rated as low in importance in every category. JMcC (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad JMcC agrees RailwayJG (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Welsh Wirral

Is (the) Wirral partly in Wales, seems a bit contradictory right now. If it is bounded by the River Dee, then Sealand and north-eastern Connah's Quay are part of Wirral? Unless it means Dee Estuary or refers to the historic route of the River Dee which now forms the border. So it should be either "bounded by Wales" (along the historic route of the River Dee) or retains "bounded by the River Dee", meaning parts of Wirral are in Wales. If the latter, surely the Welsh name removed a few months ago (Dec 2022) should be re-instated and it described something like "located primarily in north-west England, and partly in north-east Wales".

If it is not clear whether it is partly in Wales, then better to be inclusive of the multiple definitions. So include the Welsh name, although may be "the sections east of the River Dee in Wales may be regarded as part of the Wirral", "located primarily in north-west England and under some defintions in Wales", or something like that.

The section above on the Welsh name did not consider that Wirral may be partly in Wales, so while Welsh is not predominately spoken, if part of the Wirral is in Wales, Welsh has legal protections and would technically be used at least by official organisations on the Welsh part. Ofc, this would not apply if sources clearly state Wirral is not partly in Wales and the boundary is either the England–Wales border or a bit more into England. DankJae 21:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Historically, the peninsula was entirely in England. The question, to me, is whether the saltmarshes and reclaimed land in the Dee estuary are, in fact, part of the "peninsula". They may look that way on the map, and some of the area (uninhabited) is indeed on the Welsh side of the border, but to me that does not mean that part of the "peninsula" is in Wales. I don't think you would find any sources that say that Sealand and Connah's Quay are part of the Wirral. The question of whether the Welsh name for the peninsula (Cilgwri) should be included in the article is one that should not be decided on that basis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: So, would it make sense to largely describe it as only in England? Fine with that, but would that mean we have to say "Dee estuary" or "Welsh border" than River Dee as its boundary?

Concerning Welsh names, I've seen you've been in these discussions before, so won't disturb the waters for now, and considering that I do not see Wirral being in Wales personally. Just needed something to refer to as I believe the Welsh name and it being partly in Wales are/were recent additions/removals. DankJae 17:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If we refer to the "Dee estuary", we should also refer to the "Mersey estuary" (which is a real geographical feature even if it doesn't have an article). We can't describe the Wirral as both "largely" and "only" in England?! Whether or not it is defined as partly in Wales is not for us to determine - historically it is in England, and I haven't seen any sources that describe it as partly in Wales. There are different opinions among editors as to whether the Welsh name is included here, but it is close to Wales, has a Welsh name, and personally I would support its inclusion as being an addition of encyclopedic value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, oops I guess a slip of my wording, yes "largely" and "only" aren't compatible, so should it just be only described as in England? I am fine with using Mersey Estuary. DankJae 20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)