Jump to content

Talk:Crosby, Merseyside

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Babydoll9799 (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 12 August 2010 (→Seaforth in Crosby?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Greatest sea disaster of all times

"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

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

I have updated the dot

Merge?

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 I'm not even sure if Great Crosby still exists, but it is certainly no longer current in reality.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]

Notable residents

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]

Seaforth in Crosby?

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crosby,_Merseyside&oldid=378538429"