Talk:Cross Hills

message: 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)
replies: text: It is true that Cross Hills lies within the post town area of , 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 . 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 , 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  on them. -- Dr Greg  talk  23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section is uncited. Do we have a source that says it is a common misconception? --Errant 10:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: County confusion

message: 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)
thread_title: Counties

message: To the two experienced editors with a content dispute : you know our policies and guidance. Polite discussion is the only way :)  —SMALLJIM  09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: Update, I am satisfied with Bilrov's edit. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Amenities 

message: Substituted at 12:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment