Talk:Wirral Peninsula

message: 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)
thread_title: Work to do

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wirral administrative areas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better map, please 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Handel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: List of places

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Postcodes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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...! ColdmachineTalk 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Poetry?

message: 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". ColdmachineTalk 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text:  Weak keep. I've no objection to inclusion of this link. ColdmachineTalk 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. ColdmachineTalk 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. ColdmachineTalk 11:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. ColdmachineTalk 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (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)
replies: text:  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. ColdmachineTalk 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. ColdmachineTalk 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. ColdmachineTalk 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links : Links normally to be avoided 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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! ColdmachineTalk 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should add: if there's no project for Merseyside, maybe this example is a good reason to create one? ColdmachineTalk 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Adding project Banners

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular Music 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Wirral Peninsula Map

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ColdmachineTalk 10:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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. ColdmachineTalk 15:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmarks

message: 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)
thread_title: Lists of places

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maria V. Snyder 

message: "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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Second World War damage

message: Should 'peninsula' be capitalised?  I'm unsure about it. VEOonefive 18:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capital P? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Accent 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New article...