Talk:Kirkby

"Public Services"

Does anyone agree (or disagree) that this section is a) in the wrong location and b) far too widespread and immaterial; is it just a bit too much specific information? Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kirkby. 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/20080107183518/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/magical/placenames/kirkby.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/magical/placenames/kirkby.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705140124/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102053408/http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/kirkby/kirkby_proposals.html to http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/kirkby/kirkby_proposals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108121834/http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/resources/219480/consultationresults_summer2007.pdf to http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/resources/219480/consultationresults_summer2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926144020/http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/resources/198530/future_schooling_exec_summary.pdf to http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/resources/198530/future_schooling_exec_summary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728091019/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirkby. 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/20090210113054/http://liverpoolstreetgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=35 to http://liverpoolstreetgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=35

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate info

Knowsley is an administrative Borough, not a city. The Kirkby border starts on Longmoor Lane, Liverpool 10 and includes the Field Lane estate. This is factual and someone's opinion. Ams Blue (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No part of the article says Knowsley is a city. L10 may be correct (along with a few other smaller chunks of about a halfdozen post code areas). Field lane estate someone else would need to look at to confirm. Even thoigh boundary maps seem to indicate north of the Alt the Field Lane area is Knowsley reliable sources seem to give it as being Fazakerly without resorting to original research per WP:OR. Koncorde (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde is correct. Kirkby is within the borough of Knowsley, within Merseyside. That is a necessary and neutral description, and should stay. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Finally had chance to check a few things with the ONS and Postcode records. Western border of Kirby appears to be from where Sherwoods Lane meets Aintree Lane, and runs south until it crosses Longmoor / Valley Road. The entirety of Moor Lane and Edgemoor Drive are also within the boundary. It then continues south following Copplehouse Lane until it reaches the junction with Field Lane and turns East, wrapping around Elizabeth Drive before cutting north to avoid Portal Way. Postcodes for Kirkby should be covered by following list: L10, L32, L33. Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Per recent revert; just to cover this off: This is Cherryfield Ward. I can't see any time that the Field Lane estate wasn't within the Kirkby borders (although I had also assumed it was Fazakerly). You can also look at this from a development point of view to see this in more detail. Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for further evidence see this map which shows the same outline for Kirkby as today dating back to 1949. Koncorde (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion come to my attention. There is some confusion. The area in question is absolutely in the borough of Knowsley, but not Kirkby. I can understand why you would think it is Kirkby and Koncorde has supported the case for this area to be in Kirkby also admittedly there is a sign on Longmoor Lane saying Kirkby. However this is not Kirkby!

It can be noted that Kirkby comes under L10 in the post code coverage area, but this is defined locally as Fazakerley.

Whilst not wishing to tread on anyones toes, Koncorde certainly is not local as intimated earlier that you thought Knowsley was a city, which of course is not. It is just an administrative borough with a colleciton of suburban towns and areas around Liverpool. Fair play to Ams Blue. However knowing the area; both sides of Copple House Lane are Fazakerley certainly not Kirkby. Just fall under different boroughs. One half Knowsley one half Liverpool. So what? Hey L10 is split 3 ways Knowsley, Liverpool and Sefton. But this area Ams Blue refers is not Kirkby it is Fazakerley. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Just checking that 1949 map, which I think is a brilliant piece of info. However it's not a map of Kirkby per se. It is about administrative areas. This is noted on the main Kirkby article page but it does say Kirkby Urban District which later became absorbed in to present day Knowsley MBC. The boundaries are the same as they are the boundaries with Liverpool city council. That's all Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is a sign on Longmoor (I had never seen one other than for the golf course, but I had also never looked to be honest) then that should tell you that perhaps, maybe, it is indeed Kirkby if all other evidence points at Kirkby too?

However, as an aside:

1. No, I never thought, said, or otherwise intimated Knowsley was a city. I have no idea where Ams Blue got that from, as I said in my reply to them (their changes on the page was to remove reference to the Borough).
2. I am from St Helens. I have lived in Liverpool and worked in Kirkby, Seaforth, town centre etc my entire life and driven up and down the M57/62 and East Lancs for years. But my assumption, or anyone elses, about where the Kirkby border was is irrelevant: I am asking for reliable sources that say that it is NOT Kirkby.
3. Both sides of Copplehouse are included on the same Cherryfield Ward map along with Edgemoor (it's this map that enabled me to identify the location of the signpost at the Shell Garage).
4. The 1949 map pre-dates the creation of the Kirkby Urban District. At the time that map was created it fell under the Whiston Rural District (the types of districts are colour coded) from 1922 to 1958. Kirkby UD map available here.
5. Here in contrast is a map of Fazakerley's boundary which shows exactly the limits of its and here is its districts and dependencies which show it has never been administered by Kirkby, nor fallen under Knowsley MB or Whiston RD, etc.

Further map from 1909 showing the boundary (dotted line) running down the length of the Knowsley Brook before turning and running down the back of Copplehouse. That is a Parish boundary. On Copplehouse you can then see little "v" symbols which indicate that this is the Parliamentary County Boundary Division, and also County Borough Division (noted just to the left of Aintree Road).

Further map from 1894 shows same dotted line but this is pre-county borough.

Further map from 1961 showing Fazakerley was outside of the Liverpool borough borders at the time you claim the border is Liverpools (in fact it's absent entirely in this 1841 map for instance just to emphasise that boundaries move). Koncorde (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Cherryfield Ward is erroneous, as this is the council ward which is Knowsley council - which the Fazakerley part would be part of. I think wards are based on population size so you would not have a ward for this part of Fazakerley (in Knowsley) hence it would be part of Cherryfield. Again, does not mean it is Kirkby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally the development link only shows what lies within Knowsley. Which is not in dispute. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Cherryfield Ward is a ward of Kirkby, as shown on any number of official documents. The last document states The inclusion of the Field Lane estate within this ward does bring together two historically separate communities. The perceived divide between these communities is likely to be due to the significant geographical and physical presence of the M57 Motorway. Although connected to the rest of this ward via the A506 Valley Road, the Field Lane estate is a small community which is self-contained from all other areas in the Borough. but makes no mention of Fazakerley (which you would expect). Koncorde (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry pal, this is not the case. I have stated already that this portion of Fazakerley in the Knowsley MBC is not in itself big enough to be a (council) ward and so it is part of the ward to which you refer. The link (to Knowsley Council) is a divide only in to places in the borough, they are within arbitrary boundaries - wards, boroughs and parliamentary constituencies all change due to things such as population; therefore it is not significant one way or the other that it says "Kirkby wards". It can't say "Fazakerley" on it's own because it is not big enough. You don't know the area and you are making much much more of this that there is relevence. Because of this you are telling everyone that it is Kirkby when it isn't. Because it falls under Knowsley borough and noted as within a Kirkby ward you again are saying it is Kirkby when it isn't. (You state: We cannot just use local ideas of what is and isn't Fazakerley. ). Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have such a bee in your bonnet, quoting a number of documents about the boundary. To be honest this is not and never has been in question for me I am not quite sure why you are repeating this. The area is split between two councils. You don't seem to see past the notion that despite this part of the area being in Knowsley MBC it is also unquestionably in Fazakerley. It's neither here nor there to most of the population of the area other than it's a different council. No body says it is Kirkby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Re your earlier point: "The inclusion of the Field Lane estate within this ward does bring together two historically separate communities. The perceived divide between these communities is likely to be due to the significant geographical and physical presence of the M57 Motorway. Although connected to the rest of this ward via the A506 Valley Road, the Field Lane estate is a small community which is self-contained from all other areas in the Borough." - The conclusion you made was it did not make any reference to Fazakerley. The area is also known as "The Field Lane estate". However whilst not saying Fazakerley (I can assure you it is still the Fazakerley community) it does make it clear that it is bringing one area together with another area separate communities in one council ward. Make of that what you will but it justifies it is not Kirkby. Note it as the Field Lane estate by all means but it is still part of the overall Fazakerley area. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Babydoll, you haven't provided a single document saying it is Fazakerley. This is really very simple, provide something. Otherwise this is just opinion.

1. There are no maps or evidence that this is "Fazakerley". The boundary lines all say it is Kirkby. Kirkby predates the creation of Knowsley MBC. The boundaries of Knowsley MBC therefore align with the borders of Kirkby not the other way around. You have admitted there is a sign post to this effect, and all documents supplied back that stance up.
2. To be clear, Kirkby is/was a Civil Parish and Township, and later an Urban District, and is the name of the town within it and the farmlands etc around it. Field lane estate is built on land that fell under Kirkby, has always been under Kirkby. The Field Lane community being distinct / separate from the rest of Kirkby is not evidence of it being Fazakerley. I am asking for evidence that it is Fazakerley, or that supports the assertion "part of Fazakerley is in Knowsley".
3. I do know the area. I know people think it is Fazakerley because I also think it is Fazakerley in the same way chunks of Prescot are actually Eccleston etc etc. You are not privy to any great insight many others aren't, I am asking for you to prove through reliable sources what is claimed at the Fazakerley article (or we remove it as unsourced). I have no vested interest in it being part of Fazakerley or not, only that where a claim is made we are able to attribute it to more than just opinions. The reason this is significant is because this is an encyclopedia and we only put on the page what we can source to reliable sources. If we cannot support the Fazakerley is covered by two boroughs claim then we remove that sentence. It has never been sourced, I can find no evidence that it has ever been the case, it is simply what people think which is not the same as it being true.
4. The only historical record I have is that the RAF Reserve Centre may have been RAF Fazakerley at some point, but it's not an RS as it's from user generated content.
5. Unique Street Reference Code.
6. Utilising ONS data for bus time tables. Koncorde (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

So this is what you do; find something that is debatable, if it is NOT sourced, you make it your mission to remove it unless it is sourced. No matter how minuscule the "questionable" statement is. You have gone to town with this, well done. I applaud you. Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

For an "area" that is mainly residential, perhaps a few links for businesses may surfice.

Buckles Nursery, Co-op, Rowlands Pharmacy, Aldi, Maytree Court, supported living, William Hill (Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What I do is try to make articles accurate. Someone else started the dispute and edit war - you reverted it and then made a song and dance about me asking if someone can provide reliable sources for the wording including personal attacks, which you are still continuing here. You are the one saying it definitely is a thing and supporting the existing wording. Fantastic. So show us where this thing is even colloquially recognised in a reliable source? (And no, business addresses aren't reliable as anyone can put anything down, it is user generated content).

I am trying to prove it one way or another so that we can say definitively what the answer is. I don't have a dog in this race, I don't care if that little bit of the old Kirkby UD / Township has become known as Fazakerley in my day to day life. However if we are saying Fazakerley has a population of X and Kirkby has a population of Y, then saying a chunk of the population is / isn't included in the rest of the article is unclear. Koncorde (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Pal, get off your high horse. To use a phrase, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps to a historian you might well claim the x land once fell under Kirkby, (I'm not siding with this I am just saying) then there are oddly enough loads of instances where places were once part of this or once part of that. Toxteth (township) is a good example so too West Derby, which once covered larger areas. Toxteth is a good one because Toxteth Park covered Dingle but Dingle is just an area of it's own now.

I am only trying to point out from the outset that this is NOT identified as Kirkby. It is Fazakerley but also in part known as 'the Field Lane estate'. You may not have a dog in this race but you are utterly determined to disprove this because there is no "reliable source" to suit. Despite my efforts. I do make a song an dance about it because the point where I came in was that a user said it was Kirkby (this divide) and I disputed this. I've never disputed there is a divide as there is a boundary obviously. You say you are trying to make articles accurate but until this recent edit there was no debate. There was no debate because the area is not known as Kirkby.Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not being a resident of Knowsley but knowing Fazakerley I do believe that the area was previously represented on its own as a ward in Knowsley. Your earlier link states this from 2014:

"The proposed ward runs east to west and includes a section of the Knowsley Industrial Park and the area of Southdene across to the Field Lane estate on the western border of the Borough. The inclusion of the Field Lane estate within this ward does bring together two historically separate communities.". It concludes to me that a) Cherryfield Ward now included the Field Lane Estate and b) as I earlier commented two separate communities. Yes it's the Knowsley side of the divide but the "community" is more connected to Fazakerley that it is intrinsically part of. Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's funny you dismiss my sources for the businesses in the area and use some 'questionable' sources to support your arguement. In the same way you dismiss me saying the place is Fazakerley when a business has it in the address, I dismiss some of the sources that say it is "Kirkby" as this is easy assumed because of the council coverage. With regards to the Kirkby UD this also can be questioned as this is 'Boundaries of Local Government District' which are administrative boundaries that change through time. Also Knowsley Council does promote itself over neighbouring Liverpool; by the use of Knowsley in the addresses. This isn't a town it is a administrative borough. You can Say Huyton, Merseyside L36 but they say Huyton, Knowsley, Merseyside L36. It's silly. Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not on any high horse. I have asked a basic question, and given responses to you when you have attacked me personally, repeatedly. As you have here.

1. Again, I didn't start this - you did. I am asking you to back this statement up because there is no reason you (or I) are any more right than Ams Blue other than through providing evidence. As such, if there is no reliable source how are you proving this is Fazakerley in any context?
2. I know boundaries move, I am well used to editing the Merseyside area, I know underlying population centres don't adhere to artificial boundaries, but none of this answers the question.
3. There was a consultation on restructuring Knowsley wards in 2014. You can read about it here. Field Lane and You can see an earlier map including this area in Cherryfield in 2006 on page 15. In 2003 a prior redistricting shifted that portion of the Whitefield Ward to Cherryfield. The article I provided is discussing reviewing the boundaries which may have included abolishing wards and / or redistricting / re-apportionment after the original change in 2003.

I do make a song an dance about it because the point where I came in was that a user said it was Kirkby (this divide) and I disputed this. I've never disputed there is a divide as there is a boundary obviously. You say you are trying to make articles accurate but until this recent edit there was no debate. There was no debate because the area is not known as Kirkby.

Absence of debate does not mean it is correct. For instance, Fazakerley article states:

"Fazakerley /fəˈzækərli/ is a suburb of north Liverpool, Merseyside, England, and a Liverpool City Council Ward. It is part of the Liverpool Walton Parliamentary constituency. At the 2001 Census it had a population of 15,062,[1] increasing to 16,786 at the 2011 Census.[2]"

What you are saying is:

Fazakerley /fəˈzækərli/ is a suburban area of north Liverpool and Knowsley, Merseyside, England, and a Liverpool City Council Ward. The ward is part of the Liverpool Walton Parliamentary constituency. At the 2001 Census the ward had a population of 15,062,[1] increasing to 16,786 at the 2011 Census.[2]"

Further, when the article says:

"Fazakerley is unusually split in that part of the area is in the borough of Knowsley, running along Copplehouse Lane."

What is meant is:

"The Field Lane estate and is built on the former site of RAF Fazakerley. The area is traditionally considered part of Fazakerley but falls within the borough of Knowsley where it is represented by the Cherryfield Ward"

But we still need reliable sources to this effect. Koncorde (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what is questionable about the ONS, or Knowsley Borough Council wards, or historic maps, or historic land divisions. You say This isn't a town it is a administrative borough. You can Say Huyton, Merseyside L36 but they say Huyton, Knowsley, Merseyside L36. It's silly. which is great, but nobody has claimed Knowsley is a town, or that it isn't an administrative borough. Same with Kirkby UD. Same with Fazakerley. So provide reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Point 1, I didn't "start this". I come in following the earlier interecation you had with another user at the start of this article from 22nd February. Playground squabbles anyway. I pointed out that the previous change was incorrect that this (the boundary) was not between Kirkby and Fazakerley. This is between Knowsley MBC and Liverpool CC. The area of Copple House Lane and the Field Lane estate is not known as Kirkby. Point 2) I am not seeking to attact personally but I have to say since I have tried to restore this article you've made this a bigger issue than it ever was. To in effect make it only accepted (that this is Fazakerley) if my argument was sourced. When this was never needed. Point 3) My version is based on local knowledge but hey you didn't have to take that alone I provided links to the local retail confirming it is Fazakerley. I never disputed cross boundary but I absolutely disagreed that this was Kirkby. Point 4) The Fazakerley description may need to be tweaked because yes it is based entirely from the Liverpool city council perspective. Other than the 'Towns and villages in the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley' category that is. I wouldn't argue with your suggested rewording. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

To in effect make it only accepted (that this is Fazakerley) if my argument was sourced. When this was never needed. But you see, it is needed for that claim to be made in wikipedias voice. This is the whole idea behind WP:RS and WP:NOR. We don't base information in wikipedia based on peoples feelings. You have been editing wikipedia for years now, you know this is how it works. Regarding item 3; I never disputed once that people thought it was Fazakerley - I have said that I also thought it was Fazakerley - I am asking for sources to say that definitively because currently it is a disputed statement between yourself and another user. One of you is wrong, and I cannot prove you are the one that is right. Koncorde (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The point I am making is that this whole discussion centred on the name of a section of Knowsley was not required to be sourced before now; since you now make it mandatory that it is given a proper citation. Hell I don't think there is anything that will satisfy your request although retail and other businesses will state they are in Fazakerley, this is apparently not adequate. You can quote official WP to me but this ridiculously out of proportion. How many articles are full of "facts" and peoples views that are not sourced? This is one that you seem to concur with (you also thought it was Fazakerley). It is usually a consensus of opinion that brings acceptance. Yes I have edited down the years and have accepted that my opinion doesn't always mean I am right. I will however point out when I think others are wrong. Calling the Knowsley side of the border as Kirkby isn't correct. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Then it should have been sourced before now? And given there are two editors with different opinions of what that border constitutes one of you needs to present evidence of why they are right.

Are you saying Kirkby Golf Course is in Fazakerley? Are you saying the sign post on Longmoor is wrong? Are you saying Knowsley MBC are wrong when they call it a Kirkby Ward? That Kirkby UD was over some element of Fazakerley?

We need more than opinion and a lack of fact checking to support the current wording. That doesn't mean it gets renamed Kirkby - it means we don't profess something that is an opinion as true just because it's your opinion.

That's why my opinion that it is so long associated with Fazakerley that people think it is Fazakerley is irrelevant, and I won't support my own opinion if I cannot back it up. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, found an old document of some relevance of the Boundary Commission in 1990 re-aligning various County / Borough / Parish boundaries. In it Knowsley first defends itself from being dissolved, then makes an argument for Fazakerley to be included within it due to proximity to Kirkby (page 5) then with that rejected on page 36 (item 125 to 129) they make an application for boundary to be fixed around the back of Copplehouse. Maps 23/24 shows the boundary change. Koncorde (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the Knowsley document interesting.

As I've stated before I think you are making a much bigger deal of this than is warranted. I've not persisted with this argument simply because it's my opinion (accepting my opinion is not "evidence"). I've persisted because it is wrong to identify the area as Kirkby. Of course there is going to be considerable weight for Kirkby as the area is NOT within the Liverpool city council boundary so it has to fall somewhere. It has to be governed from someone. It may have been under Kirkby UD and now it's under Knowsley MBC. It falls under Cherryfield ward because it has to be included from an electoral point of view. I know there is a divide and, without question, the "disputed territory" is seperate from the Fazakeley area which is within Liverpool city council. Because it's in Knowsley. But due to its proximity to Fazakerley it is not known as Kirkby but Fazakerley, as per my earlier links for retail businesses. The "Field Lane estate" is also known as the same (Field Lane estate). I suppose you call areas like this unparished areas. The daft argument calling Kirkby golf course (saying it is Fazakerley) isn't as daft as it sounds as people may say Fazakerley. That's not my argument; we're taking cross council boundaries. Yes the sign on Longmoor Lane is incorrect because it is the start of the borough of Knowsley but not Kirkby. Probably the sign should say "Knowsley MBC". It's an odd sign in the middle of part of Fazakerley saying Kirkby just because it's a point of boundary on the main road. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, it wasn't me who made it a big deal. To quote I can't see any time that the Field Lane estate wasn't within the Kirkby borders (although I had also assumed it was Fazakerley). and Even though boundary maps seem to indicate north of the Alt the Field Lane area is Knowsley reliable sources seem to give it as being Fazakerley without resorting to original research per WP:OR. Two users have made competing edits, I have asked for those two editors to help clarify per No part of the article says Knowsley is a city. L10 may be correct (along with a few other smaller chunks of about a halfdozen post code areas). Field lane estate someone else would need to look at to confirm.. You are the one that said, explicitly "L10 is Fazakerley (in this instance-in Knowsley MBC) not Kirkby" / "Rubbish. This is Fazakerley split between Knowsley and Liverpool (there is a signpost saying Kirkby but this is not Kirkby whatsoever"). So show me where your perspective can be sourced so we can update it, or clarify it, and move on?

You have misrepresented my position as being pro-Kirkby in some fashion repeatedly (along with a variety of other aspersions) when all I have stated is that I cannot find any recorded evidence of Field Lane (or Kirkby Golf Course) not being "Kirkby" for the purposes of this article. For example, this article lists Kirkby as having a population of 40,472. This figure is based on the inclusion of Cherryfield per the ONS etc so any postcode covered by Cherryfield should be included, and that includes Field Lane etc. If there is an unofficial designation of Fazakerley, as I said on the Fazakerley talk page please provide actual reliable sources. We cannot just use local ideas of what is and isn't Fazakerley. So we either omit the unsourced claim, or we find sources that show that area is known as and referred to as Fazakerley (even if erroneously by all measures).

That you think the sign is wrong even though you know Cherryfield is a Kirkby Ward of the current Knowsley MBC, of the former Kirkby UD, per numerous documents linked, seems to me to confirm that you won't accept any evidence. Is this Huyton then? is this Dovecot? Is this Fazakerley? Koncorde (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the same loops. The area isn't documented as Fazakerley because as I've stated a few times that it is outside of the Liverpool city council boundary; ergo is is represented within a Kirkby boundary, within the Knowsley MBC, within the Cherryfield ward. Hence Knowsley council Kirkby signage on the border (which to all intents and purposes is Fazakerley other than the arbitrary council boundary). I have also responded that this is not just my opinion or locals opinion I have provided legitimate "evidence" from a variety of local retail etc to say they regard this as Fazakerley. You stated - "or we find sources that show that area is known as and referred to as Fazakerley (even if erroneously by all measures)". They do not use Kirkby in their address they don't even use Knowsley. I have stated that the proximity of the "disputed territory" to the Liverpool Fazakerley area means it is more connected to Fazakerley than say Kirkby; the earlier quote you made from boundary review says to the contrary on the connection of this area to Kirkby via the electoral ward as "historically separate communities". My perspective is not about pro or anti anything it's about not misrepresenting the area of Copple House Lane & Field Lane as Kirkby (which is what started the debate) but to identify it as "referred to as Fazakerley in the Knowsley authority" or "Field Lane Estate". Or "is part of Knowsley within the Cherryfield ward (even use Kirkby Cherryfield ward if you have to) however due to its proximity to Fazakerley it is more considered part of that community".

I don't think I can add more as we both know there is no official source (claiming Fazakerley) because it has always been outside of the Liverpool council boundary; it's never been my argument. Saying it is Kirkby because it fell under Kirkby UD and via Knowsley MBC under Cherryfield ward, is erroneous. There was always a council divide - but the community doesn't exist as 'Kirkby'Babydoll9799 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The area isn't documented as Fazakerley because as I've stated a few times that it is outside of the Liverpool city council boundary But that's not true. It isn't documented because it is an unofficial thing; people think or feel it is Fazakerley (I did / do). Fazakerley's relationship with Field Lane isn't officially documented not because of Liverpools boundaries (which didn't extend to Fazakerley until the 70's) but because Fazakerley's Parish / township boundary stopped where Kirkby's Township / Parish and later RD/UD started. There are numerous other areas which are divided across boundaries with no such issue being documented (Billinge for instance is two distinct entities Billinge, Merseyside and Higher End but is just Billinge). This is a super common occurrence.

My perspective is not about pro or anti anything it's about not misrepresenting the area of Copple House Lane & Field Lane as Kirkby (which is what started the debate) but to identify it as "referred to as Fazakerley in the Knowsley authority" or "Field Lane Estate". So find a reliable source to support that current wording, because currently it isn't supported at all. There isn't even significant public opinion or discussion on the internet, no passing reference in any historical book, nothing in any council minutes etc and after a week all I can find is a reference to an RAF Fazakerley base that may or may not have been the same one on the Field Lane estate because I cannot find it referenced on a map anywhere by that name, or a location or address given for RAF Fazakerley that would correspond.

Kirkby Valley Golf Club - Ingoe Lane, Kirkby, Liverpool, Knowsley Boxing Club, Oatlands Rd, Kirkby, Liverpool L32 4SY, St Chad's Parade, 3A St Chad's Dr, Liverpool L32 8RD do you see why we don't use business addresses? Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Lets have some continuity.

In the Notable people category, there is/was a lack of continuity in deciding if a player is retired or former, for now, I have put them all under the most used (former) name but let's find some continuity of how to use these.

To start us off, let me add my opinion, I think if the player is still active in sport, it should be former, but if they have left their job in that sport it should be retired. Neon (Talk) 19:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)