Talk:Wallasey

OMD came from Meols, not Wallasey --Faddyw 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

To the best of my knowledge, Leasowe is no longer a part of Wallasey. James R 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can confirm, having spoken to my Grandad (a lifetime Wallaseyan). Leasowe is a separate town to Wallasey but is considered, with Moreton, a part of Wallasey only for parliamentary reasons. James R 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Queensway goes to Birkenhead and Kingsway to Wallasey. In fact they are often refered to as the Birkenhead and Wallasey Tunnels. I don't think the Queensway had as much effect as the Mersey Railway and its branches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.211.79 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the mention of the Queensway tunnel now. I doubt a tunnel serving a different town had any effect at all on the growth of Wallasey. Revert me if I'm wrong. James R 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I lived in Wallasey as a child. At the time (1960s), I recall only one tunnel, the Queensway, which was regularly used to get from Wallasey to Liverpool (via Birkenhead). Wallasey and Birkenhead are not exactly "different towns"; they are (or were in the mid 20th century) like the residential and industrial halves of a single urban area, and the Queensway tunnel served them both. It's a bit artificial to discuss their development in isolation from one another. I don't feel that I have sufficient knowledge to edit much on this page, but I'm concerned that the edits since User:Jmcc150 on May 10th may be introducing factual errors. I'm reverting the Queensway -> Kingsway edit as a minimum correction. Slowmover 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

None of the edits I have made are 'factual errors'. In fact, I am still doubtful over this Queensway tunnel issue. The mouth of the Queensway tunnel is nowhere near Wallasey - it is near Lairdside. I doubt a tunnel mouth found there would cause villages quite a way north of it to grow into each other. Which edits concern you as infactual? Edits since the 10th May are mainly transportation-related. You cannot seriously refute these edits as incorrect. Look at maps and history sites. James R 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok. If you're sure of your other edits, I'm not disputing them. I only called them into question because of your comment on the Queensway tunnel. I'm certain that the original editor was right about the Queensway tunnel, which is the only item I reverted. I think "nowhere near Wallasey" is a bit of an exaggeration. Is Heathrow near London? It's near enough. Slowmover 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It was a bit of an exaggeration; I was just stressing the point though. But if you're certain, I'm not going to argue. James R 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just made a big edit and have added an overview of all six townships. I've not said everything that needs to be said, so links to the relevant main articles have been provided. Personally, I thought a general overview of each township to give an impression of its appearance etc. on the main Wallasey page would be useful. I've been as honest as possible; let me know what you think! L1v3rp00l 19:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

A map outlining these districts would be immensely helpful (btw I'm from Liscard originally). -- Slowmover 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As an old Wallaseyan but long absent, I'm getting more concerned about this page. There is a lot of history which should be included here but isn't (St Hilary's, Perch Rock, New Brighton as a Regency "new town", etc), some points which are just plain wrong (housing growth and coalescence between villages long predated the tunnel - and I grew up in an area which was indeed just "Wallasey", in between the centres of Liscard, W Village etc) or unbalanced (Ken Dodd OK, but what about the Beatles regularly appearing at the Floral Pavilion, and its history as a venue before that ?), and a lot of the recent edits about the six districts - while quite interesting - wouldn't stand up to an objectivity scrutiny (in wiki jargon they're very POV ). Unfortunately I don't have the sources to hand to make many of these changes and I'm reluctant to wade in too heavily, but I think the pages could really benefit from an input from someone with a bit of historical objectivity and detailed local knowledge. If not, I reserve the right to change the bits I do know a little about ! Ghmyrtle 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I take your point, but stand by all the points I have made in my last edit. I grew up in the town but simply do not have extensive historical knowledge to include the St Hilary's, Perch Rock history and so on. I've mentioned The Beatles performing at the Floral, but the purpose of the districts section of the article is to give the reader an impression of the area - the main article links give access to the full information. The point about the tunnel was not mine - and I have issues with it as well, but as you rightly say, we need an expert to assist. I also make no apology about the point one cannot live in just 'Wallasey' - postally, most of the districts are collectively known as just 'Wallasey', but there is a dividing line between Wallasey Village and Liscard. I lived in an area 'in between' the two centres for several years - officially, it was Liscard. I am certain it is correct - otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it in the article. I want Wikipedia to have just as good an article on Wallasey as you do. P.S. I'll try and create a small map on Paint, Slowmover. I've lived in Liscard as well, but mainly the Village. L1v3rp00l 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Plenty of room for compromise here I hope. As you see I've made some changes today, and also want to make some more factual changes to the individual district pages. My personal view is that - apart from New Brighton, which is a place name known outside the area, and also Leasowe - the other districts (Village, Liscard, Poulton, Seacombe, Egremont) do not deserve separate pages on their own and would be better merged into the Wallasey page. I won't do that unilaterally, but I'd be grateful to know what others think. Ghmyrtle 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I like the edits to the history page which are excellent, but I can't understand how stating an area, for example Poulton as "not an affluent area" is POV. I call it fact - after all, you only have to check statistics to find crime rates, youth problems and so on and so forth are higher in this district (and Seacombe) than the other areas. The only reason I made these statements about elegance and affluence of the areas is to give the reader a good idea of the district as a whole. However, it's really not an urgent issue.

My main point is that several villages/hamlets in south Wallasey - namely Somerville, Poulton Lancelyn and Poulton-cum-Seacombe are not mentioned. I have a vague idea that these three grew into each other to form the seperate Seacombe and Poulton districts that we know today. Obviously, we need someone who knows more or who grew up in this area to shed some more light. I believe the old naming of these villages still exists to some extent - I noticed a few weeks ago a First bus in Birkenhead (I'm not a bus spotter or anything) reading something like "86. For Poulton Lancelyn", suggesting the name is not altogether dead. Similarly, the Somerville Medical Centre (now relocated to Gorsey Lane, Poulton) was situated in a small shopping street I believe was once Somerville. I haven't heard of Poulton-cum-Seacombe recently though - presumably it was situated in the borderline area between Seacombe and Poulton. Still, it's quite interesting and I'll try and find out more myself. L1v3rp00l 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake - Poulton Lancelyn is in Spital. I'm definite there were villages called Poulton-cum-Seacombe and Somerville though. L1v3rp00l 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Poulton and Seacombe were originally (pre-19th century) hamlets within Wallasey parish (as was Liscard), but at some point in the 19th century they may well have been separated out as a separate Poulton-cum-Seacombe parish - I don't have details. Somerville was an early 19th century development, I think, which could perhaps be classed as a hamlet - there were others as well, eg Hose Side. There are good old maps at http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ (search for Wallasey, etc) which provide a lot of information. Ghmyrtle 10:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info and link, Ghmytle! L1v3rp00l 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should we move the place-name detail into a new section, entitled "Etymology"??? --SunStar Net^talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Being a resident of Gladstone Road Seacombe and a parishioner of St Joey's in 1970/71

I distinctly remember the tunnel being constructed via seacombe. Though the road to the tunnel started in Poulton, it could also be reached down the 'bank' at the end of our road, when we walked through it. We did'nt need to walk to Poulton to access it.

Get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit changed this page, making the claim that the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral is in Cheshire. In fact, it is (and always has been) part of Merseyside - the very fact that it is a "Metropolitan Borough" implies that it is part of a Metropolitan County, which Cheshire is not.

This change, also resulted in an automatic change to the location map - from "location of Wallasey within Merseyside" to "location of Wallasey within Cheshire". The updated map was absurd - it clearly showed that Wallasey was some distance outside the present boundaries of Cheshire.

True, Wallasey and the rest of the Wirral peninsula was once part of Cheshire. For all I know, Royal Mail still calls it "Wallasey, Cheshire". Some people might wish it was still in Cheshire, but that doesn't make it so...

I have reverted the edit, and changed the article back to using Merseyside.

TomH (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

At some point, Wallasey was part of Cheshire. Places in Greater Manchester have a similar problem as IPs periodically come along asserting the county doesn't exist, but Wikipedia's policy is to use modern administrative counties, in this case Merseyside. The typical comprimise is to mention in the lead the previous county. This can be seen at Sale, Greater Manchester, and the statement usually takes the form "Historically a part of xxx, ...". Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few words into the History section to that effect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I live in Wallasey, there is a slight factual error,

"Regular bus services (Arriva routes 432 and 433) depart Liscard every 10 minutes..."

It's been a while since I was last standing in Liscard Cresent waiting for a bus opposite the McDonalds behind the Iceland (I added this so anyone local will know that I do indeed live in the area) but the last time I took buses the times for those routes used to change throughout the day, The times listed (every 10 minutes) are just for peak hours, the services are less frequent outside peak times. Someone should probably change the wording to reflect that. Perhaps add "during peak hours"? I know it may seem like nit picking but it's misleading to claim they depart every 10 minutes. As a side note, why is details about the ferry service under "Seacombe" and not the "Transport" section? Seems a bit odd that. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

"But the name actually originates from the term "Wall of Sea" as it was once known (Wall o' Sea), as it is surrounded by water. In fact it is a peninsula within a peninsula (the Wirral), which is extremely rare." That sounds extremely fishy to me, and certainly needs a citation at the very least. I'm from Wallasey and I've never heard such a thing. Noisms (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Blatant vandalism, which no-one else picked up I'm afraid. Now removed. Thanks for noticing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The ward population of 14,996 is laughably small! It is for the _Wallasey ward_ (primarily Wallasey Village) only and excludes districts (such as New Brighton, Merseyside, Seacombe, Liscard, etc.) that are considered integral parts of the town. The true population is slightly in excess of 60,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facsimiler (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 January 2016

You are quite correct. Unfortunately, as someone who used to spend a lot of time accessing population statistics, I find the current ONS census information interface utterly impenetrable and unfit for purpose, but I'm sure other editors will be able to correct the total in due course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wallasey. 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/20090722165224/http://www.mikekemble.com/mside/wallasey1.html to http://www.mikekemble.com/mside/wallasey1.html

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) 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have corrected, but refrained from undoing, Athel cb's recent edits, but contrary to his statement about the apparently random order (prior to his alphabetisation), the list was actually in a valid order; it was in correct chronological order of birth, as I checked during my previous edits.CWO (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply