Eisspeedway

Talk:Birkenhead

Future

This section is a plug and simply reproduces claims made in a press release by Peel Holidngs. Hardly any of it is commonly agreed fact. If nobody objects, I'll delete it.86.139.105.200 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic buildings

Do you think that Bidston Observatory, Bidston Windmill and the lighthouse at the seaward end of Bidston Hill worth including ? I haven't lived in Birkenhead since the middle 60's so don't know if they still exist

Yes, I think as much as possible should be included. All those buildings are still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.4.84 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Categories?

How about...

  • Science & Technology - The John Moores University telescopics construction at Twelve Quays.
  • The Arts - Incorporate the writers, actors, artists, musicians, etc.

What are the opinions of others, any other ideas? EP111 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Birkenhead Brewery - apparently it used to make the best Pale Ale in the world! Two of its buildings are still standing - Marriott's Motorcycles and the one by Hamilton Square Railway Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.4.84 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scousers?

I've heard that people in birkenhead don't class or refer themselves as scousers. is this true?

See Plastic Scouser and Woolyback.--IanDavies 02:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Birkenhead and I do not at all consider myself to be a scouser, the accent is not at all alike. I also hate living in this area and am ashamed to admit it to fellow Brits as it's such a chav-infested area.
Liverpool was (and still is) a place you went to rather than the place you lived in. They had different councils and were in different counties. When I worked during a vacation for Birkenhead Corporation's Parks & Gardens Dept 38 years ago, there was an old gardener there, who reckoned that there were small differences in the words used. Examples of the words he gave are 'jigger' and 'entry' to mean an alleyway. Of course being a scouser isn't just about the accent but shows there were different histories. Inevitably, after the first tunnel was built there was greater mixing and the differences in language may have been vanishing fast even then. In the 1950s, there were certainly people in Woodchurch with the old Cheshire accent,which was more of a country accent, but the next generation went to the local schools and assimilated. JMcC 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was born in & live near to Birkenhead. I was born in sight of the Pier Head, if that counts for anything! I'm happy to be called a 'Scouser'. Scouse is quite tasty. Though this isn't the Wiki definition, I would consider the most modern version of a 'Plastic Scouser' to be someone who has disowned the 'Liverpool conurbation', to any extent, & now lives in another city.
Liverpool & Birkenhead are, essentially, a single conurbation, these days, courtesy of the ferries, underground railway &, particularly, the road tunnels. As JMCc, pointed out, the western Wirral accent has, or at least did have, a more rural inflection.
n.b. Skaus is a Norwegian-Viking word, & may be a word which was introduced to the area much earlier than C19. Wirral was occupied by Norse Vikings during the early 10th century. Viking Wirral

EP111

You can keep your cathedral, You can keep your Pier Head, Because we're not Scousers, We're from Birkenhead -- Curttrfc

Towns in Cheshire category

The banned User:Irate, using the unregistered IP address 84.9.194.111 in order to circumvent his ban has removed this article from the Category:Towns in Cheshire despite the fact that it clearly says in the article that the town is in the historic county of Cheshire and was administered as part of the former administrative county of Cheshire. I propose the article is re-added to Category:Towns in Cheshire - any objections from registered users? Yorkshire Phoenix 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been corrected. WikiPedia is not a democracy no matter how many times you try to use it for your propoganda purposes, no matter how many of your mates you get to vote it will still be free for anyone to delete as it is simply wrong. It is indicative of your campaign that you introduce weasle words, then try to use them as justification for further corruption. BTW this is what it says on the main page Welcome to Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. no ban on me their hey.--84.9.195.178 08:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit is clearly unacceptable. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain lists Middlesex was a county of England. It was abolished in 1965 after being gutted in 1889 to form the County of London. The end. as an unacceptable example and your over simplification of the situation regarding Cheshire falls into the same category. Yorkshire has never existed as an administrative county in any form: are you therefore trying to tell me I'm not a Yorkshireman? The county of Cheshire is a traditional and historic entity, not just a former administrative county. An encyclopedic article must reflect this. Yorkshire Phoenix 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction should be drawn between the content of the article and which categories it's in. The system of categorisation we have uses the modern ceremonial counties (which is why Cleckheaton, for example, is in Category:Towns in West Yorkshire rather than a "Towns in Yorkshire" category, and why Bilston is in Category:Towns in the West Midlands rather than Category:Towns in Staffordshire). For that reason, this article should only be in Category:Towns in Merseyside. Categories are not the place to explain complicated situations about what county somewhere is/was in. By all means, explain in the article that Birkenhead has historically been in Cheshire, and remains so for certain non-administrative purposes. But having it in more than one "county" category defeats the point of categorising.
Also, it was this talk page that was added to Category:Towns in Cheshire rather than the article. I've removed that link: it should always be the article that is added to a category, regardless of anything else. --RFBailey 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyside and Cheshire co-exist as metropolitan county and traditional county respectively: therefore Birkenhead should be in both categories, just as it can be in Category:Towns and villages in Wirral and Category:Towns in Merseyside, for example. Likewise all towns in Yorkshire should be in Category:Towns in Yorkshire regardless of their administrative arrangements, otherwise the category would be empty! Yorkshire Phoenix 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Category:Towns in Yorkshire, you'll see that it's divided into subcategories for North, South, West and the East Riding: the current ceremonial counties (aside from having had Earby added to it, which (personally) I don't think it should have been). I still think it's confusing to list Birkenhead in both categories.
Thanks for putting back my signature, by the way. --RFBailey 10:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm inclined to agree with you about Birkenhead and towns within the ceremonial counties falling wholly within Yorkshire. What would you do about Earlby and other Yorkshore towns administered by other authorities, such as Lancashire County Council or Co Durham? (I presume the towns formerly in Cleveland but south of the Tees are now listed under North Yorkshire?) Yorkshire Phoenix 10:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To take another example, Sedbergh is listed in Category:Towns in Cumbria, but also in Category:Yorkshire. That makes sense because (i) it's currently in Cumbria and (ii) it is a Yorkshire-related article, having historically been in Yorkshire. Similarly, Kendal is listed in Category:Towns in Cumbria and in Category:Westmorland. Thus Earby should be listed in Category:Towns in Lancashire, but also could be in Category:Yorkshire. It looks like the former Cleveland towns are listed in Category:Towns in North Yorkshire (e.g. Redcar) or Category:Towns in County Durham (e.g.Hartlepool). --RFBailey 11:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your latest examples appear to support my argument that Birkenhead should be in Category:Towns in Cheshire and Category:Towns in Merseyside do I take it your objection is based on the confusion caused by the existence of a current local government division called Cheshire, which doesn't include Birkenhead (a problem not apparent with Yorkshire or Westmorland)? Yorkshire Phoenix 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was suggesting was the following: that an article on Anytown should be listed in Category:Towns in Countyshire, where "Countyshire" is the current ceremonial county. If there are good reasons why another county should be listed, then list Anytown under Category:Traditionalshire (but not Category:Towns in Traditionalshire). I know it's a subtle and, on the face of it, seemingly pointless distinction, but it keeps Category:Towns in Countyshire and Category:Towns in Traditionalshire consistent as listings of towns currently in each ceremonial county.
Thus, under this approach, Birkenhead should definitely be in Category:Towns in Merseyside, could legitimately be in Category:Cheshire (although this isn't absolutely necessary), but should definitely not be in Category:Towns in Cheshire (which would include only towns in the current ceremonial county, e.g. Winsford, Runcorn).
Similarly, Earby should definitely be in Category:Towns in Lancashire, could possibly be in Category:Yorkshire, but should not be in Category:Towns in Yorkshire.
Likewise, Christchurch, Dorset (a much less controversial example) should definitely be in Category:Towns in Dorset, could possibly be in Category:Hampshire, but should not be in Category:Towns in Hampshire.
That there is still a local government division called Cheshire which doesn't include Birkenhead (or West Kirby, or Altrincham, etc.), unlike Westmorland, does indeed cause confusion. --RFBailey 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree here. Without a Category:Towns in the historic county of Cheshire it would have the capacity to cause confusion (even with Category:Cheshire), and Birkenhead being part of the traditional county is covered in the body of the article (so long as that vandal leaves it alone). As for Yorkshire towns in other local government areas, however, I'd have to stand by the argument that the towns themselves never left Yorkshire, and so the likes of Earby should remain in Category:Towns in Yorkshire. Yorkshire Phoenix 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population

The notion of the 'Birkenhead Urban Area' is new to me. The 2001 population of this area of 319,675 actually consists of:

  • Bebington 57,066
  • Birkenhead 83,729
  • Greasby/Moreton 53,905
  • Wallasey 58,710

I think that the population quoted should just be that of 'real' Birkenhead ie 83,729, otherwise we have to expand the article to include all these other places. Agreed? JMcC 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "urban areas" as defined by the Office for National Statistics are at best strange, and at worst ludicrous (e.g. their "Liverpool urban area" excludes Kirkby but includes Haydock). --RFBailey 13:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh names for this place and Liverpool

Is there any compelling reason why the Welsh name for Birkenhead should be included in this article, and why the first occurrence of Liverpool should also have its Welsh name included? If there are, I will add them again, but I could see no justification offered for including them, and given that Birkenhead has never been in Wales to my knowledge (nor has Liverpool), there seemed no reason why their Welsh names were included.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a good reason. Several towns in England have Welsh names, including Rhydychen, but if you want to know what they are, you can easily follow the link to the "Cymraeg" Wikipedia. Myopic Bookworm 09:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several reasons for including the Welsh name for Birkenhead: 1) I've lived here most of my life and I didn't know it had a Welsh name 2) I have been unable to find this Welsh name on either Cymraeg Wikipedia (I don't speak Welsh)or Google 3) Birkenhead and Liverpool had a substantial Welsh immigrant population in Victorian times, which probably contributed to the accent and the economy - infact Liverpool has often been referred to as the 'Capital of North Wales' 4) Birkenhead has always had a close connection with Wales, as it is geographically next to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.160.171 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the problem with mentioning the Welsh name is the prominence that it has been given in this article in the past. I do not think that it is sufficiently significant to appear in the intro. It would be a bit like introducing the article on Germany with a mention that its Swedish name is Tyskland. Since you claim there are many Welsh connections, a section on this aspect (properly referenced of course) would be a good place.JMcC (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion some time ago, and the consensus was that it should be mentioned where and if relevant, but probably not in the introduction. Birkenhead and Liverpool were among those places which were heavily populated by Welsh people in the 19th century (including my ancestors) - another was Chester. The Welsh name for Birkenhead is currently mentioned under Culture, because the Welsh national Eisteddfod was held in Birkenhead in 1917 and that appears, at present, to be the most appropriate place to mention it. If the History section is expanded to cover the story of Birkenhead's economic and demographic expansion in the 19th century, it could alternatively go there. The Welsh Wikipedia entry on Penbedw (Birkenhead) is accessible through the Cymraeg link in the left hand column. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education

I have removed Birkenhead School and Birkenhead High School from this article as they do not fit in this article due to geographical location. It even says that they are in Oxton on the article, so just because their name is Birkenhead does not mean that they exist in that area. TehPoep 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that Oxton is part of Birkenhead. Changes reversed. JMcC 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with JMcC. On this point, it occurs to me that the different areas within Birkenhead which have their own separate articles - Oxton, Prenton, Tranmere, Rock Ferry etc. - should be identified more clearly within this article. I know there is a list at the end, but more clarity within the article itself would be useful - as is done in Wallasey, for example. Only reason I mention this is that I won't be able to do it myself for a few days! Ghmyrtle 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park High School has now closed and been amalgamated with Rock Ferry High School to form University Academy of Birkenhead. I'll make an edit when I get a few minutes to compose something suitable. --Jude99 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of Birkenhead

As suggested I added a section on Birkenhead's districts but found that they were already in the section called "Governance". Changing this is tricky without duplicating or confusing. The problem is that local government reorgansiation is blurring the boundaries of the town somewhat. Is the article about the entity that was originally called Birkenhead, or is it about the entity that exists today? JMcC 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's the only article about anything called Birkenhead (other than places far, far away), I would say that it should be covering both. I'd be tempted to take the pre-1974 County Borough boundaries as a formal definition of what constitutes Birkenhead (if anyone knows what they are), if need be (although that may upset the residents of Upton!). --RFBailey 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current ward boundaries are at [1]. On the definitions there, "Birkenhead" seems to be applied only to the original centre of the town and not the "suburbs" - but certainly my understanding (admittedly originating from the time when there was a County Borough) is that the name covers the whole of the old borough area and this article should do likewise - with brief paras and "see also" for the constituent parts like Oxton etc. Ghmyrtle 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Merseyside

Hello everyone, I hope this isn't considered spam but it seemed like a suitable place to ask around and see if there might be people here who would be interested in supporting and contributing to a Wikiproject focusing on Merseyside. I'm trying to gauge if there is suitable interest before making a formal proposal. Cheers Zenichiro (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midget sub

Please see this request for info. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History reference

Mum has just published a (in my view) pretty good and well researched book on the history of Birkenhead Birkenhead A History: Elizabeth Davey I'm reluctant to mention it in the article as it looks too much like self (well family) promotion but I thought I'd flag it up as I'm not sure what the right protocol is. Francis Davey (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it useful for good references, and you believe it is reliable, then I see no problem. After all somebody has to write these histories. We may be able to get rid of the fact tag that has appeared. JMcC (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beechwood

Is the Beechwood estate not a district? I'm not sure Babydoll9799 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by a district and what you mean by Birkenhead. Birkenhead grew in the 19th and 20th centuries engulfing many old parishes and hamlets such as Bidston. This is how most of the districts in the area were named. Beechwood Estate(formerly the Ford Estate) is a large development in Bidston which was part of the old county borough of Birkenhead. Certainly it is a fairly well-defined area, with its own community groups and reputation, but it doesn't have any historical identity. I can't imagine a Wikipedia article on it, like the other longer-established districts, but I could be wrong! Nor does it have a status on its own in current local government in Wirral because it is in the ward of Bidston and St James. In my opinion it is a housing estate. I am just an occasional visitor to the area these days so I hope someone will correct me if I am out of date. JMcC (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's part of Bidston then fair enough. Just wondered if there was a case for a page. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is material that is notable, go ahead. JMcC (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note on Wikimedia Beechwood is given a page on its own, along with district signs (for Beechwood). Does this help? Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead districts

Just thought i would bring it to the talk page that there are one or two editors trying to rewrite the town of Birkenhead by saying districts are not part of the town. Notably Woodchurch and Oxton. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should contain all that was Birkenhead as well all that now is. Similarly the article on the British Empire should not just be about Bermuda, Falklands etc JMcC (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC) PS The Birkenhead Empire was a flea-pit cinema in Conway Street![reply]

NSRW on Birkenhead

Re: "Birkenhead" . The New Student's Reference Work . 1914. and "I don't see why a link is needed to an obscure reference work that does add any additional information."

It is a different point of view, from the U.S. 100 years ago. How it summarizes the information I think is interesting. There is an intermediate population figure which I don't see elsewhere. It is comforting that it confirms the trend noted in the History section. I don't think it is needed, but I think it is useful. The Wikisource 1911 Britannica has a Birkenhead article at this point ( Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)). It is more elaborate, but it hasn't been proofread at this point, and I don't think it is ready for posting. And there is that big blank spot with no in-line links. Library Guy (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is something of interest in NSRW to add to the article on Birkenhead, then add it to the main body of the text and use NSRW as a reference. Some where in Wikipedia's standards is the statement that WP is not a "link farm". JMcC (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmcc150: Yes I've heard this policy. I like the different points of view provided by the external links. Other people seem to as well. A little link farming seems useful. It can be abused of course. I see two other links to sister projects in the "External links" section of this article. I think Wikisource (another sister project) also has things to offer to people interested in Birkenhead, and would like to give notice. In addition to NSRW and the half-baked EB1911 article, there is also Nuttall: "Birkenhead" . The Nuttall Encyclopædia. 1907. Not quite as obscure, and it also has a population figure, but it is very brief. Library Guy (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ONS definition of urban area

An anonymous editor Mike.James 11 (previously anonymous) keeps seeking to remove any mention of Ellesmere Port from the ONS-defined urban area. I keep reverting them. The issue is not whether Ellesmere Port is "really" part of the Birkenhead urban area or not. The issue is whether ONS define it as part of the Birkenhead urban area - which they do. The criteria for the ONS definition may seem strange, but they are logical - based on the distance between built-up areas, which can be treated as contiguous. What should remain in this article is the definition of the Birkenhead urban area as it is defined by ONS, not what any individual thinks it should be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Birkenhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Birkenhead. 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:

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) 22:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article

Following a reversal of a recent edit, I think we need a clear statement at the start of the article about its scope. In 2015 Ghmyrtle wrote further up this page and was not contradicted "What should remain in this article is the definition of the Birkenhead urban area as it is defined by ONS..." We need to achieve consensus on this. If the scope is to be reduced, then we should use the definition in the section of geographic location, ie excluding Tranmere, Bidston, Claughton, Oxton etc. I was born in Grange Mount which is in the Claughton ward, so I am no longer sure I was even born in the town any more. References to Tranmere Rovers, Bidston Windmill, Arrowe Park and Birkenhead School in Oxton would have to be removed. Tracking down exactly where some of the notables were born would also be a chore. The article on the Birkenhead Urban Area includes Wallasey, so yet another article would be needed for the wider scope. What exactly is the "town" that is used in the first sentence? Personally, the easiest definition is the old county borough. JMcC (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had / have a similar issue with St Helens. It is both a town and later a borough, then a met borough with an urban area. It would be very easy to do a St Helens Met Borough article wrapping in Rainhill etc but it was easier to segregate St Helens and its original town wards (and outlier townships) from the later Met Borough / Urban Area which are prone to flipping between local authorities (this can get very messy when people conflate regional partnerships, local government agencies, council bodies etc as one and the same).
In the end the article should always be about the underlying "Birkenhead", not the government, infrastructure, urban area etc. It might be referenced, but it should really be clearly delineated to avoid ambiguity, or the creep of POV push. Koncorde (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question then is what is the "underlying Birkenhead"? Historically, Birkenhead was essentially a new town, close to - but developed much later than - the existing villages of Tranmere, Claughton, Oxton, etc. Is that small area the "underlying Birkenhead", or is it the area covered by the later borough council? (By the way, should Birkenhead County Borough Council have its own article rather than being a redirect?) Even now, incidentally, some people give their address as "Oxton, Wirral", rather than suggesting that they are actually in "Birkenhead". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would take someone actually checking the historic civil parish status etc of the region. I unfortunately don't know a lot about Birkenhead historical role.
And if Birkenhead County Council is different to Birkenhead town, then the answer is yes. Conflating the two is where you start running into issues when people start saying "X is in Birkenhead" and adjusting the population of the town, when the ONS has a different coding for the town and urban areas.
It's not something I know off the top of my head for Birkenhead, but I am sure I could look it up and give feedback. Koncorde (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who do know something about the history of Birkenhead will know, I'm sure, that there is no single correct answer to this. The name "Birkenhead" has been applied to a range of smaller and larger areas, at different points of time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So is that explained? Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partly under "Governance", but the History section should certainly be expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned (40+ years of living in the area), the town, the urban area, the former borough, the postal address, and the parliamentary constituency, are all very different things. This article concerns the town. If anyone wants to create articles for the urban area or the former borough, then feel free to go ahead. I can put a fairly hard limit on the extent of the town, though, and I'm pretty sure the old OS maps on the NLS website will back me up on most of this, though I haven't checked it yet: The south side of the Great Float, the gridiron up to St. James' Church and the north side of Bidston Avenue, Flaybrick Cemetery, Birkenhead Park, east of Slatey Road and Bessborough Road, Woodchurch Road to High Green Road, Borough Road as far as the junction with Singleton Avenue, north of North Road, the west side of Derby Road, north of the eastern third of Whetstone Lane, north of Holt Hill, north of Green Lane and the A41 roundabout, and Cammell Laird. That's Birkenhead the town, which cannot be conflated with the surrounding places. Anything outside of that area belongs in the articles for the surrounding places; Claughton, Oxton, Tranmere, etc. However, if there isn't an instance of something in Birkenhead the town (airport, operational cemetery, professional football club, operational hospital, public school, etc.), then the nearest available should be acceptable for inclusion in this article. EP111 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that seems a quite extreme and partial position. By the same argument, the article on Wallasey should only cover Wallasey Village and not Liscard, New Brighton, Leasowe, etc. And the article on Liverpool should not cover West Derby or Toxteth.... etc. I disagree. The article should make clear - in its sections on Governance and History - that Birkenhead was originally the name of a small area, but then extended to cover the larger area including villages like Tranmere and Claughton, which (as an ex-local) were in my view all part of the town of Birkenhead. This is a perfectly normal pattern of growth in British urban areas - one township or village grew to encompass other villages - Birkenhead is in no way unique in this. The article should follow the general guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. I wonder whether @Ddstretch: would like to contribute to this discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ghmyrtle, but I would clarify that the change of districts / civil parishes / boroughs. By "underlying Birkenhead" we would be looking for the reliable sources to support the statements. In general however, the basic changes I would make would be (at least initially);
  • 1. Clarify the population sizes. If the article is about "Birkenhead", then the first size given should be what Birkenhead actually is. You then go onto the size of the Urban area etc
  • 2. It is unclear what it is referring to it as a "Parliamentary Constituency...population". The electoral wards further confuse matters. Dropping from 350k to 15k in a sentence of two gives me pause for thought.
  • 3. Demography confuses things even more by introducing another population size, which Geography then has its own of.
This then means that any other % for employment etc or where some of these shipbuilders etc I am not sure what they are actually referring to in terms of location. Maybe in the lede, clarify the "Birkenhead is considered to include the villages and suburbs of x, y and z".
Separately, this sentence is now one of my favourites on wikipedia. "Religion in Birkenhead dates back to 1150 when Hamon de Masci founded Birkenhead Priory for the Benedictine order". Before this, heathens everywhere, no religion, just blood sacrifice! Koncorde (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koncorde: Oh, blood sacrifice is definitely still a thing in Birkenhead. There is absolutely no question about that, particularly on a Friday night in Conway Street! EP111 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy both opinions, I think we would have to have two articles with massive overlap, so we shouldn't try. One would have the wider scope of the current article, possibly called Birkenhead (former county borough) and another which covers the fragment called Birkenhead (Wirral district) from which all references to places and people outside its boundaries are deleted. Even by 1888 the borough included the parish of Birkenhead St. Mary and the townships of Bidston, Claughton with Grange, Oxton, Tranmere and Rock Ferry. I am not sure what defines EP111's Birkenhead these days beyond his attempt. It is merely part of a former town that had its own mayor, buses and schools. Today it is not even a ward, because it is paired with Tranmere. To avoid unnecessary duplication, it seems simpler to distinguish the two views of Birkenhead in one article, and so its scope should be as wide as it is now. JMcC (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle and Jmcc150: Liverpool City Centre does have a separate article from Liverpool, though. Wikipedia already treats them as two distinct areas, as it does with Wallasey and Wallasey Village. I understand Birkenhead, in essence, by subtracting the surrounding places (possibly a characteristic of those who were born in Merseyside, rather than Cheshire?); it's certainly different enough, from the Birkenhead Urban Area, to justify a separate article. Conway Park, for example, is definitely not part of Claughton, Oxton, Tranmere, etc. and Holy Cross Woodchurch is definitely not part of that same subtractive definition of Birkenhead as Conway Park. EP111 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need a definition, eg Birkehead a xxxx (parish/ward/district etc) as defined by a recognised source not just EP111's. We also need an entity that can be used to describe where someone was born. I was definitely not born in something called Birkenhead Urban Area. I suspect these two articles will look very similar, whereas Liverpool is much bigger than Liverpool City Centre. I was musing whether Birkenhead is a subtraction or an abstraction. JMcC (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would hazard it should start as (in a paraphrase) "Birkenhead is a town on the Wirral in North West England with a population of XX,XXX, at the centre of a larger urban area named after it.
Birkenhead dates back to xxxx and was formed as a borough in xxxx, before in xxxx being reformed as a xxxx. Boundary changes has led the contiguous built up area around the old market town to be largely synonymous with the town."
Mistly it would just be about recomposing the lede. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using information listed on organisations' websites and in their postal addresses is probably the best way forward, as this closely follows the modern local understanding of the place, and can be easily referenced. For instance, Holy Cross' own website describes the church as being "...located in Woodchurch, Wirral and is part of the Deanery of Birkenhead...", it doesn't say "...located in Birkenhead...". Applying the ONS definition of Birkenhead, directly to the church, would quite possibly also be a matter of WP:SYNTH. EP111 (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to use local sites, that verges on OR and Synth from the opposite position. We have to use commonly accepted / agreed standards and reliable sources. If Holy Cross falls within a defined parameter of an urban region by ONS standards (or council, or government project etc) then they can be described as being part of the Birkenhead urban area. This is not the same as saying that they are in Birkenhead. Where I would draw the line with this is local government partnerships, which are not a "region" of geography, rather an alliance of government. Koncorde (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is missing the point. As the article says, "The Birkenhead Urban Area, as defined by the Office for National Statistics, includes Birkenhead, Wallasey, Bebington, Ellesmere Port (which is outside the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral) and the contiguous built-up areas which link those towns." No-one here is suggesting, I think, that places like Wallasey or Ellesmere Part are part of the Birkenhead that this article covers. The "urban area" is a much more extensive contiguous built-up area along the west bank of the Mersey that includes several towns and suburbs. That is not the point at issue here. The question is whether this article should cover, essentially, the former Birkenhead County Borough area - which included the former villages, now suburbs, of Tranmere, Claughton, Oxton, etc. - or whether it should cover a much smaller area than that, essentially the new town based around the docks and ferry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the opening sentence of the article talks about the Urban Area first, and the opening line of this discussion is around the Urban Area. It then discusses a Parliamentary population, and then a ward population. Exactly what is "Birkenhead" should not be derived from addresses on websites is my only issue, when there will be an official ONS standard of what is and isn't included. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote in 2015 "What should remain in this article is the definition of the Birkenhead urban area as it is defined by ONS..." , I did not mean to suggest that that ONS definition should be the main subject of this article. The point at issue then was whether Ellesmere Port fell within the ONS definition - which it does. But in my view the subject matter of this article should be as I commented here in November 2007(!); "....my understanding (admittedly originating from the time when there was a County Borough) is that the name covers the whole of the old borough area and this article should do likewise - with brief paras and "see also" for the constituent parts like Oxton etc." Apologies if there's been any confusion over my comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another official definition of Birkenhead other than the ONS and the old county borough? Assuming such as definition exists, how would it help anyone from Mars better understand the geography, history and people of the area? (I don't think anyone wants the ONS definition of the urban area, incidentally.) If there is no current official definition, we are left with the old county borough. I agree with Koncorde that the various definitions should be given in the lead. This implies some of the old constituents have to be mentioned. JMcC (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map showing the current parliamentary boundary of Birkenhead, and the wards within (and outside) it. Another map here, published by the current Wirral Council, shows neighbourhood areas overlaid on an OS base which clearly shows Birkenhead as extending over an area similar to the constituency and former borough. The current parliamentary constituency may be as good a guide to current usage as any. The old County Borough boundary - shown here - was broadly similar to the current parliamentary constituency, plus the Upton ward (which I think includes Woodchurch and Landican), and part of the Pensby and Thingwall ward. As the article says, under "Governance": "The borough included the parish of Birkenhead St. Mary and the townships of Bidston, Claughton with Grange, Oxton, Tranmere and part of Bebington, later known as Rock Ferry. The townships of Landican, Prenton and Thingwall were added in 1928, followed by Noctorum, Upton and Woodchurch in 1933." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I suggest rewording the opening paragraph as follows:

Birkenhead /ˌbɜːrkənˈhɛd/ is a town within the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral in Merseyside, England. Historically in Cheshire, it is on the Wirral Peninsula, along the west bank of the River Mersey, opposite the city of Liverpool. In the 2011 census, the Parliamentary constituency of Birkenhead had a population of 88,818.

and leaving out from the lede the confusing references to both the ward and the much wider Urban Area - though of course they should be mentioned later in the article text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always leave the "historically" to the second paragraph so that its current "county" can be referenced first (the second paragraph then talks about the town in historical terms), but otherwise agree. Koncorde (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept Ghmyrtle's suggested adjustment of the lede, as the map references have been provided. I'll also suggest the map for the Birkenhead postcode town, which includes parts of Prenton, Rock Ferry and Tranmere, within the CH42 area. The CH41 district is central Birkenhead, which is fairly close to my understanding of the town proper. EP111 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also happy with Ghmyrtle's intro. The Ordnance Survey map of the Birkenhead Borough constituency shows a well defined entity bounded by the M53, the docks and a line roughly to Rock Park that separates Bebington. It has the advantage that it doesn't rely on the historical boundary of the old county borough. It is also quite close to the Birkenhead and Prenton post towns, though a private company's convenience for sorting letters should not be a big factor. I am happy to exclude Woodchurch and Upton which can now be clearly separated. JMcC (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved those sentences out of the lede, per this discussion. The reference to the larger Urban Area was already in the main text, and I've added the reference the the ward population into the Governance section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birkenhead