Talk:Crosby Beach

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Merseyside Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Travel and Tourism Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewrite and Update This Article

This article desparately needs updated and rewritten. Much of the (unsourced, I might add) material is out of date, and written like a poor man's Frommer's Guide. Someone with knowledge of the beach should do this article some justice and clean it up.Brakoholic (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Brakoholic: I see you posted this five years ago and the article barely improved in that time. I have developed it further and added much more content and references, which hopefully makes it now more befitting (and tidier). Whilst there is no shortage of photos, it seems tough to find any reliable history information! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: The page looks much improved! Good work!!Brakoholic (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Litter reports

Specifically to RodCrosby, in relation to the removal and also to try and prevent any disagreements, I figured it may be worth just putting this into a discussion of sorts. You don't think a matter that was quite widely reported at the time as being relevant because of the passage of time? The issue of litter of that time was clearly quite a significant concern and the news coverage at that time spanned a time period that meant it wasn't just a one-off or routine coverage. There isn't a great deal you can write about a beach anyway but anything that is reported in reliable sources and pertinent to the article in question is fair. I am unsure why you consider it entirely irrelevant just because it isn't a contemporary concern. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was 60 years ago. Does it deserve highlighting in the lede, and highlighted sections? Hardly. Ancient, transient history. Trivia. No relevance to the present-day beach. [[1]], etc.. RodCrosby (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RodCrosby: Sure, I don't dispute that you consider it gave undue weight to the topic, but to remove in entirety, when it was a matter mentioned in the news throughout most of an entire decade? Surely condensing would be a more proportionate response? I am unclear as to your reversal edit summary also as I immediately took this to the talk page. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]