Talk:Fazakerley

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fazakerley. 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/20070309180044/http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-29267.pdf to http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-29267.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: 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) 06:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary split

Per the talk page at Kirkby I am not sure where the idea that Field Lane is Fazakerley other than in public perception rather than reality. The change was made and not challenged back in this 2009 edit which provided no sources, and per this recent edit appears to suggest that in fact it is Kirkby (especially once combined with ONS maps) not that I recall a sign post or marker (other than for Kirkby golf course). If we are saying there is a difference between historic township of Fazakerley then I cannot find any documents to back that up, as Fazakerley is generally given as an area further south than Longmoor Lane currently stretches, and this would need to be differentiated in the article from the ward which distinctly places Field Lane and locale in Kirkby. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per my response on Kirkby talk. I would actually say it is ignorant to dismiss what exists locally by challenging this simply because part of the area is split by a boundary and falls under a different council. The area in question is not Kirkby it is Fazakerley; simply falling in to the Knowsley borough council as opposed to Liverpool city council. It's on the boundary - saying the area is Kirkby outright is puzzling. I have rebuffed this on the Kirbky talk page. Koncorde is claiming because the other side of Copple House Lane/Field Lane is not in Liverpool therefore it is in Kirkby. This is not correct. It is in Knowsley MBC. Which in itself is a collaboration of other towns and villages such as Huyton and Halewood. An arbitrary administrative borough. But this is not Kirkby. The 'reality' is that it is still Fazakerley but under a different borough council. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also to reiterate, again, as per Koncorde reference to the pdf article - that because it is not witin the boundaries of Liverpool council therefore it is in Kirkby, is not the case. It is in Knowsley MBC. There is a vast difference. The only moot point I would argue saying Fazakerley comes under Knowsley as well as Liverpool it is already on the 'areas of Knowsley' page anyway. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep discussion concentrated, so use the Kirkby page. But 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). Koncorde (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]