Talk:Crosby Beach

WikiProject icon 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

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

WikiProject icon Travel and Tourism Low‐importance

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 Much of the (unsourced, I might add) material is out of date, and written like a poor man's Frommer's Guide.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 ]

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 ]