Talk:St Helens, Merseyside/Archive 1

Archive 1

Confusion

Totally illogical regarding the dating of the name St Helens which - according to the content - did not exist as late as the 19th Century. Why?

• (a) The ST HELENS Canal was built 1757
• (b) In the 1830's the ST HELENS and Runcorn Gap Railway was built.

B. J. Martin 25/08.2004

The 'St.Helens Canal was not built in 1757, because the St.Helens Canal does not exist. The 'Sankey Canal' was built in 1757. An extension to the Sankey Canal, to St.Helens, was built in 1775. Sankey Canal (St.Helens Section). There are signs erected along the canal's length showing 'Sankey Canal'. Nowhere does it say St.Helens Canal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the result of a confusion between the borough of St Helens and the town of St Helens.

Indeed, there is much 'confusion' on this article.

Firstly, St.Helens is not a town, it's a borough. St.Helens did not exist as a town in itself, it was created, for administrative purposes, by the joining together of other towns.

The canal referred to is not the 'St.Helens Canal' at all, it's the 'Sankey Canal'. When the Sankey Canal was constructed, in 1757, St.Helens did not exist! The canal didn't even go to the place later called 'St.Helens'. An extension was later constructed linking the canal to one of the towns which later created St.Helens district.

The amalgamation of towns took the name of a parish church in one of the towns, the church of St.Helen.

The St.Helens article should be just the one, featuring the borough, because that's what St.Helens is. It is not a 'town'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem quite determined to push this, so given that you were spectacularly wrong with regards to our motto I'm going to take you on with this too. A town is historically any settlement with a Charter. St. Helens has a Municipal charter also known as a Royal Charter. End of argument. But, not good enough because the charter didn't say "Town"? Well, why should it - we were already a Civil Parish.....

Even without the presence of such a Charter, our existence subsequently as a Municipal Borough with the seat of "Town Council" being in "St. Helens" establishes us as a Town. The old Parishes were defined from that point as "Wards" of St. Helens Parish Council. The establishment in 1974 of "St. Helens" as a Metropolitan Borough does not effect the Town status.

Alternatively you can take the establishment of St. Helens Parish Church (a genuine ecclesiastical parish) in 1850's, and the existence of a Parish Council that took precedence over the original 5 parishes made formal in 1894[1]. This "Parish Council" was supplanted itself in 1974 by St. Helens Council outright which continued to operate as the Borough seat.

The mistake of the article is that it's lack of clarification regarding our origins clearly leads to some confusion.

It's a common enough mistake appears to be a confusion of "borough" Civil Parishes such as on wiki page "List of civil parishes in Merseyside".Koncorde (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• If you read history, you'll find that St.Helens was created by the union of four 'towns' (a town not being a borough and not being a title representing any administrative authority) to create a 'joint administrative body' (a borough). The 'union' of the four towns, Parr, Sutton, Eccleston and Windle, was given the name of a church which was common to all four towns (parish church), St.Helen. Each individual town still existed, keeping it's own name. The 'union' was named St.Helens. This union occurred in the mid eighteenth century. St.Helens has no recorded history previous to that point in time.

No individual place, or town, called St.Helens has ever existed. The union of the four towns gained in industrial strength owing to outside investment. In 1868 St.Helens, the union of the four towns, was granted a Municipal Charter as a unified body of individual towns for administrative purposes (Definition - Borough). It was made a county borough in 1889.

Stand anywhere in St.Helens and you will be in an individually named town under the 'St.Helens Umbrella'. No individual place, or town, called St.Helens has ever existed.

The creation of the 'Metropolitan Borough' in 1972 (look it up) alters a lot of things. It abolishes the 'county borough' for a start. That disbands the 'union' of the four towns Parr, Sutton, Windle and Eccleston, and adds other towns and villages (previously urban districts), making the Metropolitan Borough Called St.Helens (not 'of' St.Helens).

Note how the council never use 'Metropolitan Borough' on their welcome signs as you enter the borough. They just say 'St.Helens', or 'Welcome to St.Helens'. Because that's just what St.Helens IS, a large area of individual towns joined together in administrative union. A 'Borough'.

Another note: Take Wigan as an example. Wigan is completely different. Wigan is an old, historical 'town' in it's own right. The town called Wigan is the 'capital town' of the Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan.

Wigan = Town ............. Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan = Many towns ........... St.Helens = Many towns.

I'm surprised at how many people in St.Helens don't actually know this. I do, and I've lived in St.Helens for 54 years. I believe it should be taught in school. I'm not surprised at how many people in Wigan don't know where Wigan is. They're not very bright. I believe no-one goes to school in Wigan!

Jemmy 92.239.71.235 (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the reason "many people in St.Helens don't actually know this" is because, over the decades, a significant number of people have begun to think of St Helens as the name of a built-up area, in addition to it being the name of the metropolitan borough within which it is situated. Over time, towns can merge or even overlap, because their borders are defined only in people's imaginations.

What would you call the urban area centred around St Helens Central railway station, if not "the town of St Helens"?

Boroughs are defined by legislation, but towns are not officially defined in the UK, except that parish councils can opt to call themselves town councils. The central part of the borough is unparished, so there are no parish or town councils, therefore there are no official towns. So it's entirely a matter of judgement whether the area is urban enough and cohesive enough to be described as a town.

From what you write, it seems many people locally and nationally now think of the settlement as a town in its own right, and know it by the name of "St Helens". The borough is a much larger area, including the surrounding countryside, so it makes sense to have a separate article.

Some people may have a different view, just as people have differing views as to whether the county of Middlesex currently exists as a place or whether Sussex is as much a county as East and West Sussex. But if many people think of an area as a town, it's reasonable to include it in the encyclopedia as such.

— Richardguk (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Union of Four Towns" argument I think is quite funny. What exactly did those four town become, if not St. Helens in the middle of the 18th Century (and did you actually mean the 18th Century? Or the 19th Century?).

St. Helens, as cited in the main article, has been a "Civil Parish" since 1852 taking over the existing Parishes (and parts of Prescot) in the process[2]. This was further expanded in 1894.[3] Prior to this the "town" had its own Ecclesiastical Parish since 1716.[4]

Furthermore, as cited once again in the article, the construction of the "Town Hall" (cited), and the holding of "Town Council"(cited) meetings in that "Town Hall" predate Victorias mandate (and all cited using Authors that lived at that time such as John Marius and T.C.Barker). Significantly however her Mandate in 1868 officially granted St. Helens a Municipal Charter, creating a Municipal Borough officially handing control of all authority of outlier towns to St. Helens. The Municipal Corporations Act 1835 - if read - will clearly state the creation of a standardised Governmental system that specifically institutes a Town Council of Mayors, Aldermen and Councillors. The specific act used in 1868 is no different, other than its specific reference to St. Helens.

The idea that no part of St. Helens exists in its own right other than as an pre-existing "town" is ludicrous - and actually plays no part in defining the existence of St. Helens as a "town" in any course.

Similarly the abolition of the old County Borough and creation of the new one in 1974 does not suddenly remove "St. Helens".

Now, should there also be a St. Helens Borough article (seeing as the two are roughly the same thing)? That's debatable and open to consideration.Koncorde (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only read the first line of your reply, so forgive me if I've missed something. So, here I am, answering your 'smart ar5e' questions -

Q: "What exactly did those four towns become, if not St. Helens in the middle of the 18th Century (and did you actually mean the 18th Century? Or the 19th Century?)" -

A: Those four towns became what I, and yourself, have already said they became, St.Helens. However, the confusion occurs when a person cannot distinguish the difference between a 'town', a 'parish' and a 'borough'. You, koncorde, obviously cannot. The initial union of the four towns, Parr, Sutton, Windle and Eccleston, did not create a 'new town', it created a union of four existing towns for administrative purposes. If this union was to be regarded a 'parish', then consider the meaning of parish. It isn't a 'town'. If this union represented a 'borough', then consider the meanbing of borough. That isn't a 'town' either.

A town is an individually named place. A parish, or a borough, can be a collection of several individually named places for a given purpose. The historic towns of Parr, Sutton, Windle and Eccleston all have marked boundaries. All are contiguous to each other. The area comprising 'the shops' and, generally, known as 'St.Helens itself' has no boundaries. Officially, the boundaries of St.Helens are shown as either the boundaries of 'the Metropolitan Borough' of the boundaries of 'the former County Borough'.

What you need to do is learn to distinguish between 'named places' (towns, villages etc.) and 'local authority areas' (borough, ward etc.), not forgetting that the boundaries of local authority areas can, and will, change, whereas land boundaries are still as they were created.

In my opinion, factually and technically, St.Helens is a Metropolitan Borough, not a town, and both St.Helens articles should be combined into one, the title being 'St.Helens (Metroploitan Borough)'.

Jemmy Hanson 92.239.71.235 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. ....... I meant, as I said, in the 18th (eighteenth) (ie: the mid 1700's) century.

Sources? Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources, you say? The Recorded History Books!

As always, dodging the question by not giving specifics. You've spent so much time trolling on Wikipedia I would have thought you'd understand how this website works by now. Nev1 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking you to provide proof that you are right. As you well know, simply stating "The Recorded History Books!" is not sufficient. Anyway, I was wondering what you make of Merseyside Town in the Industrial Revolution: St. Helens, 1750-1900by Theodore Barker? That seems to suggest St Helens is a town, wouldn't you agree? Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't 'trolling', it's simply stating facts and showing how WRONG Wikipedia can be, owing to peoples inability to accept recorded historical fact about 'their town'. Historically records are nuch more accurate than local gossip, or local historian's personal opinion. So, before passing judgement on me, look up the facts from accurate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Every map of the area shows St Helens as a town. Maps don't generally show local government area names if they are not also the everyday names of settlements. For example, the borough of West Lancashire is not shown on most maps; and where it is shown, the borough of St Helens is also shown but distinguised from the settlement of that name.

As for recorded history, see for example:

• "HELEN'S, ST., a market-town, in the parish and union of Prescot, hundred of West Derby, S. division of the county of Lancaster, 11 miles (E. N. E.) from Liverpool, 20 (W.) from Manchester, 48 (S.) from Lancaster, and 198 (N. W.) from London; comprising part of the township of Eccleston, and the entire townships of Parr, Sutton, and Windle; and containing 17,849 inhabitants. This town, originally a small village, is now a thriving place, situated on an extensive coal-field, to which it principally owes its prosperity. ..." — A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848) (emphasis added)

See also Town status in the United Kingdom as to why towns in England do not necessarily have their status officially defined, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as to why your personal conviction should not outweigh the prevalent views of others, regardless of whether you or they are in some sense right.

— Richardguk (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you've on read the first line, then you haven't answered the questions or dealt with the issues at all. There was nothing "smart arse" about my reply. I am citing everything that I know, based on actual texts - the vast majority written by people alive at that time (and therefore witness to the "Town") or based on historical civil records maintained by The Government (taken directly from their Rolls).

• St. Helens existed as an Ecclesiastical Parish from 1716.[5] Therefore something certainly existed in the area of "the shops" as you would call it (and the maps agree).
• The Union of Four "Towns" does not mean that St. Helens as an entity did not exist (and we know from 1716 it certainly did), only that it was not a town (a village or whatever you might wish to call it instead - it certainly existed).
• Parr[6], Windle[7], Sutton[8] and Eccleston[9] were technically "Townships" - not Towns (unless you can cite a Charter saying otherwise)
• By 1801 "St. Helens" - whatever you might consider it at that point - was the largest single entity within this "union".
• Historically any Parish Council can define itself as a Town Council.
• The amendment to the Poor Law in 1834 changed the method by which Ecclesiastical Councils operated.
• The Municipal Corporations Act 1835 Towns and cities that had no council could apply for incorporation if they so wished. <<--This bit quite important.
• In 1837 Prescot became a Poor Law Union / Registration District.
• In 1837 St. Helens became a Registration Sub District[10]
• St. Helens constructed a Town Hall in 1839 for its "Council".
• Eccleston became an Ecclesiastical parish in 1839[11]
• Parr became an Ecclesiastical Parish in 1844[12]
• Sutton became an Ecclesiastical Parish in 1848[13]
• St. Helens became a Civil Parish in 1852 .
• The Poor Law was amended again in 1866 which led directly to.....
• St. Helens being given a Municipal Charter in 1868. It was "incorporated" as a Metropolitan Borough. As previously stated, cited and otherwise proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, had its first Town Council meeting on the 18th of May 1868'

To quote John Marius Wilson, Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales (1870-72)

ST. HELENS , a town, a parochial chapelry, and a sub-district in Prescot parish and district, Lancashire. The town stands on Sankey brook, the Sankey canal, and the St. Helens railway, 3 miles NE by E of Prescot, and 12 ENE of Liverpool; and comprises parts of the townships of Eccleston, Windle, and Parr.

It was, not long ago, a small village; but it has rapidly risen to populousness and importance through manufacturing and mining operations in and around it, through plentiful supply of excellent coal, and through proximity to Liverpool and the facility of canal and railway communication. It covers much ground; was, for a time, very irregularly built; includes an open square market place in its centre; contains a great number of new streets; and has undergone considerable improvements.

The town hall, fronting the market place, was built in 1839; is in the Italian style, with a Corinthian portico; and contains a lock-up, a news room, and a large hall for courts, concerts, balls, and public meetings. The market house, near the townhall, is a large new brick edifice.

St. Mary's church is an old and very spacious brick building, with a tower. Holy-Trinity church, at Parr-Mount, was built on a cruciform plan in 1839, and is in the pointed style. St. Thomas' church, in Westfield-street, was erected at a cost of about £9, 000, at the expense of the late Peter Greenall, Esq.; is a handsome edifice in the pointed style; and consists of nave and transepts, with porch and tower. The Roman Catholic chapel was built in 1862; and is a beautiful cruciform edifice, of Rainford stone, with red sandstone dressings. There are chapels for Independents, Wesleyans, and Primitive Methodists; a public library; a mechanics' institution; three national schools for boys and three for girls; and charities £126. The county lunatic asylum here, is within Sutton township, and, at the census of 1861, had 704 inmates.

The town has a head post office, ‡ a railway station with telegraph, two banking offices, and four chief inns; is governed by a mayor, aldermen, and town council; is a seat of petty sessions, and a county court; and publishes three weekly newspapers.

A weekly market is held on Saturday; and fairs are held on the Monday and 'Tuesday after Easter week, and on the Friday and Saturday after 8 Sept. A very celebrated manufacture of crown, sheet, and plate glass, said to be the greatest in the world, is carried on. There are also manufactures of flint glass, glass bottles, and watch movements; several very extensive chemical works; oil and grease works; copper works; iron and brass foundries; a brewery; and coarse earthenware potteries.

A considerable trade in coal likewise is carried on from neighbouring collieries. Pop. of the town, in 1851, 14, 866; in 1861, 18, 396. Houses, 3, 146. The chapelry is more extensive than the town, and was constituted in 1852. Pop. in 1861, 20, 176. Houses, 3, 577. The living is a vicarage in the diocese of Chester. Value, £500.* Patrons, Trustees. Holy Trinity and St. Thomas also are vicarages. Value of the former, £300; * of the latter, £300.* Patron of H. T., the Vicar of St. Helens; of St. T., Trustees.

--The sub-district contains the townships of Windle, Parr, and Sutton, and part of the township of Eccleston. Pop. in 1851, 25, 020; in 1861, 37, 961. Houses, 6, 539.

To quote John Bartholemew Gazetteer of the British Isles (1887)

St Helens.-- parl. and mun. bor., manufacturing and market town, Prescot par., SW. Lancashire, 12 miles N. of Liverpool and 191 NW. of London by rail, 6586 ac., pop. 57,403; 2 Banks, 3 newspapers. Market-day, Saturday. St Helens, which within comparatively recent times was little more than a village, is now one of the most thriving commercial towns in the county. It owes its rapid growth largely to the canal and railway systems, which connect it with extensive coal-beds in the vicinity, and with the Mersey. It has large alkali, copper-smelting, and iron works, but is best known for the mfr. of glass, which is carried on to a great extent in all its varieties. A handsome town-hall, with public library, was opened in 1876. St Helens was made a mun. bor in 1868, and a parl. bor. in 1885; it returns 1 member to Parliament.

• So St. Helens wasn't "created" in 1868 as a Borough - it was made into one.
• Both Marius and Bartholemew differentiate between the "Town" and the "Borough". Other articles (such as from T.C.Barker) expressly point out that the "Borough" and the Civil Parish or "Chapelry" constituted in 1952, increased in 1894 are significantly larger than "The Town". Marius makes this a point of note.
• Onto a significant mention up there by Mr Marius. If "is governed by a mayor, aldermen, and town council" wasn't entirely clear for you I shall point out that a "town council" has a "town mayor". A Parish Council (such as a Civil Council) can declare its Chairman a "Town Mayor". It would be synthesis however to suggest that they did do so without any citation (which is why that hasn't been done) however there's certainly a suspicion that between 1839 and 1868 "St. Helens" was something more than a Village.Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, RichardGUK certainly just provided food for thought on those mystery years between 1801 and 1852 with his 1848 book link. The "Market Town" reference in particular is quite interesting as I've never seen a specific reference with Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows being credited as the only ones in most texts.Koncorde (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To Clarify a Few Notable Points of Discussion from Above

We know (all these elements are cited either on this page, or within the article)

• We know the Chapel in and of itself existed since the 16th Century.
• We know that around the Chapel buildings existed, and that there were houses etc constituting a settlement (according to Adam Martindale in 1629).
• St. Helens existed as a place (be it village or otherwise) at least as early as 1716 for there to be an Ecclesiastical Parish established.
• St. Helens is referenced in Parliament in 1746.
• St. Helens is identified as a town by 3 contemporary records immediately prior to, and after the forming of the "Borough" via the Charter. The Borough (Municipal 1868 / Parliamentary 1888)is identified as larger than the town. The "Chapelry"/"Sub District" is identified as larger than the town.
• St. Helens in 1868 was Officially Incorporated as a Borough. In response it held its first elections over its wards, raised a Town Council and elected a Town Mayor.
• St. Helens is readily referred to as a town in media, publications etc by both modern and historical media.

Disputed Information:

• We know the basis for being a "town" is entirely open to interpretation as it's effectively not an official designation. Traditionally (and to the current day) it has required simply the Parish Council declaring itself a "Town Council". Such as the record stands we are 100% sure that in 1868 a Town Council was elected,
• Richard mentions that the centre of St. Helens is "unparished" but that wasn't the case originally, and is more a matter of recent note (i.e. since 1974 and the abolition of the St. Helens CP created in 1894, not to be confused with the Civil Parish that existed from 1852, or Council that existed from 1834).
• Jemmy's argument is that some time in the 18th Century 4 "townships" united to form a non-town called St. Helens. "St. Helens" is therefore a catch-all phrase for the area, never officially recognised as a Town, or declared, or otherwise interpreted to be a Town other than through ignorance.
• Jemmy argues that there is no "boundary" for St. Helens Town itself. This might be true. However we know that St. Helens wholly comprises of Parr, Sutton, Eccleston, and parts of Windle as of 1868. Therefore the boundary of the Town is intrinsically tied to those original boundaries. Subsequently the "Borough"/"Chapelry" has been expanded to cover Rainhill, Haydock, Newton Le Willows etc.
• Whilst far from authoritative the clear references to the "Town Centre" by The Council[14][15] (who would, in lieu of the Parish Council doing so, have had the right any time between 1852 and today to elect a Town Council, Aldermen, and Town Mayor, and recognise St. Helens as a Town) would suggest that there is a "boundary".Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For Inclusion in the Article:

• The date, and official recognizance of the "4 Townships" unifying would be interesting. Book references, and/or records of historical note (published local papers) would be preferred.
• Mayoral records / and or historical Council data prior to 1848 / 1852 dates.
• I'm awaiting a callback from Central Library with regards to what records that they have, so I might go down there today to have a look and grab some references if I can.Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To Help

• Please, if something is not clear in the main article can you tag it. I will endeavour to include quotes within the reference section to clarify.
• I will attempt to restructure the historical basis behind the "town" based on reviewing the literature. Please contribute any suggestions.
• I would appreciate the feedback of Richard and Nev with regards to merging the Borough and Town. This shouldn't directly effect the existence of any Ward or Township articles, and I feel we can deal with both issues at the same time (and hopefully reduce confusion) despite the clear difference between what constitutes the "town" and "borough".Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have arranged a meeting with the Local History Department at Central Library. They were kind enough to give me a pointer on the St. Helens Council website. Here is a list if our official Mayors since 1868.Koncorde (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that the 'original chapel of St.Helen' was in Windle and was not a 'village' in it's own right. It was a church, with a 'parish'.

What you, and many others, call 'the town' is referred to, officially, by the council, as 'the former county borough'.

The term 'town' is slang, and is used by locals to describe the shopping area.

Also, when referring to the modern borough, don't be restrictive to the immediate area around the 'shopping area', remember places as far afield as Rainford and places with WN postcodes, like Billinge. Jemmy Hanson92.239.71.235 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Windle is seperate to the Chapel of "St. Helen" from a very early date Jemmy. The map from 1610 should be a clue[16] In any case, as recorded in the article, a new Chapel was constructed in 1618. And again in 1750. The 1750 location was the modern St. Mary's. <<--this is referred to by several people alive at that time as a Village. Anything else is your opinion unless you can provide citations.
• What I and others refer to as a "Town" is a "Town". There's nothing slang about it Jemmy. That's entirely your opinion unless you can provide citations to overturn those that exist to say otherwise.
• And I think I make it quite clear on several occasions that the Modern Borough isn't the immediate area around the shopping area (and this is the reason why the two articles were not put together originally).Koncorde (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Koncorde, you say - 'Jemmy's argument is that some time in the 18th Century 4 "townships" united to form a non-town called St. Helens. "St. Helens" is therefore a catch-all phrase for the area, never officially recognised as a Town, or declared, or otherwise interpreted to be a Town other than through ignorance'.

NO, NO and thrice NO! Do not try to make things up.

What 'Jemmy' said was that St.Helens is not a 'town' in it's own right. St.Helens id a 'union or four towns' - an 'amalgamation' - a 'group effort' - am 'assembly of towns'. All done for 'administrative purposes'.

This, in itself, amounts to St.Helens being a 'parish' - a 'borough'. It consists of four named towns.

The four towns, that made up St.Helens, are actual 'places', with a name. St.Helens is the 'authority of the four towns, rolled into one'. A borough is not a 'place', it's an 'authority area'. St.Helens has changed over the years. The four towns haven't. They are still the same as they were when created, and named.

As for your comment, "a parish council is a town council", well, would you call Seneley Green a 'town'? No? I thought not. That's because it isn't, it's a 'civil parish', with a parish council, in a 'town' called Ashton in Makerfield, in a 'Metropolitan Borough' called St.Helens.

The 'mayor' of St.Helens is the mayor of many towns. That's because St.Helens is a borough, consisting of many towns. SAt.Helens has ALWAYS consisted of many towns, not one. Jemmy Hanson 92.239.71.235 (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as we need another go through this:

• The four towns are not "towns". They are "townships". There is something of a difference there. Notably none of the alleged 4 "towns" ever had a market or royal charter (unless you can cite this), none of them ever had a town council (unless you can cite this), and none of them were ever strictly speaking towns any more than St. Helens prior to 1852 (except that we have evidence for St. Helens being a town). Specifically a town requires an authority related to the matters of self determination...but we know specifically that Prescot held those powers until 1834 - and as I showed with the many links above, Sutton, Parr, and Eccleston didn't have even an Ecclesiastical Councils until after 1839. Which ties into the next part....
• I've never said "a parish council is a town council". What I said was historically Parish Councils could call themselves "Town Councils" and elect Town Mayors. This has been repeated at least 3 times. I can actually cite and reference this fact.
• The problem here is that you're trying to use the modern definition of a Parish Council such as for Seneley (which was long ago deprived of its powers in the case of a Local Unifying Authority being present) to describe what existed between the period of the Ancient Parish of Prescot and the formal establishment of the "Civil Parish of St. Helens" in 1852, and formalised into a seperate unifying authority in 1894.
• The Mayor of St. Helens is the Town Mayor, his role is (as St. Helens is the seat of the Borough) additionally that of the Mayor of the Borough.
• The fact that the 4 largest "communities" in the formation of the modern St. Helens urban area were surpassed by the urban area recognised as St. Helens by 1801 should really tell you all you need to know. The fact that St. Helens has been recognised as a Town by Historians since 1848 and not least by its own Council

Koncorde (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As to whether there is a town of St Helens:

The belief that "St.Helens is not a 'town' in it's own right" is a minority view. There is a paraphrase of Wikipedia's policy on minority views at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

In this case, plenty of historical and contemporary reliable sources describe St Helens as a town. The view of one editor does not change that fact, regardless of whether that editor is right or wrong.

As to whether the article St Helens, Merseyside should be merged with the article Metropolitan Borough of St Helens:

There are many instances where a UK local authority area has the same name as a settlement but has different boundaries (including where the settlement boundaries are not formally defined but are clearly different in most people's understanding). Often, a district, borough or parish takes its name from the largest city, town or village within it. In urban agglomerations, the settlement boundaries can be harder to determine but the principles are the same.

Whether there should be one or two Wikipedia articles is governed by two factors:

1. whether the areas are sufficiently different to be worth distinguishing
2. whether the Wikipedia content is currently sufficently lengthy to justify separate articles.

In practice, the first factor will tend to be reflected in the second.

The first factor is particularly important because editors often cite statistical data that relate to the local authority area not to the settlement itself. Having separate articles helps to clarify to which area statistics are relevant.

The relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Districts that are also settlements which begins by stating: "In most cases two articles are used." See also .../How to write about settlements.

In the case of St Helens, it is relevant to note that both articles are well established and that neither article is a stub.

In my opinion, there is a clear difference between the area of the borough and that of the town, and the content of both articles is amply sufficient to justify keeping them separate.

— Richardguk (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Koncorde - A town has to be created by the 'new towns act 1946'. St.Helens has never been created as a 'town', only as a 'parish', then a 'county borough'. Parr, Sutton, Windle and Eccleston are all towns. A 'township' IS a town.

Of course some Metropolitan Boroughs have adopted the names of towns within their boundaries. The Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan is one of these. However, as I've mentioned before, Wigan is an historical town, in it's own right, with it's own boundaries and it's own name. St.Helens is NOT a town, in it's own right, and is certainly not 'historical' in the same sense. St.Helens is not mentioned in any historical records of towns, yet Parr, Sutton, Windle and Eccleston are. The very fact that St.Helens has no marked boundaries, in it's own right, speaks for itself. St.Helens IS the towns of Parr, Sutton, Windle and Eccleston. The 'parish of the chapel of St.Helen', was unmarked. It was, as recorded, a section of the town called Windle.

Richardguk - should you ever find yourself in any dispute regarding development of land, and the argument arises as to where a land lies and to which trustee any land tax should be paid, a court of law in the UK will not favour 'what most people think'. Neither will they favour 'the local council's opinion'. They will favour historical records.

St.Helens, as a singular place, does not exist. No official records exist to suggest it does.

Jemmy Hanson 92.239.71.235 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"A town has to be created by the 'new towns act 1946'": so there were no towns before 1946? Do you have any sources to back up your claims? Nev1 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant anyway Nev. The fact is, a Borough can be a township, or town, or otherwise. I actually hoped Jemmy understood that each time I brought up the 1868 Incorporation of St. Helens but obviously not:

bor·ough

a. A town having a municipal corporation and certain rights, such as self-government.

b. A town that sends a representative to Parliament.

Or we can go for;

A Borough is a town possessing a municipal corporation and special privileges conferred by royal Charter; hence the sovereign is said to create a Borough. It is also possible to create a Borough by Act of Parliament, although formal royal assent would be still be required and it was rare before the Local Government Act (1933). The distinguishing features of this unit are its powers of self-governance. Its rights include; the ability to appoint inspectors or officers and institutions related specifically to the Borough, some degree of exception from county jurisdiction, special schemes of taxation, the right to hold markets and fairs and the right to send representatives to Parliament. Occasionally Boroughs may become 'counties of themselves'. The Boroughs that did not gain the status of Municipal Borough by the mid 1880s were disfranchised.

Or we can try for;

A metropolitan borough pertains to, or has the characteristics of a metropolis or chief town; a metropolitan city or town. They existed from 1900 to 1965.

It was after all the first thing brought up, and repeatedly since.

Subsequent statements by Jemmy would call into question the right of every "town" in the North West without a charter to remain a "town" without meeting whatever imaginary credentials they think they should have.Koncorde (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and whilst we're at it - lets deal with Townships shall we - no they are not towns. They can be synonymous with - but they are very different in meaning (and etymology - the origin being Vill, from which is derived "Village").

5. (Historical Terms) English history

a. any of the local districts of a large parish, each division containing a village or small town

b. the particular manor or parish itself as a territorial division

c. the inhabitants of a township collectively

So when referring to these "Towns", are you accurately qualifying their status if they are in fact villages? Or scattered dwellings as part of a sub district of Prescot Parish (or Widnes Fee).Koncorde (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Again, again and again, you mention 'areas of authority'. St.Helens ia an 'area of authority', a 'borough'. It consistes of four towns. Still, the four towns are named the same as they've always been. Each are 'in St.Helens', but they aren't 'part of a town', they're all part of a 'borough', a 'group', a 'collective', a 'syndicate'.

Individual opinion will always exist. However, fact is fact. You will not find ANY historic land plan showing anywhere called St.Helens. That's because St.Helens was a church, with a small few houses in it's vicinity, IN WINDLE. As a 'place', in it's own right, St.Helens doesn't exist. St.Helens is an 'authority' called 'local government'. No more than that.

Jemmy Hanson92.239.71.235 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Jemmy, your definition of a "town" doesn't fit any historical basis. I mean even if we work within your restriction of St. Helens just being a Church in Windle with a few houses...

The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Volumes 13-14, 1839 states:

• Saint Helen’s, Lancashire, is in the township of Windle, in the chapelry of St. Helen’s, Prescott parish. The township contains 3,540 acres, and had in 1831 a population of 5,825'. The town has risen into importance of late years, chiefly by means of the large establishment of the British Plate-glass Company at Ravenhead, in the adjacent township of Sutton, and of the copper-works belonging to the proprietors of the Parys Mine in Anglesey, who brought their ore here to be smelted. The market, which is customary, is held on Saturday ; and there are two yearly fairs. There is an Episcopal chapel and some Dissenting and Catholic places of worship. The living is a perpetual curacy of the clear yearly value of £240, with a glebe-house. There were in the township in 1833, four day-schools, supported wholly or in part by endowment or gift, with 212 children ; fifteen other day-schools, with 444 children ; and five Sunday-schools with 1,305 children.

So now we have it described as a Township within Windle, which matches with the descriptions from Marius and co that state that it was a village until recently (though the population figures are very variable due to the changes in Parish / Chapelry in the years immediately after 1834). so once again - St. Helens existed as something prior to the Incorporation.Koncorde (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Population & size

It says here that St Helens is the largest town not to have a football team in the top four divisions. Are you sure that's right? What about York for starters? How big is St Helens? It always used to be a bit of trivia that Wakefield was the biggest city without a pro football team, before York dropped down.

York is a city - 212.248.225.148

What about Warrington? Gs83 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference to which this discussion relates has been removed but Warrington town, as opposed to the Borough, is about the same size as St Helens. - Placid.

York is a City not a Town. Warrington is far bigger than St.Helens. So are a lot of other towns with no football team. (St.Helens 136 sq. km. / Warrington 176 sq. km.) 80.195.142.222

Please note that the population of St Helens is not 178000. This is the population of the Metropolitan Borough which includes Newton-le-willows, Haydock, Rainford &c. 212.248.225.148

Most people I know from Newton-le-Willows, Haydock and Rainford would consider themselves proud residents of St Helens. It's a bit semantic but seems unfair for others to exclude tens of thousands of people who describe themselves as coming from St Helens, be it town or borough. - Glennh70

The population figures, and the distinction, are from the ONS and are official. I think many people from Newton le Willows (and Rainford) would welcome the distinction. I have yet to meet anyone from NLW who would regard themselves from St Helens simpliciter. I can assure you that if the Council does not make the distinction its members and officers are reminded about it. There is nothing unfair about recognising that NlW has a proud and separate history (I am not from NlW) There is definitely a difference between the Metro' Borough (prosperitas in excelsis) and the Town (ex terra lucem) - Placid.

Indeed, a 'borough' is a collection of different districts, for administration purposes only. - 80.192.242.187

Can I say that Newton le Willows and Haydock are not suburbs of St.Helens. Both of them were in existance well before St.Helens was thought of. No, the people of those places don't regard themselves as living in St.Helens, simply because they don't. - 80.192.242.187

I disagree i am from St Helens and know many people from haydock, Newton-le-Willows and earlestown. That not only consider themseleves from St helens but are proud to say so. Just because you don't does not mean you speak for all residents of the above places. - Kat, The

St.Helens is not a town, it's a borough. All the towns in St.Helens actually make St.Helens. There is no such entity as the 'Metropolitan Borough OF St.Helens', it's just St.Helens. A borough created by many towns, NOT a town in itself. Before writing articles, read the history books!

You seem quite determined to push this, so given that you were spectacularly wrong with regards to our motto I'm going to take you on with this too. A town is historically any settlement with a Charter. St. Helens has a Municipal Charter also known as a Royal Charter. End of argument. But, not good enough because the charter didn't say "Town"? Well, why should it - we were already a Civil Parish.....

Even without the presence of such a Charter, our existence subsequently as a Municipal Borough with the seat of "Town Council" being in "St. Helens" establishes us as a Town. The old Parishes were defined from that point as "Wards" of St. Helens Parish Council. The establishment in 1974 of "St. Helens" as a Metropolitan Borough does not effect the Town status.

Alternatively you can take the establishment of St. Helens Parish Church (a genuine ecclesiastical parish) in 1850's, and the existence of a Parish Council that took precedence over the original 5 parishes made formal in 1894[17]. This "Parish Council" was supplanted itself in 1974 by St. Helens Council outright which continued to operate as the Borough seat.

The mistake of the article is that it's lack of clarification regarding our origins clearly leads to some confusion.

It's a common enough mistake appears to be a confusion of "borough" Civil Parishes such as on wiki page "List of civil parishes in Merseyside".KoncordeKoncorde (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

2006 Cleanup

The entire article on St. Helens needs attention. It is littered with spelling and grammar mistakes and is far too colloquial to be considered a true encyclopedic reference. Attention must also be paid to the personal opinions reflected in several parts. Gs83 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean this article up and, hopefully, it now has fewer errors and is more encyclopedic. Placid.

I have further attempted to the clean the article up. I have removed/replaced many opinions and colloquialisms and many references to business names, as they appeared colloquial. I have also fixed some poor spelling, grammar and wordiness. Hopefully the article flows much better now. I will attempt to add new content into the article in my next edit. Any thoughts? Do you think we should get more pictures in? Gs83 01:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Merseyside/Lancashire

I have reverted to an earlier page. Please note that, however much locals may dislike this, St Helens is in the Metropolitan County of Merseyside. It may still be in the County Palatine of Lancaster. There is some debate about this but there is no debate about the status of St Helens in the Merseyside. Please consult the Local Government Act 1972 and the LGA 1985. - 212.248.225.148

And what does a young American administrator know about small English towns that gives him the right to argue against what is posted by those who have lived their entire life in said towns?

The following is totally correct: "It is a common misconception that that St. Helens is in the county of Merseyside, however Merseyside County Council and it's powers were devolved to local authorities in the 1980s, one of which is St Helens Council. Merseyside exists merely as an administrative district in the county of Lancashire." HERE HERE! - 80.192.242.187

Incorrect. St Helens (and indeed Liverpool etc) are indeed no longer governed by the Merseyside County Council, abolished in 1986 but are still in the County of Merseyside which is a Lord Lieutenancy or "Ceremonial County". The 1986 changes did not abolish Merseyside, they just abolished the elected council and replaced its functions by committees formed by the Metropolitan Districts (eg Police, Fire). Merseyside also contains parts of historic Cheshire so is certainly not in any sense "an administrative district in the county of Lancashire". Exile 13:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

'Note that the LGA 1972 did not do anything to the historic Counties of Britain. It only abolished the administrative counties and county boroughs. The Government was (and still is) happy to confirm that the Counties themselves were unaffected...'

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." Source:(DoE Statement, 1st April 1974). - 80.192.242.187

That depends on what you mean by the "historic counties" or "traditional boundaries". What most people consider the historic counties only date back to 1888 (and are really Adminsitrative Counties), the boundaries having been "tidied up" at various times in the 19th Century, to remove detached parts, Counties of Cities and "liberties" which had hitherto been considered outside the county structure. The DoE statement looks a little like "spin" in the tradition of "the pound in your pocket". Exile 13:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a line from Wikepedia 'History of Lancashire' ...............

'Lancashire was established as a county in 1182, making it one of the youngest of the historic counties of England, although there is evidence that the boundaries of the county were settled as early as 1100.'

............... 'the historic counties only date back to 1888'? My arse! - 80.192.242.187

I said "what most people consider the historic counties". The "real" historic counties are those which existed in the early 19th century. In most cases the boundaries are close to the boundaries immediately prior to 1974 but due to the 19th century tidying up exercise, not always identical. Example - the area around Berwick upon Tweed, known as Islandshire, was transferred from Durham to Northumberland. The Ridings of Yorkshire were established as administratively separate counties, and so on.Exile 13:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So St Helens is in (ceremonial county) Merseyside and (historic county) Lancashire. Adminstratively it is an independent unitary authority except for certain functions eg Police.

The situation is extremely confusing - postal codes and addresses come into the picture too. Government has been a bit loath to try to sort out the chaos (of its own making) for fear of upsetting someone (or everyone) so we are stuck with it. Exile 13:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

In general there is far too much opinion re attitudes to Liverpudlians and Wiganers. There may be a place for such expressions but an encyclopedia is not the place for it. Wikipedia is subject to criticism and needs to be defended. - 212.248.225.148

Just thought it would be relevant to mention, I've lived in St. Helens all my life and have never been called a St Helenian or a Sintellener. - 82.42.169.206

"Woolybacks" generally refers to anyone from outside Liverpool, especially areas just outside Liverpool. Definitely not just St Helens - you can certainly include places in North East Wales as well as towns like Widnes, Runcorn, Warrington, Wigan and so on. I've also never heard of "Sintellener"; the term "Sintellins" is essentially just a phonetic spelling of the town's name - I doubt it was written down very much in the days before we all started using this internet thing. Perhaps this paragraph needs to be removed. SideIron (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph in question for being unsourced. If it is to be reinstated, sourced must be added. Nev1 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Loungs

I re-added The Loungs to the "Famous People" section, as they do in fact meet WP:MUSIC criteria.

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

• Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

I'm sure Poisened Electrick Head qualify for similar (and also the "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels..." one), but I don't have any verifiable information to hand at present, so they shall remain absent. -- Bobyllib 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Gravy Train then (rock band)? I'm sure they're from Billinge or thereabouts. Certainly locals. Koncorde -- 68.83.47.220 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nick McCabe, of The Verve came from Haydock, which is near St.Helens. Richard Ashcroft came from Billinge which is also near St.Helens. - 80.192.242.187

Richard Ashcroft was born in Billinge Hospital, which is in Wigan (not near St.Helens and has nothing to do with Billinge Chapel End.) - 81.77.129.35

Billinge hospital was in Wigan Metropolitan Borough, not Wigan. Also, despite it being called 'Billinge' hospital, it wasn't even 'in' Billinge. - 80.192.242.187

Edit war in External Links

can we do something about this? it's just the same things over and over again. semi-protect? --Bobyllib 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shut Up, You're Dead ! - 80.192.242.187 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

I agree with Bobyllib. I don't know how to summon an administrator's attention but the user in question has reinserted the same promotional rubbish well over a dozen times. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left him/her a note on his/her talk page about it. ... discospinster _talk 17:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the protection for the external links - BUT St Helens Chat is asserting that their site is 'The first original and most popular interactive St Helens site' when in fact it is not. It was not the first, it isn't the most popular, but now (because the page is protected) all visitors are led to believe that it is. - TruthGuy

Gamble Institute

The building in St.Helens, which is referred to in the article as the Gamble building, is actually called the 'Gamble Institute'. - 80.192.242.187

Clock Tower

"Its clock tower....."

What does this refer to? Has something been deleted? Does it refer to the railway from the previous paragraph????? - Weecow

Unclear sentence: Nexus / DPS

Removed the following sentence, as it's very unclear who or what a DPS might be, and it's been tagged a while. If anyone knows or can re-write in a better way, go for it! --RedHillian (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Should Nexus employ another registered DPS they are legally entitled to re-open.

• This, presumably. -- Bobyllib (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Town Hall

There's an alternative photo of the town hall here, if need be. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

St. Helens Junction

Since when has St. Helens Junction station been "dilapidated"? This makes it sound as though the station is falling apart and can no longer be used, whereas, as far as I've seen, it's still a perfectly usable station. Jammycaketin (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio St. Helens

I've removed the reference to Radio St. Helens, as it appears to be a dead project and never got off the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.207.45 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary schools

I noticed someone had recently changed the example of a primary school with another school. Both schools exist in St. Helens, so I'm unsure why it was felt necessary to change the example, other than perhaps local rivalries or loyalty to a particular school. In the interest of fairness, I added the original example again. However, since both schools are Catholic, I felt it gave the impression all primary schools in St. Helens are Cathoic, so I added a couple of other examples to balance things out. Jammycaketin (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem of choosing one or two schools out of 52 primary schools is that someone will want to choose another school. I think the best way to deal with this would be to remove mention of specific primary schools and start a List of schools in St Helens (the borough) where they can all be mentioned without accusation of bias. It might be possible to mention all the secondary schools in the town as there are only 10. Nev1 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Town/Borough

As this is the article for the town itself as opposed to the separate article regarding the larger borough, then I find it a bit confusing to why some of the article relates to areas that are in the borough only & not the town itself. Surely these should be moved to the borough article. Places such as Billinge, Haydock, Newton-le-Willows, Rainhill, Eccleston Park & maybe one or two other places are not part of the town of St Helens, they are in the Borough of St Helens which is a totally different thing. Major cleanup needed! RC4282 (talk) 19th December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree. Articles should be restricted to the place referred to in the title and NOT the larger 'local authority areas' which might contain many places with articles in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such 'town' as St.Helens. St.Helens is a collection of towns, Parr, Sutton, Windle, Eccleston, Newton le Willows, Haydock, Billinge, Rainford, etc.. Together, they are St.Helens. St.Helens, by itself, does not exist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem quite determined to push this, so given that you were spectacularly wrong with regards to our motto I'm going to take you on with this too. A town is historically any settlement with a Charter. St. Helens has a Municipal Charter also known as a Royal Charter. End of argument. But, not good enough because the charter didn't say "Town"? Well, why should it - we were already a Civil Parish.....

Even without the presence of such a Charter, our existence subsequently as a Municipal Borough with the seat of "Town Council" being in "St. Helens" establishes us as a Town. The old Parishes were defined from that point as "Wards" of St. Helens Parish Council. The establishment in 1974 of "St. Helens" as a Metropolitan Borough does not effect the Town status.

Alternatively you can take the establishment of St. Helens Parish Church (a genuine ecclesiastical parish) in 1850's, and the existence of a Parish Council that took precedence over the original 5 parishes made formal in 1894[18]. This "Parish Council" was supplanted itself in 1974 by St. Helens Council outright which continued to operate as the Borough seat.

The mistake of the article is that it's lack of clarification regarding our origins clearly leads to some confusion.

It's a common enough mistake appears to be a confusion of "borough" Civil Parishes such as on wiki page "List of civil parishes in Merseyside".Koncorde Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ex Terra Lucem

It's about time someone accepted that Ex Terra Lucem does NOT say 'Out of the Earth comes light'.

Out of the Earth comes Light = Ex Orbis Terrarum adveho Lux lucis, whereas 'Ex Terra Lucem' = Out of Earth Lamp'.

And being used and translated by a reporter in a St.Helens newspaper, doesn't make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Orbis Terrarum" means "the world", or if you like "Earth"...whereas "Terra" means "earth" as in soil, land, firmament or "terra firma". Furthermore lucem isn't "lamp", and I really struggle to see how you reach that conclusion, lucerna or lucinaria would be lamp. Luc- (and therefore lucem) meanwhile is the prefix for "light" or variably "shine" or "emit" depending on various factors (from which is derived lux, lucis, lumen, and even lucerna). In this case Lucem is being used to refer specifically to the fact that the "earth" is literally being accused of being the source of light ("'em" being the accusative 3rd person noun ending as you probably should be aware, as compared to "'is" which is the genitive). "Ex" meanwhile is used in order to render "from" or "out of".

In the end you've made the mistake of converting (badly) the English translation to a literal Latin translation, without the inherent humour of the phrase or its intentionally simplistic latin which (in a less poetic sense) actually says "the out-of-land shines".

Would you perhaps like to tackle some literal translation of football clubs next?[19]--Koncorde (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. I think I may have found the delightful website that led dear Jemmy down the garden path. http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Latin for future reference, if you don't actually know how to speak latin or check a dictionary for etymology then try this website http://www.latinphrasetranslation.com/translators/latin_to_english

Really, Ex Orbis Terrarum adveho Lux lucis :D Koncorde (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Just a quick call out to any budding photographers in the area, I feel this article would really benefit from a few more images, if you compare to the likes of the Wigan article this page seems somewhat lacking. Duffs101 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New History Wiki:

I have created a new article for the History of St Helens, Merseyside that will let me fill in more blank in a more complete manner. This makes editing the current topic a bit haphazard due to the risk of breaking refs and cites. I will have to somewhat gingerly begin excising content.

Please be aware of the risk of damaging references when editing, and please raise any concerns that you might have.Koncorde (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

There are (IMO) far too many external links in this article. Bearing in mind WP:NOTDIR, most of these links do not really add any encyclopaedic value. Our articles on settlements are not here to provide readers with easy access to every website that might have something to do with that settlement (most readers are, I believe, familiar with google). I don't see why, for example, we need a link for the website of every school - if the school is notable enough to have its own article, that can contain the official link to their website. It's really not necessary here. I'll leave it for now in case anyone is actively working on this and wants to have a go. Otherwise, I may come back later and cull most of them. --BelovedFreak 20:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Partly my fault, the links have been inconsistently added over time so at some point in the distant past I added those that were missing from the same sort of field. Some are the main hub pages included in citations and references (so were included here for reference), others just local interest sites added over time. In several cases main articles now exist for the various organisations referenced (such as some of the larger schools) so it would seem the schools one can be removed for starters (and I have done so ). You're welcome to remove others as you see fit. If you do so I will happily take a look and see which I would re-add and come to an agreement on which you believe are appropriate. Thank you for your contribution. :) Koncorde (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks better already. I didn't mean to sound so ranty! I know how easily they can accumulate both through random drive-by additions to promote a pet website, or through good-faith additions. I'll let you get on with it, but I'd recommend two things. First, look at each one and try and decide if it adds any real encyclopedic value to this article, if this article was FA-standard and comprehensive. Second, compare to some articles that are already FA in the UK geography project and see what kind of links they include. I've been having a look, and they mostly seem to have a small handful. Even some of those I'd disagree with, but the kinds of things I'd think about keeping would be official websites about the town itself, rather than organisations connected to the town, perhaps a council website, sites that add a great deal of historical background, perhaps a site that has a large number of images that we could not host here or at commons (making sure we're not linking to copyright violations). I would probably lose most, if not all, of the ones under "arts & culture", "health", "news & media", "parishes & churches" (eg. individual parish links could go on the articles for those parishes), "public organisations" and "web community". I'm a bit reluctant to be too ruthless myself, as I've not worked on this article and you'll probably have a better idea of what is relevant. Also, I'm more used to articles on smaller settlements - I am aware that for larger places, more links may be considered appropriate. Having said that, if you look at Manchester, there are only three external links included there. I don't mind if you remove the tag, by the way, now I've made my point! :) --BelovedFreak 12:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't bother me, the topic needs a rewrite now that much of the content is filled in. The links have accumulated over time. Typically they have been added because they are mentioned within the actual text, but a link isn't provided at that point. So for instance things like the Re:new project is talked about in part of the modern town section, with references, but no direct link. Whether that's the right thing to do or not I don't know, but my approach as an inclusionist was to include as much relevant info not just about the topic of the wiki, but also the elements discussed from within the topic - and then wait for someone else to come along and trim. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Other sports

As noted in my edit summary, I have concerns about this section. Firstly, it is unreferenced. Secondly, I'm not sure what it adds to this article. It talks about two defunct teams (one of which only lasted 2 years) and the less than stellar exploits of two former members of one of those teams (neither of whom appear to merit their own articles). Of those in particular, why is Mike Worthington's failed take-over of Rotherham United 7 years ago and his chairmanship of an apparently defunct (since 2009) Rotherham based mortgage company relevant to sport in St Helen's? Pit-yacker (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

West Derby Hundred:

Before this rears its head again. St Helens dates as a market town (as denoted by several authors in the references) and as an ecclesiastical parish back to 1716 (possibly earlier but documents are difficult to find). The establishment of St Helens as borough seat in 1868 has nothing to do with the town / village / ecclesiastical parish / municipal corporation. It has even less to do with the existence of the West Derby Hundred.

Historians still debate the total number of hundreds; the Population Returns (1831) suggest 762 - if half hundreds are not included (550 parishes overlapped the hundred boundaries), the Population Abstract (1851) places the total figure at 799, whilst Dr Farr, of the Registrar-General's Office (1873) gave a total of 818. The administrative importance of hundreds decreased after 1834, though they remained a unit of liability to provide compensation notably for property damaged in civil disturbances until the Riot Act (1886) and they were still used as a unit for census purposes until 1850. The rise of the Petty Sessional Divisions (Magistrates Court Divisions, a total of 609 from 1834) and the implementation of the Transport Act (1832) further diminished the importance of hundreds.

Not until the Local Government Act of 1888 and with the development of the County Councils and administrative Counties did the West Derby Hundred really cease to exist in terms of being an administrative measure. By that point St Helens had been a Municipal Borough for some 20 years. Koncorde (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Historic Coat of Arms

"The "second and third a griffon segreant gules" meanwhile are taken from the Bold family." If I am not mistaken, those are griffins segreant sable, not? Does that quotation not require a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.165.164 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Helens, Merseyside. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10112606
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728055732/http://www.sthelenschoralsociety.org/aboutus/sthelens-history.aspx to http://www.sthelenschoralsociety.org/aboutus/sthelens-history.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10027329
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140120170102/http://www.carillons.org/sthelens/ to http://www.carillons.org/sthelens/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)