Talk:Liverpool Built-up Area

Definition

I find Kirkby's (which here includes Knowsley village itself) exclusion rather borderline. Hmm, do golf clubs count as urban or not? Morwen - Talk 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I find Haydock's 'inclusion', as opposed to Kirkby's 'exclusion', more than borderline. I find it ridiculous, considering Kirkby is much closer to Liverpool than Haydock is, and is a developed part of Liverpool. The intelligence of those who make such statements are also 'borderline'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2006.

Belatedly, I'd just make the point that the ONS definition of a contiguous built-up area is based almost entirely on objective criteria, including in particular the width of any open space gaps between built-up areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Penzance???

Which joker put Penzance as part of the Liverpool Urban Area? I'm now removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.216.63 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

• It was me Sir. I thought it was just as big a joke, Sir, as someone having put Haydock as being in the Liverpool Urban Area, Sir. 80.192.242.187 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

........ You will write a one thousand word essay on 'the contents of an empty box' for that, boy!

• Yes Sir.

Greater Liverpool

I know the last talk on this page is over a year ago but the person above may be having a joke over Penzance but was right to be facetious, as per the current talk on the Greater Liverpool talk page this is discussed again. Haydock and St Helens are included based on ONS yet do not include Maghull or even Kirkby or Halewood. Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "Liverpool Urban Area" is one which is used officially by the ONS to describe a precisely-defined area. I agree that it's barking mad to include Haydock while simultaneously excluding Kirkby, but that's not the point: to paraphrase Alfred, Lord Tennyson, "Ours is not to reason why". If you can find sources for your concept of a "Greater Liverpool" (or at least some examples of it being used, by press etc.), then please share them with us. On the other hand, if you object violently to the ONS's definition, then by all means take that up with them. --RFBailey (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A map showing the ONS definition is here. Yes it's mad, but there is a logic to it, based purely on the lack of physical bricks-and-mortar gaps between the Pier Head and Haydock. The way the ONS justify their approach to definition, from this, is as follows - "...the definition of an urban area is an extent of at least 20 hectares and at least 1,500 residents at the time of the 2001 Census. The starting point is the identification by OS (Ordnance Survey) of areas with land use which is irreversibly urban in character. This comprises permanent structures and the land on which they are situated, including land enclosed by or closely associated with such structures; transportation corridors such as roads, railways and canals which have built up land on one or both sides, or which link built-up sites which are less than 200 metres apart; transportation features such as airports and operational airfields, railway yards, motorway service areas and car parks; mine buildings, excluding mineral workings and quarries; and any area completely surrounded by builtup sites. Areas such as playing fields and golf courses are excluded unless completely surrounded by builtup sites. The prerequisite for the recognition of an urban area is that the area of urban land should extend for 20 hectares or more. Separate areas of urban land are linked if less than 200 metres apart. Land between built-up areas is not regarded as urban unless it satisfies one of the conditions listed above." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I guessed it must have been something along those lines. --RFBailey (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take my objection up with ONS and I will hopefully provide more evidence. However I hope there can be further debate on Greater Liverpool / Liverpool Urban Area before the Greater Liverpool page is possibly deleted Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger between Greater Liverpool and Liverpool Urban Area

Following this discussion, I have drafted a possible text of a merged article, here. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As things stand, as the person who wrote the page Greater Liverpool, I do not object to User Ghmyrtle revamped version above. The Sefton borough is quite unique as it can be split in to north and south and it is south Sefton that contains the wider Liverpool districts. It is not a made up split either, for example, South Sefton Magistrates Court. Regarding Prescot, in my opinion for what ever that is worth, Prescot can be in or out of the greater Liverpool / urban area including Whiston and Rainhill. I think for what it's worth I would argue the Liverpool postal code L1 to L36. Regarding ONS, they have sent me this link Definition of Urban area see page 7 which makes interesting reading. It still does not explain the reason for St Helens & Haydock which are less linked to Liverpool ie accent, sport, postcode & dialing code. When the existing urban area does not contain Kirkby and Maghull. Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason ONS include St. Helens and Haydock is simply that there are no open gaps of 200m or more between those places and Liverpool, so according to the ONS definition they are "linked" urban areas. The key point is in the second column of page 2 - "Separate areas of urban land are linked if less than 200 metres apart." Issues such as accent, postcode etc. etc. are simply not among their criteria. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be so, nevertheless it goes to show the Liverpool Urban Area page is of a different definition to the 'greater'/wider Liverpool page, their criteria, so to speak, are different.Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are different definitions. No, that doesn't mean there's a justification for two articles. See Greater Bristol, for example, where there are many different definitions covered in a single article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair point Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles merged following discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

categories

I have two queries before I contemplate implementing any changes: Due to this page existing would it not be appropriate to improve its coverage by adding this page as a category to the Liverpool Urban area locations? And to put a spanner in the works after the merger, this Liverpool Urban Area page includes the assembling of 'greater Liverpool' so can this be used as a category with redirection for Urban Area for places such as Kirkby, Maghull or Halewood? Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I did refer to this (see map) from Merseytravel as another reference to the wider Liverpool usage, used by them on their Saveaway tickets for a couple of decades or more. The 'C' area identifies the common ground for this greater Liverpool theme (although it also acknowleges Knowsley's links with St Helens with the overlap). There is further supporting evidence of this wider Liverpool inside a free guide to property and life in Liverpool called Your Move (found in supermarkets) which has a page called "MOVING?" and refers properties via postcode from L1 to L36 along with the map. This magazine has a website as www.yourmovemagazine.com but if anyone who has seen this magazine can verify it it would be appreciated Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Greater Merseyside

I'm thinking of prodding Greater Merseyside for deletion. Anybody have any thoughts or concerns? The article is completely unsourced. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say perhaps do a merge rather than a prod, or at least use the article title as a plausible redirect term for Merseyside. I'm not sure whether this page or Merseyside would be a suitable target, although I'm veering towards the latter. --RFBailey (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I favour the renaming of Greater Merseyside as Liverpool City Region - compatibility with Manchester City Region is relevant here I think. Some of the information clearly requires better sourcing, but not deletion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with a deletion and would prefer a merge to Merseyside. Coldmachine^Talk 11:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

I am not sure how to do this; looking at Manchester's there are maps can anyone add a map to denote the Urban Area? Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Greater Liverpool coverage areas

Regards user JZA84, please stop undermining my efforts to contribute to WP. The text and area you have removed is the areas and towns covererd by 'greater Liverpool' and the two reference sources provided both contain maps for which both cover 95% of this wider Liverpool. Please see the maps. Or are they not good enough? The list of districts all come within the L1 to L36 postcodes. I am only quoting the postcodes as it is often regarded those within L1 to L36 is is Liverpools unofficial coverage for want of a better word. It is sometimes used in local newspapers.

I also know JZA84 removed this list of districts on the Liverpool page (City districts section) which was something that was on that page long before I came along. All I did back then was update it, until JZA decided to remove it. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - the text Jza84 deleted and you added back does not have any references (maps or otherwise). Are you referring to the Merseytravel map referenced separately. If so, that does not define any area called Liverpool, just an charging area named 'Area C'. Just because Liverpool happens to be in that area, does not make the rest of that area classed as Liverpool.

As for the list of towns and villages listed, I cannot speak for them all, but Whiston, Prescot and Rainhill are in Merseyside, but not Liverpool. They may have Liverpool postcodes, but Liverpool is never included in the address. Paypwip (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes both references 2&3. I can accept the Merseytravel one does not saying "greater Liverpool" however here the downloadable pdf says: you can get Saveaway Tickets "covering:Liverpool, St Helens, Wirral, Southport/Formby and All Areas" which means Area C is their interpretation of Liverpool. However it is also that the map of area C shows much of this list of places within it, ie. Crosby. The other map does give it the name Greater Liverpool. I am tying to provide evidence of the area covered by what might be described as greater Liverpool (greater Liverpool is just an example term). I hope the maps show the coverage is roughly the same and there is a difference here between actual council/borough boundaries and the inclusion again for example i'll use Crosby, the inclusion of Crosby which is in Sefton and obviously not in Liverpool.....Hence on the Merseytravel map Area C is Liverpool and the others are St Helens & Wirral. Hope that makes sense maybe more can join in the discussion Dmcm2008 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You say 'Greater Liverpool' is just an example here, yet the validity of the area defined by that term is exactly what is at issue here. If the Merseytravel map does not actually use that term then the citation of that map as evidence of the use of the term 'Greater Liverpool' is invalid, and as such I believe the text "Another organisation that uses the wider Liverpool area is Merseytravel on it's long established Saveaway travel map [3]. 'Area C' includes most of the areas on this section with the exception of Rainhill." should be removed as it does not add anything to the use of the term 'greater Liverpool'. Agreed, 'area C' does include Liverpool, but so does Merseyside, the North West of England, England and Europe. Area C is simply a notional charging zone for public transport.

Regarding the Rent Office reference, if you remember it was me that dug that out, and while it does use the term 'Greater Liverpool, the area defined does not include all the places listed in the disputed section of text, so would not be a valid source for that information either.

You say you are trying to provide evidence of the area covered by what might be described as greater Liverpool. Unfortunately, in writing articles for an encyclopedia we cannot deal in 'what might be'; we need what is, and concrete evidence supporting that fact. Likewise with the wording thought to. Paypwip (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I myself am not experienced enough to write sections; without the knowledge of where 'holes' can be found in interpretation, however I stand by the loose term greater Liverpool which both source maps cover although neither map cover exactly. If this itself is an issue I have no choice but to accept the wider editors opinion. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to agree with the other editors: WP:V trumps here and without reliable sources which specifically discuss, mention, and define the term 'Greater Liverpool' and its constituent parts then we would be unable to simply assert what those parts are: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from WP:V). Coldmachine^Talk 14:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this again. There was no attribution given at all. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox - writing what we think is true does nothing but damage Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable educational tool.

We can always restore a table (lists are discouraged) of localities, once we have some tangible evidence as to what lies within "greater Liverpool". However, as it's a loose term, with conflicting defintions, it's probably best to keep it off anyway, IMHO. What do you guys think? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If sources can be found which are reliable then it can go back as a table. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Paypwip (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with other people on this. Any use of the term Greater Liverpool must be accompanied by a suitable citation. It's quite clear, I think, to everyone that Liverpool has an influence over a greater area than either the Liverpool City Council area or the (different) settlement of Liverpool, but we can't just go around stating what we think as individuals. Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point fingerpuppet I cant disagree with that. Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Greater Liverpool? MY ARSE! There's no such place! If it's not Liverpool, it's somewhere else. Liverpool is Liverpool. Liverpool 'borough' is a local authority area which includes other places as well as Liverpool, it being the administrative city. Sefton borough, St.Helens borough and Knowsley borough are in Merseyside, but not in Liverpool.

Whatever will they think of next?

92.239.71.235 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Travel to Work Areas

Dare I mention the Liverpool Travel to Work Area as being of potential use within the article? Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merseytravel Saveaway Area C

I have been reliably informed I incorrectly edited more information in the wrong place, ie existing text, therefore just to recap I have edited in additional response to user:Paypwip about the Saveaway map area C which covers more than Liverpool City Council but Merseytravel simply identify as 'Liverpool'. Hope this helps to discussionDmcm2008 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Greater Liverpool in perspective

In regards to "Greater Liverpool" I think you could only include those areas were you cannot define where Liverpool starts and ends. For instance without a road sign telling you would you know when you had crossed the boundary into say Bootle , Huyton, Cantril farm or even Halewood?? I think not, The reason being that the roads are one and the same. Half way down streets in these areas that invisible line does its invisible work! Then again why not just call them Liverpool as they are part of Liverpools geographical shape? and have all the satellite towns like Kirkby, Maghull, Whiston and Prescot etc as Greater Liverpool?

Haydock and other areas mentioned cannot even be remotley mistaken for what they are which is old Lanacastrian townships with little or no Liverpool influence.

references

I have added two references to verify Aintree and Port of Liverpool (prev MDHC) which both identify themselves as in Liverpool although they are in Sefton MBC and this can be an alternative point of view to User:Paypwik who advises Prescot etc may have a Liverpool postcode but do not use Liverpool in their address. The only other place I can think of that do not use Liverpool is Bootle and the Royal Mail include Netherton as Bootle, while the Borough of Knowsley insist on promoting Knowsley in all their official addresses, ie municipal offices, when Knowsley is not a city just a borough council. Do people say Liverpool, Liverpool or Litherland, Sefton, mostly I doubt it very much. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there's still no-one using the phrase "Greater Liverpool"! Anywhere that self-refers as simply "Liverpool" should be mentioned in the Liverpool article. Fingerpuppet (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I quite agree, perhaps the greater Liverpool term is not often used however i feel the moment I would open up an article and debate DIRECTLY linking places like Huyton or Kirkby to Liverpool, as opposed to saying greater Liverpool or (saying wider Liverpool), there would be an outcry. The almighty would have me castigated Dmcm2008 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool Urban Area. 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/20090327160948/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_1.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_1.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: 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) 17:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)