Talk:Liverpool

Layout

I would recommend a closer layout to that recommended in WP:UKCITIES to help move this article along! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinatown

I have recently crated the article Chinatown, Liverpool, Liverpool is home to Europe's largest Chinese community, there needs to be more information about this on this article, and links to my new articleStevvvv4444 · (Stevvvv4444) 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Liverpool has Europe's oldest/first chinese community..but not its largest. I would imagine that would certainly likely be London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.145.161 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're both right, kinda. Liverpool has a much larger Chinese population per head of population. However, as London has almost 20 times the population of Liverpool, it has more people of Chinese descent overall.81.139.117.111 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Welsh?

Why is the city's Welsh name (Lerpwl) listed, and then no further information is giving about the Welsh in Liverpool? Other UK cities don't have the their names in the Welsh language listed (save, obviously, those in Wales). I would recommend that either the Welsh name is removed, to bring the article into line with other city articles on Wikipedia, or a section be added to the article to justify the inclusion of a foreign-language name so prominently. 62.49.22.228 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was once part of ancient Wales and mythical capital.

Liverpool was never part of 'ancient Wales'... It was known as the Capital of Wales in the early 1900's simply for the fact that there was more Welsh born citizens living in Liverpool than in Cardiff, the capital of Wales.

It should be noted that the Welsh were famed as the builders of 19th century Liverpool and that the Welsh had 'roofed' the world with Welsh slate. --92.234.248.31 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpools Welsh links are wide rangeing and adequate justification for mention being given on the article. As for why Liverpool has a Welsh name-look at the map.....in the middle ages when borders changed every day of the week, Liverpool was part of wales whilst no dount parts of modern wales were ruled by what became England —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

First Picture

The first picture should be removed and replaced with a picture of the Pier Head. What is the financial district? Nothing! Liverpool isn't known for it's business area. The first picture should be that of the Pier Head.

south Sefton & Knowsley

I am at odds with another user Jza84 who appears not have any local knowledge of the Liverpool area, who is questioning my edits on the suburbs of Liverpool (districts not within the city council boundary). I am putting it to debate. Despite my knowledge that places like Huyton or Seaforth are suburbs of Liverpool, the user i am having problems with is set against such a link and quoting wikipedia rules to me. It may be easy to do for someone with experience, however I am doing edits truthfully and with knowledge so why must this person reverse my work? With no discussion? Indeed the Liverpool districts section already had many of these suburbs written in before i ever started using Wikipedia. I do not know if the user is a vandal or just trying too hard to stick to the rules, a jobsworth infact. As the user is probably not local to Liverpool i have to question his quest to reverse my edits on the suburbs of Liverpool. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am local and I disagree with your edits as suburb is badly defined.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

yes you would. I do not know what your problem is. With respect, I do not have a problem leaving these places as individual towns/ villages in their own right. However there is a connection to the city of Liverpool and my own though was use suburb, it is a commonly used word works with places inside and outside city council boundaries. However as you do not wish to come to common ground. If you are local as you say you do appear to be very snobbish and jobsworth in refusing to link these suburbs to Liverpool. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you comments show that is you that does not wish to find common ground.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to cool down over this. It's irrelevant who is 'local' and who is not; if you have sourced and cited information then add it to the article if it meets the verifiability and neutral point of view criteria. Coldmachine^Talk 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In following

User Jza84 has systematically tried to remove all my edits to do with Liverpool suburbs. And that includes a section on this Liverpool page called districts; that revealed other districts but not within the city boundary. He has removed this section even though it existed before I came along. All I did was enhance it and correct multiple location places. I have edited in good faith because I wanted to enhance the Liverpool pages but the user Jza84 has a problem with this. I am pulling out of WP due to the users harrassment I hope someone else can stop the user before he completeley strips the Liverpool pages to the bare facts. Best wishes good EDITORS. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not part of the city but in the city

I removed an unsourced list of places from the article with this edit. This is because the material was asserting that places outside of Liverpool are part of the city. It was badly formatted and didn't cite its sources. Simillarly, in Lancashire. The buildings of England. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1969. pp. pp 126, 207–262, 420–1. ISBN 0-140-71036-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), Nikolaus Pevsner gives a list of Liverpool suburbs from Aigburth to Woolton; Whiston, Huyton and other places are not included. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion

This section of Liverpool districts page existed before I ever edited. However because I have enhanced the liverpool suburbs user Jza84 is systematically reverting all my edits. I cannot win. I will leave wp today 15/03/08 and leave this for future editors to work out. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about 'winning'; your recent remarks suggest that you are POV pushing here and I'm more inclined to view you as the edit warrior in this situation than Jza84. It can be difficult, at first, to get to grips with the way Wikipedia functions but I strongly suggest you read the following policies on editing:

• Content policy: neutral point of view
• Content policy: verifiability
• Content policy: no original research
• Behavioural policy: achieving consensus
• Behavioural policy: three revert rule
• Behavioural policy: edit warring
• Behavioural policy: no personal attacks

Nobody is preventing you from improving this article, and I'm sorry you feel this way, but people are asking that you make contributions in accordance with the content policies. You haven't achieved consensus for the changes, and by concentrating on the editors and not the content it's unlikely that any progress will be made. Please, if you wish to add content, then cite a reliable source and seek consensus on the talk page first. Coldmachine^Talk 11:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use the 'List of towns and cities in England by poulation' article to substantiate the population please. Liverpool is ranked 3rd and as we are discussing the 'city' and not the 'borough' these figre must be used.

Sister Cities

When did Istanbul become a sister city of Liverpool? I can't find anything on the net which verifies this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.227.114 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

re above, I have not researched so I cannot answer your question but I personally think it unlikely, since you brought it to the fore I am puzzled by the entry of Istanbul. Dmcm2008 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not on the council's list [1], so it seems unlikely and therefore I've removed it. --RFBailey (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Canning and other such 'trendy designer names'

I am being thwarted by users Jza84 and KitchenKnife over any edits I make to do with Liverpool. That I have an interested in expanding Liverpool WP pages and correcting any mistakes are challenged everytime I edit...but nevertheless.. For the record, Falkner Square is edited as being in 'Canning'. I have argured there is no such district..it is a name given to a grouping of city centre streets because of the architecture...Also known as the Georgian Quarter. There are other such places that exist that are not districts but are modern trendy names....like Breckfield in Anfield/Everton border....and Granby in Toxteth...so too Ropewalks. Because Canning is proven to exist by websites it must exist...what nonesense...Unfortunately I cannot argue against this pair because they run wikipedia so I will let them get on with it. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Once Liverpool was a made up name. What does it take for there to be an area with a name. The council use Canning etc. You view seem to be arbitary. Names like Hartington have gone out of use should we still use that?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While to describe "Canning" as such may be a relatively new idea (probably dreamed up by estate agents.....), if there are sources which report on this then it is not unreasonable to talk of them. Estate agents are very good at inventing names like this, and do it everywhere, not just in Liverpool: sometimes the names catch on and stick, other times they don't and go away and die quietly. --RFBailey (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the above, some names are dreamed up by some organisation or other. In this instance Canning, in others say Breckfield. I cannot argue that if someone wants to use these terms. All I wanted to say was there was no actual area so Canning should be regarded as a name given to a group of streets on the edge of the city centre. The other used name is Georgian Quarter. In response to Kitchen Knife, there must be some 'control' over use of names. While I personally would be a hypocrite if I said it should be closed shop, but some older names like Stanley and Dog and Gun are no longer used. Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets just stick to the recognised 'Wards' of Liverpool rather than invented local names for areas such as Little Italy, or Little Russia etc etc. Or better still.. stick to Postcodes aye?--92.234.248.31 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of using "Canning". I've lived there for over 20 years and all locals call it that. It is not a trendy designer name, though "Georgian Quarter is (used only by estate agents). In my opinion, using ward names would be a mistake, since wards are drawn up for administrative conveience and often bear no relation to either the traditional districts or the sense of local communities and divisions betwen them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdls (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Could someone upload an image of the coat of arms of this city to Commons? Thanks. --Pabletex (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool skyline

I enjoyed the recent nightime image of Liverpools business district, can anyone add this aswell as the waterfront view? Dmcm2008 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

slurs

can i ask why somebody has been allowed to post slurs against the people of liverpool in the main article this is an unfair view of the people and goes against wikipedias own rules of conduct. can someone please remove the line 'inhabitants of liverpool are known as pikeys... etc.' back to what it was 'inhabitants of liverpool are known as liverpudlians...' i understand it was probably a joke but i think it is in bad taste, especially when the whole world can read these comments. thankyou Fifi27 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is not protected then anyone is free to edit it to revert vandalism...by all means go ahead and revert it yourself if you spot any more. The article, like many other high profile articles, is often subject to vandalism. Coldmachine^Talk 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

A lot of this article is out of date. A lot of tense needs correcting and some information. DoyleyTalk 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah Woah Woah

Why is the main image of the business area. Lets be honest the main image for Liverpool has to be the 3 graces! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.142 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Merseyside

Would there be much support for a Merseyside Wikiproject as a sub project of Wikiproject:UK Geography? Most other important 'areas' or counties currently benefit from having a focused Wikiproject and I feel Merseyside would do also. I'm asking here before making any formal steps to form the project. Please respond if you would be willing to support such a project. Zenichiro (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My only fear is that there's not enough people interested to get it in full swing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you could get enough people, and I'd support you in spirit (as opposed to full membership). I would be great to get a Merseyside project off the ground, as so many of its articles are stalling and failing, whilst WP:GM is rocketing away.

Perhaps try a notice at WP:UKGEO, coupled with all the major Merseyside borough and town articles would help? Also, it might be worth asking the Category:Wikipedians in Merseyside for their support. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I've had a blast at bringing the lead upto a more befitting standard for the city (see this diff). It's not a perfect change by any means, but I think it's a good start. I have to say I'm really appauled by the state this article is in. That's not a slur on any of the previous editors who have clearly worked very hard, but really, for such an important city, I'm surprised by the lack of quality. Yup, that is a challenge! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just come across this talk page. Having been involved in discussion page to do with Liverpool Urban Area, there are so many dirivatives: Greater Liverpool, Greater Merseyside, city region, Liverpool urban area, Liverpool Bay even. Some have different meanings but it is clear to me that the pages that do exist are at odds with other definitions. This needs to be cleaned up I am willing to participate but it is a big job! Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but please keep each article within the spirit of what's been discussed in the past - i.e. stick to statutory/official boundaries. Of course mentions of those wider areas are permissable here, but this article is about the city proper. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article needs to be watched much closer. Here was a very obvious revert of vandalism removal and the line " Culturally, the city is seen as rascist but there are some of Britian's top Kebab houses there and all ran by Turks and Tunisians." has been present in the article for 3 days. This is not acceptable. Please can more editors watch list the page. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not berate your fellow editors who are investing their own free time voluntarily to remove vandalism from a number of pages on Wikipedia, besides Liverpool. Many of us simply do not have the time to spend on one article, and if you check the contribution history of those of us who have reverted vandalism here you'll see we do so elsewhere as well. Since reverting vandalism requires no technical know-how or special tools then there is absolutely nothing stopping you from spending more time to ensure Liverpool is vandal-free. I think, however, you will find it a mammoth task since this is a high-risk article. Coldmachine^Talk 07:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a semi protect request for this article. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that will only offer a temporary respite: semi protection rarely lasts long, particularly on articles such as Liverpool since IP edits can be of use and contributions of benefit to the project. However, it may deter persistent vandals in the meantime at least. The problem is also that some vandalism takes place here through accounts; it isn't just IPs. In any event, we can only do what we can only do. Coldmachine^Talk 08:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You can request a longer semi protect...I've seen it put on for 6 months. Also semi protect applies to newly created accounts as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Merseyside? (again)

Hello folks, I'm really keen to see a WikiProject:Merseyside get off the ground to facilitate the development of articles in the region.

I've started a sub page at User:Jza84/Merseyside for all those users who want to declare their interest. Feel free to post a link to that subpage to the necessary talk pages. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

New radio station: City Talk

Jossdickie (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC) A new radio staition recently opened in Liverpool city centre, which should be added to the main Liverpool article as it has it's own Wikipedia page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Talk_105.9 Jossdickie (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

City Of Liverpool template

I notice Manchester has a City Centre page in this template it would be great if we could adapt a Liverpool city centre page from the Liverpool main page to identify the city centre as opposed to just Liverpool in generalDmcm2008 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Demography section

I was surprised that there's no demography section in this article, especially given Liverpool's long ethnic minority histories. Would anyone object to me starting one similar to that at Manchester? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd positively encourage it! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous Liverpudlians

What counts as a 'Liverpudlian'? The list of famous ones in the article seems to suggest it's someone who was merely born there, rather than who lived there for much of their life. I'd have thought a true Liverpudlian was someone who actually lived in Liverpool as an adult (i.e. by choice rather than by birth). Cf Sean Connery, who claims to be a Scot but lives in the Bahamas or somewhere; I doubt he even counts as a UK national (e.g. for tax purposes). So how about instead listing famous people who actually lived in Liverpool as an adult? Ben Finn (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside

A Merseyside wikiproject has now been set up. The project aims to improve articles related to Merseyside and encourage collaboration between editors to do this. If anyone is interested in becoming a part of the project, please sign up here. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AND OF COURSE KATHERINE IS FAMOUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krp217 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Governance

OK I've merged council wards, constituencies and local districts into the governance section although I haven't had time to chase sources. Also I tidied the intro to the Governance section although I really think that should be in demographics (as it talks about populations). The article is very long and I was thinking that Governance in Liverpool could certainly warrent its own article (forgive me if there is one already) given the turbulent events of militant tendancy in the 80's and the recent problems with debt etc. Anyway before anything like that was done i'd look to expand what is on here but I could do with views on whether people would support the new article. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The new "Governance" section is certainly a lot more coherent than what was there before. However, I'm a bit concerned by the various "definitions", specifically the "Borough of Liverpool" and "City of Liverpool": there seems to be a hint of original research here. Now, city status in the United Kingdom is a complex topic, which doesn't help simplify matters, but as far as I was aware the local government district called "Liverpool" holds city status rather than borough status, and thus try to distinguish between the two is problematic at best. It also doesn't help that the ONS-defined Liverpool Urban Area is, well, barking mad.

Incidentally, the story of the militant tendency of the 1980s is told in the article on Liverpool City Council. --RFBailey (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand the issue here given wiki policy. As far as I'm aware Liverpool is a Metropolitan Borough which has city status and as such both terms are correct when applied to it. The differentiation I was drawing was between the official government defined boundaries of the city (which I refered to as the borough of Liverpool) and the continuous urban expance that is Liverpool in everyting but politics (which I refered to as City of Liverpool). I mean 5 minutes from where I live you have a road where houses on one side have purple bins (Liverpool) and the other side red bins(Knowsley). For the government to claim that one side is not 'officially' in Liverpool is absolutely ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, it's just that the border goes down the middle of the street. (There is a street in Kerkrade with the Dutch/German border down the middle, but it would be ridiculous to claim that both sides of the street are in the Netherlands.)

Anyway, that you took it upon yourself to create definitions for the names "City of Liverpool" and "Borough of Liverpool" is original research. --RFBailey (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed as realistically there will never be a verifiable title that the city has which includes Huyton, Halewood etc. The only options would be to have the officially bounded area as 'City of Liverpool' and the non official area as 'Liverpool Metropolitan area'. Alternatively using the precedent of London would be an option as it suffers the same issue (that is that the London extends far beyond its official boundaries). Any thoughts? --Daviessimo (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the definitions are a little awry. The local government district of Liverpool holds the city status (as well as borough status - they're not mutually exclusive). However, the settlement of Liverpool itself is defined by the ONS and is slightly larger than the local government district - though that's not unusual and is true for other places, the most obvious one being Reading. There's nothing wrong with talking about those "extra" areas as part of Liverpool (noting that they're in different local government districts) as they're verifiably so. However, places such as Huyton are outside those two verifiable definitions of Liverpool.

The Liverpool Urban Area is perfectly reasonable, though that's the conurbation of which Liverpool is the largest settlement within. It's all related to continuous built-up areas, and there's a huge gap in the built-up area between Liverpool and Birkenhead, even if that is the Mersey! It's nothing else to do with the city itself - it's a bit like claiming that the whole of the West Yorkshire conurbation is related to Leeds, or the whole of the West Midlands conurbation is Birmingham. The Metropolitan County of Merseyside is also NOT Liverpool, though Liverpool is contained within.

The comments re: London are red herrings. There is no "Mayor of Liverpool" in the same was as there is in (Greater) London, the Merseyside Metropolitan Boroughs are not "Liverpool Boroughs", and so on.

All in all, there's lots there that is unnecessary and to tie it all up as "Liverpool" is definately OR. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Again I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying however I still don't see how this will solve the issue of OR. The use of London as an example is to highlight the problem of ambiguous boundaries. Someone from Shepherd's Bush would say they where from London not the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and likewise someone from Halewood will refer to themselves as being from Liverpool not the Borough of Knowsley. Officially someone from Hammersmith is not a Londener because they are not from the City of London but it doesn't change the way the term London is used. Thus I have suggested there needs to be some differentiation between the 'official' area and the 'actual' area that makes up Liverpool

I'll admit Huyton could be considered a less a part of Liverpool but none the less a resident of Huyton will see themselves as a Liverpudlian (for example Steven Gerrard). As for the broader terms I clearly state that Liverpools is part of these places. Whether wikipedia like it or not Merseyside and Liverpool are synonymous. Otherwise why is it called the Merseyside derby or why are Liverpool's docks run by the Mersey docks and harbour company? Or to put it another way how many people hear Merseyside and immediately see a curly perm and Adidas Samba! --Daviessimo (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(Calm down, calm down.....) Don't try telling anyone from the Wirral that they're from Liverpool--you'll never hear the end of it. As for the name of the MDHC, what is the name of the river on which the docks can be found?

The fact of the matter is, that in the "real world" (i.e. not on Wikipedia), the term "Liverpool" is often used informally to include areas beyond the city boundary (Aintree, Bootle, Halewood, Kirkby, etc.). However, as this usage is informal, it will never be uniform (some will claim Huyton, or Crosby, or Maghull should be included, others will not), nor will it be easy to find reliable sources that indicate this. (That doesn't mean, however, that there won't ever be any.) --RFBailey (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've merged borough and city definitions together because user jza84 decided to unnecessarily delete all my contributions i'd made (including fully referenced sections).

I have to say I've been on wikipedia for just 1 week and already i'm regretting it. I try and make a decent effort and and then a load of users throw a rule book at you rather than trying to work out a solution. I leave messages to try and open up discussion on the Merseyside project page and instead editors simply revert anything they don't agree with. I've left a message only a couple of hours ago on this talk page asking for opinions on how to deal with the issue but instead get repeatedly told that its all original research and must go. Instead I spend more of my time changing the article not knowing if someone will still thinks its OR and delete it all. It seems to me that some editors prefer to point out things that are wrong rather than working at making them right --Daviessimo (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that everything was original research and all had to go. Only one thing was a problem: the "definitions" section. Now, I originally posted on this discussion to try and work out a solution, as you would have liked. I must also say that I think User:Jza84's blind revert was categorically unhelpful, and have told him as much on his talk page.

Now, I've had a go at rewriting some aspects of the offending section, and would be interested to hear people's responses. (In particular, I wholly disagree with the notion that Merseyside is synonymous with Liverpool: if you suggested this to anyone from the Wirral (e.g. a large number of my own relatives.....), they would not be pleased! --RFBailey (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments I made were just after the revert had been made and i was pretty angry so sorry if you took them as a direct attack on you because they weren't. Regarding your edit i'm happy with the clarifications you've made and certainly feel all 4 of the bullets are valid as three link to their own articles which further clarify them whilst the other refers to this article. Regarding the Merseyside issue I do agree that many on the Wirral may take offence to the statement however I think it is necessary to highlight to strong association to two have. For example the following Echo article talks about the 'Liverpool Echo' being the 'heart of Merseyside' [2]. Also the article by enjoyengland talks about Merseyside as a port town and seems to merge all the areas into a larger urban expanse[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviessimo (talk • contribs) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed some uncited material again. Yes I've been brutal, but I do not want to see a return to this any time soon. That aside, this section that's been written is bad, very bad. What's happened to WP:CITE, WP:LIST and WP:UKCITIES here? These are pretty fundamental to our project. Greater Liverpool? Liverpool Urban Area? These are topics for Geography, not Governance. See Manchester#Governance as an example please. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. I'm a new user on Wikipedia who feels he can make a contribution to article related to the city and county in which he lives. I start to make article revisions and request opinions of other users on how development should occur. I recieve no replies and thus have to continue without fully knowing what others thinks and am then accused of unhelpful edits and have many hours of work reverted because apparently it doesn't help the article. Then to top it of i'm accused of being a sockpuppet of another user who apparently also vandalised this very article. This despite the facte that I have made helpful edits to other articles, ITN and even this very article. All of this and only one user, RFBailey has made any attempt to communicate with me. User Jza84 has still not replied to messages posted on the Wikiproject Merseyside page or to comments left on his talk page. Someone please explain what I have done to cause so much offense --Daviessimo (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dmcm2008 please. The issue of Liverpool's extent has been debated extensively. WP:CITE is none-negotiable - if you want uncited stuff to remain owing to you building up the material piece-by-piece (as you claimed in an edit summary), then please use a sandbox to write your draft, not the main article. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay section necessary?

Is the gay section really necessary? It was probably added by a bunch of politically correct politicians, or a bunch of gays. I don’t think it needs it’s own heading. If it is going to be added into a different section then that’s a different matter. It is not so important that it requires it’s own heading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt its doing any harm-i know this is unhelpful, but its as necessary as its unecessary......in other words its a non issue...if its there leave it, if it werent there, i wouldnt be wondering why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary to all those people who cant go out for a night out without prejudice, threats and violence just because of their sexuality. Its necessity may be Unfortunate as it a sad reflection of the people of Liverpool and UK. I am proud of being from Liverpool but ashamed of the city's record on race relations and treatment of gay people. A Gay quarter as it is named has existed for many decades since before i was born. Giving it a name doesnt create it. It has existed by the very nature of what it is. A name has simply made it easier to refer to. Officialising the area as a gay district will bring in the £££££ as it did for manchester and London and Birmingham etc etc etc

stephen Liverpool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.132.196 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that a heterosexual section should be included too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.40.47 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To the person who wrote "It is necessary to all those people who cant go out for a night out without prejudice, threats and violence...": Grow up you conformist! Get a life! I am laughing to you you sanctomonious politically correct prick!

Woollyback

I wonder whether any editors here have knowledge of the term woollyback, the WP article for which was removed over the Christmas period and which I have requested be restored. It is still up for nomination so if you have views for or against this you may wish to let your views be known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woollyback. If you have any more useful and especially sourced information about the term your contributions to the woollyback article would be welcome. --Hauskalainen

FROM STEPHEN IN LIVERPOOL

Sports section - small error

Template:Editsemiprotection They formed in 1892 and have spent their entire history at the Anfield stadium which they occupied on their formation; it had previously between home to Everton.

92.4.127.192 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Plus other fixes. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

There's a nice image over Liverpool here if we can accomodate it? I think it would be good for the Geography section, with a caption about land-use or urban sprawl for the city. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)