Talk:Liverpool

Template:WP1.0

Climate

The box in the Liverpool#Climate section claims that Liverpool averages 282 days a year with precipitation. I've only lived in Liverpool for a year and, while I concede that it does rain a lot, 282 days a year seems implausibly high. In contrast, World Climate Guide claims 190 days a year, Weather2Travel claims 189 days and Holiday Check 146. (If you search on the web, disregard any Australian sites that claim about 100–110 rainy days a year, as they're probably talking about Liverpool, New South Wales.)

I'm very reluctant to just replace the stats in the article with a different set, since none of them looks particularly authoritative. But the figures quoted in the article are so far from my personal experience that I cannot believe them. Does anyone have a good source? Dricherby (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The source seems very authentic, but I do have to admit that 7 days of "Fog" in July does strike me as a bit strange (having lived in the area for 3 decades of my life, I can't for the life of me really ever remember a single day of fog in July, let alone an average of 7 each year). The same weather reports are also shared by St Helens, which is again strange as Liverpool has a localised weather pattern due to its coastal proximity. In comparison the website www.holiday-weather.com seems to give significantly different values [1]. Their values definitely seem to match more accurately with the Met Office values given [2].

I think the source is questionable when it disagrees directly with the Met Office figures by 8 or 9 days in the middle of summer. Met says 12-14, the current source states 23 which would put Liverpool on par with the outliest parts of the Scottish highlands. Koncorde (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it would be reasonable to extract the figures from the Met Office maps? I'm not entirely happy with a source of "Look at this web page; you have to know which pixels correspond to Lierpool" but it seems much better than the current situation! Dricherby (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Better to use the accurate source, than a nicely formatted incorrect one. Koncorde (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This part of the article is clearly wrong. The figures for Manchester, which is only around 25 miles away but known for being rainy, has a figure of 140 days. How can Liverpool's be double that!? Lenatron (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

I have amended the average rain fall days data. The average total per annum is now 194 days - still significantly and strangely higher than other places located near the rainy Pennines, but certainly more believable than the previous figure. Source: http://www.whatstheweatherlike.org/england/liverpool.htm Lenatron (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

Aerial shot

I took this pic on a flight the other day, I've made it CC so if anyone here wants it, feel free to upload it to commons. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Slave Trade - Edit Request - 27th Aug 2012

The article states that Liverpool "controlled" 41% of Europe's and 80% of the UK's trade in slaves. It isn't clear what this actually means and I find it misleading. How does a city, which is an inanimate object, control something? Only people could have controlled the trade but it is unclear exactly how many were directly and indirectly involved and to what extent they could meaningfully have controlled it. The article gives the impression that the entire population were in some way involved in the slave trade and that they were pulling the levers of what was a global system. I'm not aware of any research that has demonstrated this. Even for those directly involved, such as the ship owners and ship operatives, it is unclear to what extent they could have controlled what was a global system - involving slave traders in Africa and the Americas. If the statement, which doesn't have a source, means to say that ships registered in Liverpool were involved in 41%/80% of the transport, then that is what it should say. It seems imprecise to say that the city controlled any element of the trade.

Lenatron (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Lenatron

Added a source for both figures. Although it does not actually clarify them. _noisy jinx ^huh? 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the source is an exceedingly weak one for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Liverpool-rooms.co.uk is a website specialising in the rental of bedrooms to students and no source has been provided on their website for what is, to say the very least, quite a bold statement. This information has no more authority than what one would find on the Travelodge website or on Gumtree. We don't even know who the person is who has made this claim. I think that for such an emotive and historically significant episode as this one that more authoritatively sourced information should be provided. The statement that Liverpool controlled 40% of Europe's and 80% of the UK's slave trade has no basis whatsoever - at best, it may refer to the number of Liverpool-registered ships involved in the transport of "goods" associated with the slave trade. I would recommend that the statement referred to should be removed entirely. Even if there is a peer-reviewed source for it, I would like to see the term "controlled" qualified or removed as it is misleading.

82.132.215.245 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

In the absence of an appropriate source and having received no comments contradicting mine (above), I have removed the sentence reading: "By the close of the century Liverpool controlled over 41% of Europe's and 80% of Britain's slave commerce." Lenatron (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

Population Edit

I have replaced "and is part of a larger urban area of 816,216."

with

"and is at the centre of a wider urban area, the Liverpool City Region, which has a population of around 2 million people" with the source being a document published by the Government. City regions are now the central focus of government policy concerning the core urban areas. The urban area figure of 816,216 isn't a figure that is in common use either in government or the media.

Lenatron (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

Not sure I agree with that change. The wider urban area is not the same as the Liverpool City Region. The liverpool city region refers to areas that are not directly connected to Liverpool. Ideally stuff like this should go in relevant economy / governance sections otherwise we end up conflating what is and isn't "Liverpool". Koncorde (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles capitalisation RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

Hello Editors for Liverpool page,

My Zns Smith and I would like to request to edit info on Liverpool’d page? This additional text provides important overlooked historical facts regarding about Liverpool. Thank you.

Zns Smith (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)