Talk:Liverpool

Template:WP1.0

Population Edit

Can Walton be added to the map please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.6.104 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

It is important to note that like all large metropolises, it only talks about the number of people who reside in the city. The number of people who work in Liverpool is a lot greater because people from other parts of Merseyside like the Wirral, and beyond, communute into Liverpool each day, or stay in the Travelodge, and work there. So around 2 to 5 million people work in Liverpool. Chester and Warrington are not considered neither by the locals of those towns or Liverpudlians themselves as being part of a Liverpool region. Wigan, is definitely not part of the Liverpool region.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.189.232 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 10 July 2013‎

It should be mentioned that the population increases during the day as people from the Wirral (which is really west Liverpool) enter the city to work.78.105.238.158 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence for a figure like "2 to 5 million", or anything approaching that number. We put in the article what reliable sources say, and only that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed – nothing close to "2 to 5 million" people work in Liverpool. The entire population of Merseyside, Cheshire and Lancashire only runs to about 4 million... Dricherby (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The government-comissioned 'Rebalancing Britain: Policy Or Slogan?' document by Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy actually suggests that Liverpool draws upon a labour market of 'around 3 million people,' so 'two to five million' isn't completely misleading. sukaprosze (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "draws on a labour market of" means "these are all the people who live close enough to Liverpool that they might consider working there if the right job turned up". As I said, the population of Merseyside and the surrounding counties is only four million. It cannot possibly be that three million of those work in Liverpool, since that would be 75% of the people, even before you consider children, retired people and the unemployed. Dricherby (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The population of Liverpool is difficult to ascertain because there is no single political entity which approximates to the boundaries of the city. The central business district and southern suburbs lie within the "Metropolitan Borough of the City of Liverpool" (population 466,415), but the northern, eastern and western suburbs lie within the "Metropolitan Boroughs of Sefton, Knowsley and Wirral" respectively. The Liverpool conurbation is entirely contained within the "Metropolitan County of Merseyside" (population 1.38 million), but this also contains the towns of Southport (pop. 90,336) and St Helens (pop. 102,629) which might reasonably be considered separate settlements. To complicate matters further, the built-up area merges almost imperceptibly with further settlements to the east (e.g. Widnes, Runcorn, Warrington, Ellesmere Port etc.) to create a wider metropolitan region with a population of 2.24 million (source ESPON 1.4.3.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.144 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The population of Liverpool is easy to ascertain. It is those who live inside the city boundaries. In some other wiki sites they pull in all sorts of surrounding boroughs to boost a city's population. One states Leeds is over 700,000, which is laughable78.105.238.158 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The population of Leeds is indeed 700,000 because the city and its suburbs lie entirely within the boundaries of its metropolitan borough (pop 750,000). That's the problem: in the local authority reorganisations of the early nineteen-seventies, Liverpool, like London, Manchester and Birmingham was deemed too large to be contained within a single borough and so was split amongst several. This is probably beyond the scope of this discussion, but the consequences of Liverpool's sub-division have profoundly affected perceptions of the city insofar as attention has tended to focus on the (relatively impoverished) inner city whilst largely ignoring the (far more affluent) outer suburbs.

Edit request on 27 August 2013

In the Football section under Sport, the semicolon in "including; Dixie Dean" should be a colon 108.18.250.6 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No punctuation mark is necessary after "including". I have removed the semicolon and placed a comma before it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

HS2

High-speed trains are scheduled to enter the city when the network is built. 188.223.224.168 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Liverpolitan

Should this article mention the word "Liverpolitan", as "a supposedly status-enhancing adaptation of Liverpudlian"? I've certainly seen the word used, but whether it should be mentioned here is another matter. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant. Aside from the Times using it in a snide way in 2002, there are a fair number of references from the 30's through to the 2000's of its use. Koncorde (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

The Liverpool page says: 'By the early 19th century, 40% of the world's trade passed through Liverpool's docks' how can we be sure this is correct? Any facts to back this up? 40% of the whole worlds trade seems like an awful lot!

81.5.171.241 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It does seem an extraordinary claim, and it's unsourced. I'll add a tag to it, but if a good source isn't found it ought to be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: A possible source is this. Is it a good enough source, and are we sure it isn't derived from our article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good enough reference, especially as that article quotes that 'This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.'. It sounds like they've got the information straight from this page. 40% of UK trade is entirely believable, but the whole world seems a very spurious claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.171.241 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that source is no good, and the claim is absurd -- it isn't even confining itself to international trade. Whatever it really was 40% of needs sourcing. I've gone ahead and removed it. --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)