Jump to content

Talk:Liverpool/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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.[1]"

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.220.22 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2014 (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)

It is possibly worth noting that Liverpool is by far the largest UK city not to be connected to HS2, and there is in consequence a significant pressure group (Twenty Miles More) lobbying for a connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.103.127 (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

Please may 'transportation' be changed to 'transport' in the lead? It would be appropriate to have a more neutral term in the article, especially an article about the United Kingdom, where 'transport' is predominantly used in preference to 'transportation'. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for pointing this out. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Please add the following addition to the Trains section of the Liverpool page: TransPennine Express also operates a train service from Liverpool Lime Street to a range of destinations including Edinburgh, Leeds and Manchester. 84.19.53.34 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 123chess456 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

2.97.89.214 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Shea Neary is one of Liverpool's most famous boxers and is not included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shea_Neary

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Artists of Liverpool origin have produced more number one singles than any other."

I've removed that claim from the lead. It's sourced from the Daily Mail, which is not widely considered a reliable source. If it's true, I'm sure it only relates to the UK singles chart, not other charts. And, frankly I doubt if it's true at all, given the great disparity in size between Liverpool and London - over 10 times larger. It may once have been true, in the late sixties, but I don't believe that the claim is either valid or sufficiently well sourced to be included now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

First British Social Housing

As recorded in the museum:
"Liverpool was the first corporation in Britain to build homes for its inhabitants. Liverpool corporation started to build flats as part of its clearance of 'slum' housing. The first of these, St Martin's Cottages, opened in 1869.
Six blocks created 123 tenement homes of various sizes. Each flat also had its own toilet and scullery, luxuries to most new residents."

This is an important pioneering fact that should be included, but not sure where! Would someone who maintains this page please include it. Thanks.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Liverpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan Area

The cited source is making a mess of it by referring to the totals reflected in this List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom which groups multiple metropolitan areas (or by Espon these are MUA or Morphological Urban Areas) together to create a "Functional Urban Area" which parses Liverpool and Birkenhead together. This is data as part of the Espon data from 2007. This article has an out of date warning on it. Quite specifically the document is linking multiple MUA (metropolitan areas) together to create something else entirely.

Since 2010 the Liverpool metropolitan area (otherwise known as Merseyside in most NUTS and Espon dialogue) is known as UKD7 (comprising UKD71, 72, 73, 74 which are East Merseyside (Knowsley, St Helens and Halton), Liverpool, Sefton, Wirral respectively). The article at the moment is using a 2007 piece listing UKD21, UKD22, UKD51, UKD52, UKD53, UKD54 of which Merseyside which were all adjusted and amended in 2010 and 2013 meaning much of the content is very inaccurate. A lot of this information can be found here at NUTS of the United Kingdom on wikipedia, or here and the actual population data is searchable here.

For reference, the article states the below population figures for 2010 through 2014 for UKD7 (Liverpool Metropolitan area) and UKD72 Liverpool itself.

  • Merseyside 1,498,042 1,503,567 1,508,892 1,511,939 1,513,306
  • Liverpool 459,459 463,529 467,672 470,228 470,537

I am going to update the article appropriately. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Can this be reverted temporarily until a solution is found across the UK city articles? At present the statistics for Liverpool are not in line with those for other UK cities. The figures for Manchester for example can also be said to overstate the population of the city.

Correctus2kX (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would we revert to the wrong information? If you look at the cited source, it actually states "functional urban area" is Liverpool/Birkenhead - so how can that possibly ally itself with an article just about Liverpool? In contrast Manchesters FUA may actually well align with their Metropolitan area. Without looking I couldn't tell. Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the Manchester article, it appears they are using the "Urban area" which while still not exactly the NUTS2 (UKD3), is nonetheless at least only referring to "Greater Manchester" and far more accurate and sourced. Koncorde (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The ESPON data is an official European Union measure of population. I think the argument against using ESPON data is far from conclusive. What exactly is wrong with that figure? Chester is known to lie within the Liverpool travel-to-work area, so I think it's fair for it to be listed within the metropolitan area, as the ESPON data does. Correctus2kX (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Eurostat provides the data and creates the agreed definitions which are then applied by the member countries. ESPON is an EU think-tank that plays with the data to try and create functional scenarios for the purpose of development and growth. Eurostat takes what the ONS reports and describes as NUTS (which is the British data). ESPON tries to build a model with that data.
You can use the ESPON data, but you can't describe it incorrectly or use it as a definition of something that it isn't. I don't question the figures accuracy (well I do, they're old and not referring to what people think they are) it is how they are being used incorrectly. It is the wrong "figure" entirely to refer to. It is the figure for "Liverpool / Birkenhead Functional Urban Areas" and it links not only the entire of Cheshire, but also parts of Greater Manchester and is almost 10 years out of date, using the wrong section codes for the areas and sub-areas. It has been incorrectly attributed as "Liverpool Metropolitan" population in the article, when it is actually a far greater zone linking together multiple metropolitan areas.
In contrast the Larger urban zone which is exactly the same data shows you the same thing as the NUTS of the United Kingdom and those figures are all from the ONS and Eurostat. The LUZ for instance lists the Liverpool Met area as 1.3m.
Also when you are reverting edits, please revert the content you object to - not all fixes. Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as pointless reversion continues; in short, please read the source.
You can see this on wikipedia at NUTS 2 statistical regions of the United Kingdom. Liverpool Metropolitan area is defined by the ONS and Eurostat as Merseyside (UKD7) containing:
  • East Merseyside (Knowsley, St Helens and Halton) UKD71,
  • Liverpool UKD72,
  • Sefton UKD73,
  • Wirral UKD74.
Similarly Greater Manchester (UKD3) is listed as containing:
  • Manchester UKD33
  • Greater Manchester South West (Salford and Trafford) UKD34
  • Greater Manchester South East (Stockport and Tameside) UKD35
  • Greater Manchester North West (Bolton and Wigan) UKD36
  • Greater Manchester North East (Bury, Oldham and Rochdale) UKD37
If you actually look at the linked data from ESPON in the piece they list the following grouping of NUTS3 (and what has happened since their 2006 study):
  • UKD21 - abolished to form UKD71 (East Merseyside) & UKD61 (Warrington)
  • UKD22 - split into UKD62 (Cheshire East) & UKD63 (Cheshire West and Chester)
  • UKD51 - abolished to form UKD71 (East Merseyside) & UKD61 (Warrington)
  • UKD52 - renumbered to UKD72 (Liverpool)
  • UKD53 - renumbered to UKD73 (Sefton)
  • UKD54 - renumbered to UKD74 (Wirral)
However in their description of "towns" included they list they also bundle in Wigan and Ashton (part of UKD36) without mentioning that as part of their study.
So basically you are insisting that we use data that is demonstrably not current or up to date about regions and areas that are no longer described by the terms used by the official statistics body of the UK or EU.
The ESPON data is a study talking about the "Liverpool/Birkenhead" area (defined as a polynuclear metropolitan area, to indicate that it is more than 1 met area) and includes massive caveats in what they are doing when manipulating the data:
  • "For each European metropolis or polycentric metropolitan area, we provide also with a proxy of the FUA at the NUTS-3 level, which will allow us later to give an estimation of the GDP and the economic structure of the FUA. We have included in the proxy all the NUTS-3 units contiguous to the NUTS-3 including the core and with at least 60% of their population in NUTS-5 units pertaining to the FUA. It is not possible to do accurately this exercise for cities with less than 500,000 inhabitants, due to their size generally much smaller than the one of the NUTS-3 unit in which they are incorporated."
Or;
  • "Delineating and even defining the British urban areas is a very difficult exercise, insofar as statistical divisions often change, and even sometimes the names of the units."
Or this classic piece of interpretive dance;
  • "To delineate the MUAs, we have used, as usual, the basic statistical NUTS-5 units, but since wards are often very small, their population densities need to be interpreted by means of an in-depth examination of the Google Earth images. For the FUAs, we used the official TTWA (Travel-to-Work Areas), and we sometimes merged some TTWAs around the main metropolitan areas. However, TTWAs are not exactly FUAs according to our criteria, as they cover the whole territory. Therefore, we have limited to twice the population of the MUA the population of some large TTWAs around small cities"
Or the accuracy of their own study:
  • "However, ESPON 1.1.1 data seem to be very inaccurate. The report generally strongly underestimates the population of the FUAs, which are often even less than the MUA only and possibly limited to a central administrative unit of the latter.
There is no question that you are incorrectly reverting my changes. Koncorde (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
For further clarification; the List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom is out of date, it is not appropriate to rely on that article when Wikipedia is not a reliable source to start with, and the data within it is almost a decade old. Referring back to a wikipedia article that out of date, and is based on the same data I have outlined above as inaccurate, does not gazump current accurate data from the governing statistical body. I can just as easily refer to more current articles based on current data such as this and this and point at wikipedias own current template for EU Data which refers to the LUZ's and NUTS primarily.
Using that article is just as inaccurate as referring to this article or historic books like this and this which pre-date those studies. In contrast more recent studies by the City Growth Commission have stuck by the more commonly referred to Merseyside Metropolitan, or Liverpool City Region, while statistical websites utilise the NUTS2 and 3 regions to derive their statistics.
The inaccuracy of wikipedia articles does not reinforce the need to be inaccurate elsewhere also. Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, nobody actually tackling the issue and instead re-inserting the wrong data because "Espon" which is demonstrably wrong. Now the article says "in 2014 the city local government district had a population of 470,537[2] and the wider Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area had a population of 2,241,000" when the data from ESPON is from 2006 at the latest, and the cited source is Eurostat and refers to a completely different dataset.
Anybody actually going to correct the ESPON data to their most recent datasets? Richie? Correctus? Or just going to keep referring to an old document using completely different sub-divisions? Koncorde (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Population

Just as an observation, I was kind of surprised at the information supplied in this text: "The "Liverpool city region", as defined by the Mersey Partnership, includes Wirral, Warrington, Flintshire, Chester and other areas, and has a population of around 2 million.[89] The European Spatial Planning Observation Network defines a Liverpool metropolitan area consisting of the Merseyside metropolitan county, the borough of Halton, Wigan in Greater Manchester, the city of Chester as well as number of towns in Lancashire and Cheshire including Ormskirk and Warrington.[90] Liverpool and Manchester are sometimes considered as one large polynuclear metropolitan area,[91][92][93] or megalopolis".

Firstly, am I right in thinking the "City Region" is the 5 boroughs and Halton? Where then does Flintshire, Chester and other areas come in to it? Secondly, what on earth is European Spatial Planning Observation Network and what relevance are they to UK council's and borough population? Wigan and Chester are in outside regions. Thirdly, (my opinion) what nonsense about Manchester and Liverpool being one large polynuclear metropolitan area! By whom? Some professor or academic student or some business quango? They are two cities quite separateBabydoll9799 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Much of this confusion has arisen because Liverpool was so thoroughly dismembered by the local authority reorganization of the 1970s. It is plainly ridiculous to assert (as some do) that Birkenhead/Wirral has nothing to do with Liverpool simply because the River Mersey is more than 200 meters wide. Most cities try to "big themselves up" by flinging their political boundaries as far as they can; Liverpool is far less of a culprit in this regard than (say) Nottingham (which claims Derby as a suburb) and Leeds (which claims the whole of West Yorkshire). Even Leeds' agreed boundaries contain many semi-rural villages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.27.152 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

Hello, new to Wikipedia and only learning the process of contributions.

'Following the start of the Great Irish Famine, two million Irish people migrated to Liverpool in the space of one decade, many of them subsequently departing for the United States'

As a student of Irish History, this is quite literally a ridiculous claim from a near irrelevant source and should be removed.

Rorymc-c1 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide a more accurate statement of what happened, with a good reliable source to back it up. Is it just the number you are questioning? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that they did not migrate to Liverpool, which only had a population of about 330,000 in 1851 at the height of the famine, but they may have migrated via Liverpool - again this needs a reliable source - Arjayay (talk)

My original post is definitely too strong looking back, and Arjayay reword certainly fits better. The number in such a space of time is still a bit too high, with a bit over 1 million emigrating from Ireland following the immediate years of the famine.

Ross, David, Ireland: History of a Nation (New Lanark, 2009) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorymc-c1 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've modified the text for the time being, to read "...up to two million Irish people travelled to Liverpool in the space of one decade, many of them subsequently departing for the United States." However, the BBC source does give a figure of two million Irish migrants, and says that, in all: "Nine million people emigrated to America through Liverpool". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liverpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Second City of Empire

Numerous sources give this historical appellation to Liverpool. Whole books have been written on the subject. Why has it been removed? RodCrosby (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

Can we please update the Ethnicity on the right hand side box from 2009 to at least 2011 figures from here - http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/key-statistics-and-data/data/population/

90.205.192.238 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a simple enough request to update the ethnicity statistics in the infobox to me. Let me find data that doesn't combine the British and Irish figures in the way that that source does, and I'll do it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Reeks of hype

A lot of this page is given over to a wearying list of artificially boosted superlatives (deftly mixing world's first with the considerably less amazing Britain's first) and it's reminiscent of the Seoul page - doubtless based on a corresponding set of insecurities.

It would be of more service both to Wikipedia and to Liverpool to strip out some of the superfluous drivel and to bring the hype down to a level where mortals can safely read about this earthly paradise without swooning.

Let's face it, when you're relying on Guinness World Records to pronounce you the World City of Pop and you find it sufficiently authoritative to add to a page of information on Liverpool, you are revealing a certain desperation for recognition. Liverpool's musical status should be able to stand in its own right, and if that is too much to hope for, there are better sources of support than Guinness.

Liverpool today is a perfectly nice, modestly sized city of middling importance in the general scheme of things - even within England, let alone by world standards. It's not an important port - it's barely a port at all - or a major transhipment point, or a major centre of trade, industry, or finance. It is because those inconvenient facts - which have been true for many decades now - are being pushed aside that this page comes across sounding so needy.

219.98.16.135 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(This discussion was auto-archived on 19th February 2016 but I've reinstated it, as the list of superlatives under "Inventions and innovations" is still an issue). Lonegroover (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's probably best practice to remove the item from the archive page if you're going to restore it here, Lonegroover. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, done, thanks. Lonegroover (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

I want the page to appear Liverpool, United Kingdom when it is put on Facebook it appear Liverpool only. Cities like London appear on Facebook like London, United Kingdom.

DrMabula (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done not our problem - we cannot control what Facebook say - try taking it up with them - Arjayay (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing content?

First, I would like to state my gratitude and appreciation for the editors that have got the article to its current extensive level. However, I have a few comments in regards to missing content.

Unlike other city articles, there is no etymology section explaining the meaning of the word "Liverpool". In addition, the article starts off with the establishment of the city charter with no explanation as to why King John established the borough or if anything came before it. Finally, considering the Liver Bird is so strongly connected with the city (appearing on the city council's coat of arms, LFC's crest, and on the city's skyline) there is zero mention within the article. Now I know that there are articles dedicated to each of these subjects, but these articles are suppose to be inclusive and at least make mention of these subjects. Regards, 165.166.215.220 (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The etymology provided in the History of Liverpool is a mess, and the one source provided (if you read it) is so convoluted and full of so many contradictory claims that it really isn't suitable to be included. The pre-history of the town is also poorly recorded. The absence of any reference to the Liver Bird is a more significant oversight, so I will see what can be drafted for that. Koncorde (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Elvis Costello

Elvis Costello is not from Liverpool. It is misleading to suggest that he is from Liverpool, he was clearly born in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.80.154 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

True. Even Birkenhead is not Liverpool. I've taken that sentence out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Liverpool. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

ESPON study and "Liverpool local authority"

This recent change to the intro is a complete mess. "The Liverpool local authority is the largest unit within the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area which had an estimated population of over 2.24 million in 2011." We have already said in the opening sentence that Liverpool is "a major city and metropolitan borough". The two measures are fundamentally identical, with the 30 wards of Liverpool making up both the Local Authority (which is the Metropolitan Borough) and the City. Unless I am misunderstanding something, mentioning the "local authority" implies that there is some inherent difference between the City, the Metropolitan Borough and the Local Authority, and the edit summary mentioning "It is wrong to suggest that the city does not equate to the city metro area; local authority boundaries are one but not the sole means of defining a city's extent." certainly doesn't explain what this difference is or how the addition of "local authority" clarifies the point being made. Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Per two updates now. Richie first introduces a conflation that says the Liverpool Council is "populous" ("The local authority is Liverpool City Council which is the most populous within the metropolitan county of Merseyside"). Liverpool City Council certainly has a lot of employees, but is not populous, while Liverpool Authority isn't all of the Liverpool Metropolitan Area (which is strictly speaking the Liverpool Urban Area, but more on that below).
The subsequent sentence "Liverpool, along with its metropolitan county and city region form part of a significantly larger urban area known as the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area" is just factually wrong. Liverpools metropolitan county (which I assume is inferring Merseyside and not a mistype of the metropolitan borough which would have been accurate) isn't 100% within the metropolitan area of Liverpool / Birkenhead. Actually the Liverpool Urban Area specifically excludes regions of populace within the county, and the Metropolitan Area does not introduce those missing portions of Merseyside (just as the Birkenhead urban area doesn't cover all settlements through to Chester, but the Metropolitan Area includes Chester along with Wigan and Warrington).
The fixes by Correctus remedies one problems, but continues the first conflation. Whether it says "Liverpool's metropolitan area is known as the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area, and had an estimated population of over 2.24 million in 2011." or "The city is the largest settlement in the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area which had an estimated population of over 2.24 million in 2011" is semantics, but almost all other city articles place the city "within" the area, rather than making the area "of" the city. For instance "It lies within the United Kingdom's second-most populous urban area, with a population of 2.55 million" is the equivalent from the Manchester article. Koncorde (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde, you can stop complaining now. The intro now states clearly that the Liverpool City Council local government district is the most populous within Merseyside and the largest in the City Region. This is factually correct. The intro also states that both the metropolitan county of Merseyside and the city region form part of the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area. This is also factually correct. The Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area fully includes and encompasses the Liverpool Urban Area (864,000) the Birkenhead Urban Area (325,000), Widnes/Runcorn (128,000) and Southport (90,000). Those areas fully cover both Merseyside and Halton so your comments above are rubbish Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop complaining? Why would I do that? You are introducing the city region, council, city, urban and metropolitan dimensions within 1 sentence and it doesn't make whatever point you are trying to make any clearer. Compare your current version to the version you were editing at Christmas 2015 and let me know how your edit would make sense? Koncorde (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"You are introducing the city region, council, city, urban and metropolitan dimensions within 1 sentence and it doesn't make whatever point you are trying to make any clearer."

To be absolutely clear to you and to other contributors here, these descriptions of urban areas are widely used by government and statisticians, if it is not making sense the problem lies with your understanding. The current intro starts by introducing the city and metropolitan borough (the smallest) population, it then introduces the metropolitan county followed by the city region and ends with the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area. This is a logical transtion from the smallest area to the largest area. It is quite clear you have a problem with Liverpool and the fact that it is the largest and most populated district of Merseyside and the city region. And then you have an obvious problem with Liverpool and surrounding areas being part of the same metropolitan area. Your contribs are obviously trying to undermine that FACT but I'm afraid the academics are against you. You have been at this for some considerable time now, it initially started by you trying to undermine EPSON and reverting not only my contribs but the contribs of others to pretend that the Liverpool/Birkenhead area did not exist. You have now been warned officially and I will have no choice but to report your vandalism unless you prove otherwise that you are willing to constructively contribute instead of your endless pointless edits that are proving nothing.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Study is fine. The problem for me was the fact that people were conflating different population totals, and trying to claim the entire Met population was Liverpool so that they could list 2.24m rather than the previously given 1.5m (which was a similarly conflated number) and the other editors trying to force in the Urban population total. I have been consistent throughout. Meanwhile your current edits are not conforming to examples at other city articles.
Please report me. I look forward to it. Koncorde (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You say the study is fine now but you originally tried to undermine and remove it when it was first introduced to the intro last year. No point trying to deny that, its in the article history in October 2015. You then softened your approach as time went along when you realised contributors kept re-introducing it and then you argued over its name saying it was called the Liverpool/Birkenhead area and not the Liverpool area. Nobody is conflating anything, people here are quoting different widely used urban defintions, there are many definitions Koncorde - we went over this when you tried to remove ESPON. The intro as it currently stands now makes perfect sense:-

- It starts with the smallest part of the metropolitan area - the city of Liverpool itself - population 478,580

- then it introduces the larger area (of which the city is part of) - the metropolitan county of Merseyside

- then it introduces the larger area (of which the city & the metropolitan county are part of) - the city region

- then it introduces the larger area (of which the city, metropolitan county and city region are part of) - the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area

This is a very logical progression and easy for the reader to understand. And to make it absolutely clear yet again the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area - which you now accept is a fine and valid study - fully includes the Liverpool Urban Area (864,000), Birkenhead Urban Area (325,000), Widnes/Runcorn (128,000) and Southport (90,000). Therefore, the statement that Liverpool, its metropolitan county and city region forms part of a significantly larger urban area known as the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area is one hundred percent factually correct.

If you can't prove that any of that is factually incorrect then there is no need to change it. I would advise other contributors here to keep an eye on Koncorde's activities in regards to the Liverpool intro and watch for any hints of political bias over academic integrity.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I objected to inappropriate use of the Espon, particularly what people were trying to use it for. You are pulling me here to your talk, so choose one. Koncorde (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Just so (for evidence) the below is the original lede as of 25/09/2016 which had been largely untouched:

  • Liverpool (/ˈlɪvərpuːl/) is a major city and metropolitan borough in north west England. The Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area has a population over 2.24 million,[4] whilst the city council area had an estimated population of 478,580 in 2015.[5] Liverpool is the principal city within the Liverpool City Region.

The below is what I amended to. This introduced the missing references to Merseyside, removed the unnecessary reference to the "city council area", and emphasised Liverpool as the largest settlement in the metropolitan area.:

  • Liverpool (/ˈlɪvərpuːl/) is a major city and metropolitan borough in the metropolitan county of Merseyside in north west England with an estimated population of 478,580 in 2015.[4] The city is the largest settlement in the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area which had an estimated population of over 2.24 million in 2011.[5] The local authority is the Liverpool City Council, which is the largest authority the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

I also made several fixes on the rest of the lead. My changes to the lede, and in particular the opening paragraph are based upon looking at several other city articles to see what is the most common terms of reference. In particular I looked at articles that were either rated as Good, or FA'd, for instance Manchester:

  • Manchester (local /ˈmæntʃɪstə/)[4] is a major city and metropolitan borough in Greater Manchester, England, with a population of 514,414 as of 2013.[5] It lies within the United Kingdom's second-most populous urban area, with a population of 2.55 million.[6] Manchester is fringed by the Cheshire Plain to the south, the Pennines to the north and east and an arc of towns with which it forms a continuous conurbation. The local authority is Manchester City Council.

The below is the new lede:

  • Liverpool (/ˈlɪvərpuːl/), in North West England, is a major city and metropolitan borough with an estimated population of 478,580 in 2015.[4] The local authority is Liverpool City Council which is the most populous local government district within the metropolitan county of Merseyside and the largest within the Liverpool City Region. Liverpool, along with its metropolitan county and city region forms part of a significantly larger urban area known as the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area which had an estimated population of over 2.24 million in 2011.[5]

In short; the new lede unnecessarily qualifies Liverpool City Council "as the most populous local government district" in Merseyside and the Liverpool City Region. I'm not even sure what this is trying to say (or why the local government district matters) that the simple sentence "Liverpool is the largest city in Merseyside" wouldn't achieve; apart from the obvious fact that it is the only city in Merseyside so somewhat redundant, and hence the reason I used "settlement" in my original lede.

The new lede then immediately repeats the phrases relating to county and city region in the next sentence, where it additionally goes on to state "Liverpool" AND "Merseyside" AND "City Region" form part of the Met area. This introduces the idea that each is either mutually exclusive of each other, or that the County is "of" and "for" Liverpool. Apart from being largely redundant duplication the areas are subsections of each other and / or entirely within the met area. Koncorde (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


I will take your point about most other British city articles referring to the county within the immediate introduction. I've taken a look so I can accept that. You got your way with this argument and Merseyside was re-introduced to the lede and no-one has touched it since.
However, a quick observation shows that the City of Leeds article mentions the city council in the immediate introduction and I think it is precisely because Leeds suffers from its own peculiar problem just like Liverpool. Leeds is an administrative city in and of itself (pop'n 474,632) but it is also the name of the local government district incorporating ten other separate towns that bear the name City of Leeds (pop'n 757,700).
In Liverpool's case, Liverpool is an administrative city and met borough in and of itself but it is also the name of the political and economic region with its own governing authority which also takes the name Liverpool [City Region]. Note how the city region is not called Greater Liverpool or Greater Merseyside City Region – it is simply Liverpool City Region. This is in contrast to other city regions who tend to take the name of their respective county eg the West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester city regions etc....
West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester City Regions are also completely coterminous with their constituent metropolitan county authorities whereas the Liverpool City Region is not. Liverpool is, therefore, an anomaly and a special case and should not be to compared to Manchester for these reasons.
The need to qualify Liverpool City Council "as the most populous local government district" in Merseyside and the Liverpool City Region is justified because the Liverpool City Region includes a local government district outside of the county of Merseyside. The sentence, therefore, makes logical sense. I take your point that this sentence would be unnecessary in Manchester's article, for example, because Greater Manchester and the Greater Manchester city region are the same area and, therefore, pretty futile in the local case.
Your sentence "Liverpool is the largest city in Merseyside" does not address the city's place within the separately defined geographical city region whereas the new lede "The local authority is Liverpool City Council which is the most populous local government district within the metropolitan county of Merseyside and the largest within the Liverpool City Region" addresses both yours and my point: the size and status of the local government district within the metropolitan county and the size and status within the separate (non-coterminous) city region bearing the city's name. Like Leeds, the local government district matters to make the distinction between Liverpool as the city, Liverpool as the local government district and Liverpool as the city region. And just to make it clear the city region is not just a combined authority - it is a functional political, economic and geographic area - I know you have tried to introduce the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority into the article several times - this seems a bit incosistent with your arguments about local authorities.
On your last point: “The new lede then immediately repeats the phrases relating to county and city region in the next sentence, where it additionally goes on to state "Liverpool" AND "Merseyside" AND "City Region" form part of the Met area. This introduces the idea that each is either mutually exclusive of each other, or that the County is "of" and "for" Liverpool. Apart from being largely redundant duplication the areas are subsections of each other and / or entirely within the met area. “
See my point above:- the city, the metropolitan county and the city region are not coterminous with each other and the sentence makes it clear that they are separate areas with their own purposes in a graduating way but are each encompassed within the Met area – again this is factually correct. About the County being "of" and "for" Liverpool. How ridiculous can you be? That sounds like politically biased paranoia and I thought we weren't going to do 'semantics'?
If the sentence were changed to “Liverpool, along with the metropolitan county and city region within which it is a constituent city and local authority, forms part of a significantly larger urban area known as the Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area ….” would you complain then that the sentence was verbose, potentially confusing and repetitive? How many hairs are you going to split here?
When are you going to let this irascible paranoia of yours that your ex-Lancashire town of St Helens is being slowly subsumed into Liverpool? Times and local government have changed and so must you. The new lede makes it perfectly clear that Liverpool is a city within a larger area – that is not the same thing as the city and the larger met area being the same governmental area so you can rest easy in sunny St Helens and I think people get the point Koncorde.
Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I "got my way"? Jesus you make it sound like mentioning the county is some kind of generous concession rather than factual inclusion. The Leeds article, which you have mentioned before, is a mess. It's a mess for the reason of whatever editors contributing to it seemed to have become obsessed about trying to explain minutiae within the first 3 sentences. It's also one of the reasons why that article is neither GA'd nor a FA. There's really no point looking at bad articles and trying to draw positive comparisons as if that improves the argument to be more convoluted. The defences of your inclusions explain nothing, and leave the articles intro poorer for it. If you are happy with that, congratulations.
Your string of personal attacks have made it quite clear that you are not interested in contributing but on attacking and forcing a WP:OWN situation with threats to "report" me for vandalism while you are guilty of breaching the 3 revert rule and generally being uncivil, along with paranoid claims that the role of Liverpool bothers me (if you were aware of where my family is from, where I was brought up, where I work, and who for, I'm not sure you'd care; but suffice to say you're barking up the wrong tree). I'm taking Liverpool off my watch list so I entrust you to monitor future vandalism on your bi-annual visits. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it is a WP:OWN situation when there is at least one other user who does not agree with your edits ie Correctus2kX. String of personal attacks? Based on your actions and constant need to separate Liverpool with its natural metropolitan area or infer that it is trying to "own" and "claim" a whole county simply because the word "its" is used, I think it's accurate to say you're acting in a politically paranoid way. Do you know the actual meaning of the word 'its' is "belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned" so a sentence like "Liverpool, along with its metropolitan county and city region" does not necessarily infer that the county and city region belongs to Liverpool, it could also mean that the county and city region are associated with the city. However, you are quite obviously politically biased because of the way in which you have chosen to interpret the meaning and your need to change it. The only other thing personal I mentioned is your home town of St Helens which you have chosen to tell everyone in the first place. Good luck on your other articles, I'm sure we can look forward to significantly less disruption on Liverpool's opening paragraphs now Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC) .

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Liverpool. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Historical Climate Table has Metric and Imperial Switched

In the climate section, the table "Climate data for Bidston Observatory, elevation 7m, Temp averages 1976–2002, Rain and Sun averages 1971–2000, extremes 1867–2002" shows historical data. However, the headers have Imperial between parentheses and in the data the metrics are between parentheses. Ideally the data needs to be correct and the imperial data be put in parenthesis. Flashusp (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Liverpool. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Education

Bellerive is not the correct school mentioned being the highest achieving none selective school. The correct school is The Belvedere Academy-both schools are sometimes confused for one another as they are located on the same park however it is Belvedere not Bellerive as the highest achieving none selective school Sophieyates1 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Liverpool. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Out of date re: Metro-mayor

No mention of Steve Rotheram, the metro-mayor. 90.209.21.142 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Scousers, Liverpudlians and Liverpolitans in lead section

I don't object to the terms "Scousers", "Liverpudlians" and "Liverpolitans" being mentioned in the lead - briefly, though I'd be equally happy if they were omitted. What I find unnecessary is that it takes several sentences to describe the terms, and the differences between them (real or alleged), with reference to what individuals have said and tabloid (rather than academic) sources have reported, probably with a dash of WP:OR thrown in. It gives entirely undue weight to the question to devote an entire paragraph of the lead - the longest paragraph - to this matter. It should be limited to a (brief) mention in the article text. This article is about the city, not what its residents want to call themselves, and the lead should reflect the overall balance of the article, not one relatively trivial point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I've removed the unnecessary material from the lead - it merely duplicated text from the main article, and gave it undue prominence in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that one or two people have suggested that the word "Liverpolitan" be redefined to refer to people from the wider city region is not sufficient justification for it to be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User Ghmyrtle (talk) is persistently removing references to Liverpolitan in the lede. The reasons given for his edits in the edit history are that the material is unnecessary and duplicates main text. He has asked for a discussion here. Firstly, the whole point of a demonym is that it identifies residents or natives of a particular place and the name is usually derived from the name of that particular place. In the case of Liverpolitan, this can and is being used to refer to residents of both the city of Liverpool and the wider city region. Although the word has a heritage, words and their meanings do change over time. Both the Wirral Globe and Runcorn & Widnes World ran online polls in December 2016 regarding the changed and modern definiton of Liverpolitan and asked their readers whether or not they call themselves Liverpolitan. 34% of overall readers said they liked the term, 6% said the term was not relevant at the moment but could be used more in the future, 4% said they were not sure. It is granted that 57% said they did not like the term. When I included reference to Liverpolitan in the lede I did in actual fact mention that many people in the wider region do not accept or use the term and considered this sufficient enough to account for the apparent controversy. In the original version of the lede there was mention of the fact that some people do not call themselves a scouser because the term can have pejorative overtones but Ghmyrtle (talk) removed that without any discussion or consensus from other contributors and has also taken it upon himself to stifle mention of Liverpolitan. I also included a reliable source that showed Liverpolitan is actually being used in real life scenarios, the reference included was from Dave Mail - CityMetric's Liverpool City Region correspondent who provides monthly updates on the Liverpool City Region. This, in my view, was a reliable and current source. In my view Ghmyrtle (talk) is deliberately omitting references to the word for his own personal reasons. He says that one or two people have suggested that the word "Liverpolitian" can be used when in actual fact 34% of Wirral Globe and Runcorn & Widnes World readers use the term. This, in my view, is significant enough and provides sufficient justification for it to be mentioned in the lede. Yes, it may be a minority or potentially unpopular term but there is still significant enough popularity for inclusion and not a total omission. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have reincluded mention of Liverpolitan until such times as Ghmyrtle (talk) can further jusitfy his reasons here for its complete omission. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
If another opinion is welcome, it seems to be that that lead paragraph is overkill, seeing as it's more or less word-for-word duplicating what's in the main text, and could easily be trimmed down to two sentences. Personally, I don't like the term Liverpolitan, but if enough people are in favour of it, then obviously it should be in there as long as it's cited.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
My text does not "completely omit" the term "Liverpolitan" from the lead, as anyone reading it can plainly see. What is does, in mentioning the term but not giving it undue weight, is to provide an accessible overview of the article text. "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." Placing undue emphasis in the lead on the use of the term "Liverpolitan" as proposed in one local newspaper and two blogs - which are certainly not reliable sources - both duplicates text in the main article, and suggests to the reader - incorrectly - that this is a major issue that needs to be mentioned in detail in the lead of an article about a major city. It's also nonsensical - of course anyone can refer to themselves as Liverpolitan if they want to.
The final sentence suggested in the lead - "In spite of these contrasting and overlapping identities, many people from within the greater Liverpool area still choose not to consider themselves part of the greater city, many choosing to espouse more parochial identites such as a 'Sandgrounder', a person from Southport." - is unreferenced, possibly original research, barely relevant at all and certainly not appropriate for the lead section of this article.
As Wasechun tashunka says, the detailed discussion included by Richie wright1980 is overkill, and it's clearly contrary to guidance on the content of lead sections of articles. It should be withdrawn. If you, Richie wright1980, are not prepared to withdraw your wording, and if no other editors comment here, we should go to WP:THIRDOPINION, and I have little doubt how that would end. In the mean time, I will finish reading the excellent book Scouse: a social and cultural history by Tony Crowley - here - which includes extensive discussion of not only the term "scouser" but other terms such as "Liverpolitan", and, in due course, add reliably sourced content to relevant articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
PS (again): Crowley (p.150) states that "'Liverpolitan' was used as a slightly formal term throughout the nineteenth century, and was possibly formed by analogy with 'metropolitan'.... [There was extensive] use of the term throughout Chandler's monumental mid-twentieth century history of Liverpool [published in 1957]..." So, it is not a new term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Ghmyrtle (talk), you said earlier that you do not object to Liverpolitan being mentioned in the lead but you find it unnecessary for it to take several sentences to describe the different terms. I have now taken the initiative and slimmed down the Liverpolitan reference to just one sentence. Thank you for your contribution on this.

On another point, regarding Liverpolitan as a term for city region inhabitants, you say that references have been made to what individuals have said and what tabloid sources have reported. You also say that I have used one local newspaper and two blogs which you say are not reliable sources. I must correct you on this again. The sources used are Runcorn & Widnes World and Wirral Globe - both of which are local newspaper sites that belong to Newsquest's audited local newspaper network. Newsquest specialises in local newspaper brands and is committed to bringing a voice to the regions - the references used do not constitute tabloid journalism in the way that you have insinuated. The articles referenced do not include a sensational crime story, gossip or rumours about the private lives of celebrities or sports stars, neither do they include junk food news or astrology. In other words, the Liverpolitan story is not a tabloid story - it is a contemporary news piece concerning changing regional identity with an invitation for newspaper readership input in the form of an online poll.

Furthermore, the CityMetric reference is neither a tabloid source nor a blog. CityMetric belongs to The New Statesman - a British political and cultural magazine at the forefront of journalism since 1913. The site has an emphasis on urbanism and includes everything from data journalism, listicles and 5,000 word essays on the relationship between the urban form and economic history – it is disingenuous for you to refer to it as either tabloid or a blog. It is neither.

The specific reference (as I have mentioned before) was authored by Dave Mail, CityMetric's Liverpool City Region correspondent who provides monthly updates from the Liverpool City Region. The article is published under the Politics/Devolution path. CityMetric's articles are published by a range of architects, planners, academics and students, as well as professional journalists. Its parent magazine, the New Statesman, has over 100 years' experience of being at the forefront of political debate with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and the CityMetric site itself professes to be editorially independent and not politically aligned or affiliated, although they do admit to publishing the occasional author opinion piece.

Under wiki rules on Identifying reliable sources, the reference I have used would more than likely come under an example of the published opinion of a reliable author. But it must be stressed that I have properly sourced this reference for its context using common sense and editorial judgement and I have not used my own opinion anywhere in the article. This is in accordance with the wiki rules you have quoted. Furthermore, wiki rules state that editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. The way in which I used my source can be said to have been used as a statement attributed to a particular author, but according to Wikipedia this is reliable given that the identity of the author is clearly stated in the sourced article - and in addition - it is the stated opinion of a specialist author and recognized expert on matters pertaining to the Liverpool City Region. The context in which I have used it does not necessarily imply that the Liverpolitan definition is a fact – it is merely a reference to the published opinion and viewpoint of an expert in the specialised field being discussed. This is acceptable under Wikipedia rules.

Finally, I do feel that you have mis-represented the view of Wasechun tashunka (talk) and have used it to justify your hasty call for the complete withdrawal of said material. This is again disingenuous of you. Wasechun tashunka (talk) clearly states that he has no objection to the Liverpolitan reference provided it is properly cited, despite his personal dislike for the term, and he has further stated that it could be trimmed down to two sentences. I have now done this and trimmed it down to one sentence. This no longer gives undue weight to this matter nor does it imply that this is a major issue that needs to be mentioned in detail. I hope I have now cleared this up for you.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The new version is an improvement, but still gives undue weight to the comments about the term "Liverpolitan" made by recent commentators. See also WP:RECENTISM. The final sentence of the introduction is unnecessary and should be removed, with the word "Liverpolitan" added into the previous sentence as in my version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference has now been further reduced in its depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement. With all due respect, I have explained my reasons in great depth above why this reference should be included and this is far as I am willing to go to meet your demands. Your last comment did not respond in any great detail as to why the Liverpolitan reference, in your view, still does not meet wikipedia rules. All you have done is provide brief links to wikipedia rules with your own conclusion that it should be removed. Be careful you are not using these rules to shut down article neutrality which requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and indeed recentism, which Wikipedia clearly states is useful in terms of presenting rapidly developing and recent events which can be improved in real time. As Wiki states, as the bigger picture on recent events emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated, but at this early stage I would argue that you are being far too hasty to call for the complete withdrawal of the second half of the sentence. This is perhaps for over-personal reasons and not for impartial ones. May I remind you that Wikipedia rules are designed for best practice and should always be applied using reason and common sense. If this is still not to your staisfaction, you are more than welcome to flag this matter for WP:THIRDOPINION, but I would ask that you please provide a link to any relevant discussions on this so other contributors may put forward alternative suggestions as opposed to your own. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for trimming it further. However, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, and the text that you are still seeking to include gives references about the recent use of the term, as suggested by a few recent commentators, undue weight. It is not a "rapidly developing and recent event". In the overall context of an article about Liverpool - including its history, geography, culture, industries, etc. etc. - it is a minor and relatively trivial point to which your text gives undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say here apart from the fact that the Liverpool City Region, its Metro Mayor who came into power in May this year, and the emerging sense of local self determination and identity is, in my view, a rapidly developing and recent event. This is precisely why you have been quick to reference historical defintions of words such as those used by Tony Crowley. You wouldn't have fallen back on potentially historical or outdated defintions had you not have been aware of recent events. As I have said, you are free to flag this matter for WP:THIRDOPINION but I feel that your comments here require nothing of merit and do not warrant any further discussion from me. Thankyou again for your good faith comments. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the point further unless other editors want to chip in. However, there is no need to retain the citations in the introduction so long as they are included in the main text - they can be removed per WP:WHENNOTCITE - "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So you have gone from your opening comment about having no objection to the brief mention of demonym terms in the lead to now being in favour of the complete removal of the terms from the lede. I quote you from above: "My text does not "completely omit" the term "Liverpolitan" from the lead, as anyone reading it can plainly see. What is does, in mentioning the term but not giving it undue weight, is to provide an accessible overview of the article text."

You appear to have now done a complete about-face in that you now want Liverpolitan completely removed from the lede yet you no longer wish to refer the matter for WP:THIRDOPINION. You did not respond to any of my reasons that it does not constitute undue weight so your new position is to call for the reference to be removed for different reasons whilst dropping your desire for WP:THIRDOPINION. This insistance appears to be for over personal reasons so I urge you not to make any further edits until such times, and only until such times, as there can be a full and frank discussion from a range of contributors here. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Again, you completely misunderstand. My last message did not suggest that you change the text. It suggested that you remove the references because, where text in the lead summarises text in the main article, the citations - the <ref></ref> text - should go in the main article text - it is not necessary to duplicate them in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are in favour of the retention of "although Liverpolitan may also be used for residents of the wider Liverpool City Region" in the main lede of the article?? Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of it, because I think my version of the text - moving the mention of "Liverpolitan" to the previous sentence, as an aside - is better. But as you seem extremely determined to maintain your own wording, I'm not pushing the point further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the references (citations) from the lead paragraph as they were already duplicated in the Demonymity section (transferring the Collins Dictionary reference, which was not), as per WP:LEADCITE. The wording remains from Richie wright1980's last edit. I believe consensus has been reached at this point? By the way, it's she! :) Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My view remains that the current wording should be improved as I suggested, but unless and until other editors (probably, editors who have not so far contributed to the discussion) agree with me, I will not pursue the matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ghmyrtle FWIW. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I have tagged multiple claims in that section as citation needed. A newspaper poll, in which at most a couple of hundred people voted, in which over half say they don't approve of the term, and a letter on CityMetric do not in anyway approach proving that the term Liverpolitan is increasingly being used. Also applies to the claim about emerging identity. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
On my extensive "to do" list is the need to incorporate information, in this article and others, from the book Scouse: a social and cultural history by Tony Crowley, which appears to be a reliable and authoritative source covering the development of the idiom of scouse, its terminology, etc. etc.. I will advance it up my "to do" list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
With the popular usage of the term Liverpolitan still not actually properly being referenced (it appears to be confined solely to CityMetric and Urban Dictionary), I've removed it from the body and the lead. If it's to be readded, someone needs something more than a poll from the Wirral Globe to back that up. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The word Scouser is generally referred to as a working class Liverpolitan, as is a Cockney in London. This should be made clear. 90.209.21.142 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I've yet to see it being commonly used, I've certainly never heard it used for the working class. I always thought Cockney is used for people from the East End.LicenceToCrenellate (talk)

irrelevant passage in 3rd para

This is in the 3rd paragraph: "matches between the two being known as the Merseyside derby." This is irrelevant to an intro and should not be in the intro. 90.209.21.142 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there was an error on whether Liverpool is located in Merseyside or Cheshire.

It should’ve been part of Cheshire in the article, but why did you put is as part of Merseyside instead? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE change ALL instances of ‘Merseyside’ in this article to ‘Cheshire’. --203.81.71.17 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Liverpool has historically always been part of Lancashire, not Cheshire. (Incidentally, the name 'Mersey' itself means "boundary river"). Since the 1970s the city has been part of Merseyside, as have some areas like the Wirral historically in Cheshire - but Liverpool itself was always previously in Lancashire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

loop the — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:943E:8100:8462:7861:1F8:7CAA (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

Current Lord Mayor of Liverpool is Christine Banks - in section Government next to citation 83 it states Frank Prendergast, but in the side bar Government box is has Malcolm Kennedy.

The new Chief Executive is Tony Reeves who replaced Ged Fitzgerald (same side bar box) 82.10.197.23 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 Already done NiciVampireHeart 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019:

Whilst l found the article on the City of Liverpool very interesting and in the main accurate. I was however shocked and dismayed to see that amongst Liverpool`s rich and exceptional sporting achievements that the Phenomenal achievements of Liverpool`s world-renowned Martial arts greats and Dojo`s was sadly omitted (Red Triangle Club K.U.G.B. being but one of many which have produced some of the legends of British / World martial arts ).which is a shame and overlooks one of Liverpool`s most exceptional and outstanding areas of sporting excellence. l trust this will be noted and rectified as it will no doubt reinforce the undeniable truth that Liverpool and its population are indeed a unique and exceptional UK entity under closer examination /world 82.46.179.238 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 No clear indication of what changes to the text are required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated fact - surely this doesn't have to be directly said twice

"and is first recorded around 1190 as Liuerpul." and paired as "The name appeared in 1190 as "Liuerpul"..." in two successive paragraphs with two different references.

It's possible to eliminate the second, but tweaking might make that unnecessary. 2600:8807:4800:2130:D956:7DFF:2A29:A5 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC) (dfoofnik offline)

Fixed. Koncorde (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Key Statistics for urban areas in the North – Contents, Introduction, Tables KS01 – KS08" (PDF). Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 2010-01-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool/Archive_4&oldid=1136959566"