Jump to content

Talk:Liverpool/Archive 2

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

Twin towns again

In the "International links" section, numerous places are listed as having "friendship links" and the like. Are there any reliable sources for these? Someone has just added somewhere in Gweru, Zimbabwe to the list. I couldn't find anything on google suggesting this should be there. I was tempted to remove it, then started wondering about some of the others too. --RFBailey 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I got the list of places with "friendship links" off Liverpool City Council's website: http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Community_and_living/Twinning/index.asp - do you think that's a good enough source? I'll try and see if they are mentioned on any other websites. Can you put the council's website down as a source on the main article because I'm not sure how to do it!! Ta - Kneale 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between two Liverpool Clubs

Really don't see why a citation needed tag is placed on this part. Where CAN one get evidence for it? It's purely anecdotal, but having been a local resident since birth, I have never, ever, once seen any sort of major clashes between fans of both Everton and Liverpool. --Jayau1234 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There might be some research out there comparing club rivalries (e.g. Liverpool/Everton, Man Utd/Man City, Arsenal/Tottenham, Wolves/West Brom, etc.) that would be suitable to include as a citation, for instance. --RFBailey 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Church Street

I merged the article "Church Street, Liverpool" (essentially one sentence) into the section "Economy". Delete it if it does not seem notable. --B. Wolterding 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gay scene

I notice this article does not contain any mention of the Liverpool gay scene. Most articles on cities do at least mention it. It makes it look as if gay people are not welcome in Liverpool and have moved out!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.81.0 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-24.

The Beatles

Under the famous Liverpudlians heading, it says something to the effect of the Beatles being "one of the most, if not the most popular" musical groups from Liverpool. Given the fact that the Beatles are in fact the most popular musical act in history (from Liverpool or otherwise), I think it is safe to say that this is an understatement, and should be revised to reflect this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.198.128 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Scouseland

Scouseland is the Scouse name for the city and surrounding area and needs to be included along with the English name. It is a part of our identity and differentiates us from England (BBC Local History: Scouseland). -- Ekstazo 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any other article on a city have it's local dialect name in the first line in the article. Perhaps this should be mentioned later in the article. Also, to how many scousers is Liverpool known as Scouseland? I personally know people from Liverpool and have visited the city and never before this have I come across the name Scouseland. Please let me know if you're from Scouseland and call it this on my talk page, alongside responding here. It would be interesting to know. Jackrm 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Ekstazo, are you editing with an anon. IP to include that reference in the article lead-in? User:86.132.198.250? If so please edit the article using your standard username, otherwise you will run the risk of sockpuppet allegations, and anon. vandalism. On the reference itself: I think the number of reverts of this edit from various people suggests that the anon. IP is pushing a POV counter to the consensus of editors working on this article, and it might be an idea for that individual to just step back from that for a while and discuss it further on the talk page section here which User:Ekstazo has opened. ColdmachineTalk 09:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paddy's wigwam

Added in the nickname of the Catholic cathedral,

hope no-one objects,

--Stanleytheman 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Free ODNB access

FYI:

New for August: Liverpool lives for the city's 800th birthday.

http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/freeodnb/magazine/

May be useful for Liverpool- related articles. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I noticed on this page that seems to be a typo is that in the info-box there is an image titled 'Logo'. A more suited name would be 'Coat of Arms'. I would have changed this myself but I am not a very experienced editor, and do not know how. So if anyone could fix this, it would be much appreciated. Blubba112 07:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a consequence of the one-size-fits-all {{Infobox Settlement}} being used, rather than a straightforward typo. --RFBailey 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Music

Most other city pages (see Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow) have sections on music, but this page is missing one. Considering Liverpool's vast musical heritage, this is surprising... Is there anyone out there who might volunteer to add this section? Annihilatenow 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to be boastful, but Liverpool is certainly one of those cities which punches well above its weight in terms of the arts in general. Although Liverpool is world famous for the Merseybeat scene, it has also been home to a mass of influential writers, artists, poets, actors (and, yes, a few comedians too) over the years. With the Capital of Culture almost upon us, perhaps it is better to have an entire separate article with a chronology of 'the Arts' and Liverpool, from the build up to Merseybeat, through to Clive Barker/The Everyman/Boys from the Blackstuff/Frankie Goes to Hollywood, and coming right up to date with the Capital of Culture...? (Hopefully also detailing some of the underground arts movements which have fueled such creativity over the decades?) JavaKid 10:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stan Boardman ? Jimmy Tarbuck ? Cilla ? Apart from the Beatles, very little in terms of "culture" has come out of Liverpool. If anything, the city punches well below it weight compared to London or Manchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.90.253 (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


What a bizarre piece of bullshit. Goodness knows what you imagine has come out of manchester, but as for Liverpool's cultural content. It is, outside of london which has 10 times the population, the UK city with the greatest number of galleries, museums, theatres,public sculptures and listed buildings of any city in the UK, is the most filmed city in the country, has the most visited modern art gallery, teh largest collection of arts and artefacts in single ownership than anywhere in the nation, the place where more people visit said galleries and museums more often than any other, has the oldest china town in europe, the largest shopping development in Europe, the largest anglican cathedral on earth, teh most visually recognisable city in the nation other than London, the longest established symphony orchestra, teh first mosque in this country, the largest free music festival in Europe, the largest african festival and largest arab festival. It is according to Guiness the world capital of pop, having produced more number one records than any place on earth. It's is home to the most succesful football team in British sporting history and the world's greatest horserace. The city with the fast growing airport in Europe is a UN World Heritage site, the European Capital of Culture, and the host of the Royal Variety, The Turner Prize and The BBC Nativity will also host this years Tall ships race, the global liverpool sound concert, the Liberal democrat party conference, the WI conference, the MTV music awards and the BBC Sports personality of the year. So I'm confused by liverpool "producing very little of culture" and "punching below its weight compared to Manchester" (Manchester????!) Perhaps the references to "tarby and cilla" mean you measure culture by household names and personalities originating from a town. Hmm... I dunno, let's have a think:

Gladstone, George Stubbs the artist, The Beatles, Arthur Askey, Tommy Handley, Rob Wilton, Sir Rex Harrison, Glenda Jackson, Daniel Craig, Jason Isaacs, Pete Postlethwaite, Paul McGann and his brothers, Sue Jonson, Ricky Tomlinson, Alison Steadman, Frankie Vaughan, Michael Holiday, George Melly, Alexi Sayle, Paul O'Grady, Cilla Black, Patricia Routledge, Kenny Everett, Lee Mack, Phil Redmond, Bill Kenwright, Robert Runcie, John Birt, Peter Sissons, Jon Snow, Anne Robinson, Keith Chegwin, Janice Long, Les Dennis, Linda La Plante, Jimmy McGovern, Carla Laine, Berryl Bainbridge, Alan Bleasdale, Willy Russel, Derek Hatton, Jack Jones, Sporty Spice, Kerry katona, Nicola from girls aloud, Atomic Kitten, Geoffrey Hughes, Jean Alexander (Hilda Ogden), Peter Adamson (Len fairclough), Leonard Rossiter, Peter Serafinowic, Tony Booth, Cherie Blair, Sam Kelly, Gerry and the pacemakers, The Farm, the Lightning Seeds, Dr and the medics, Flock of Seagulls, China Crisis, The Real Thing, Roger Mcough, Craig Charles, Cathy Tyson, The sculptor Arthur Dooley, Levi Tafari, Eddie Braben (morecambe and wise;s joke writer), Tom O'connor, Margi Clarke, Ken Dodd, Jimmy Tarbuck, Stan Boardman, Faith Brown, John Conte, michael owen, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerard, Robbie Fowler, Red Rum, Ray Quinn, The Searchers, Billy J Kramer, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, The Christians, John Lennon, Sonia, Dead Or Alive, Billy Fury, Elvis Costello, OMD, Claire Sweeney, Jennifer Ellison, Rita Tushingham, Echo and the Bunnymen, Icicle Works, Teardrop Explodes, The Merseybeats, The Swinging Bluejeans, George Davies (founder of next and the famous George of Asda!), Chris Boardman (the cyclist), Tom Baker, Kieran Bracken, Krishnan Guru-Murphy, Kenneth Cope (Randal and Hopkirk), Tom Bell, John Peel, Lewis Collins, Richard Stilgoe, Sir Simon Rattle (conductor Berlin Philharmonic), David Morrisey, Ian Hart, Ron Atkinson, John Parrot, Ted Robbins, Kate Robbins, Freddie Starr, Liza Tarbuck, Jean Boht (Bread), Derek Nimmo, Derek Guyler, Michael Angelis, Clive Barker, Kim Catrall, Tricia Penrose. Clive Swift, Brian Reade, Edwina Currie, Mal Young, Tony Holland, Tony Haygarth, David Yip (The chinese detective), Michael Stark, Philip Olivier, Jemini (! "nul points"!), Jim Bowen (was born here), Craig phillips- winner of the first big brother, Joe Fagan, Rick Astley, Gary Mavers, Elizabeth Sladen (Sarah Jane from Dr Who), Derek Acorah, John Aldridge, Terence Davies (movie director), Alex Curran, Bessie Bradock, Mick Miller, Danielle Lloyd, Brian Epstein, Eton Road, Jimmy Mulville, Bill Tidy, Norman Vaughan. Colleen McCloughlin, Mark Womack, Mimi from Shameless! (plus the bald copper), Paul Barber (Denzil from Only Fools..)..Jonny Vegas, Malandra Burrows, Clive Hornby, Debbie Greenwood, Pete Burns, Carol Decca, David Morrisey, Ramsey Cambell (horror writer), Nerys Hughes, The Wombats, the Zutons, Magda Szubanski (Babe, Kath and Kim), The casts (mostly) of...Bread, Brookside,Grange Hill, Liver Birds, Hollyoaks, Boys from the blackstuff, Lillies, Z cars,Scully, Liverpool one, merseybeat, nice guy eddie, The onedin line, Softly Softly..... and...by parentage.. Mike Myers, Halle Berry, Barbra Dickson and Bob Marley.

Among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.145.161 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Other

Elevation is given as 230ft ... is that correct, it is virtually on the sea RobChafer 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pathfinder

Considering how controversial this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighbourhood_Management_Pathfinder_Programme scheme has been, I'm surprised its so bereft of content. Any Liverpudlians care to contribute? I have a couple of images of affected streets. Parrot of Doom 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

World Heritage Site!

Shouldnt this artical have a world heritage site infobox? Blackwave...... (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just found out about a consultation on the cities future development, called 'Beyond Capital of Culture: A New Dawn for Tourism in Liverpool'. Does any one have any information on this? The only references I can find are on Mersey Travel and also on Mersey Reporter websites as it might be worth adding as a follow up to the Culture link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.106.16 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout

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

Chinatown

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

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

Welsh?

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

It was once part of ancient Wales and mythical capital.


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

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

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

The Welsh influence in Liverpool is vastly understated, while the Irish link is vastly overstated. The Continental links from Holland, Germany and Scandinavia are also understated. People outside of Liverpool think Liverpool is a part of Ireland on the English mainland the myth is so far out of control.
The Welsh Istedford has been held in Liverpool twice, the links are so strong. When Wales could not hold major football games they chose Liverpool as the hosting city rather than say Bristol which is far nearer to Cardiff.
Find a decent source to back up your claims and we'll talk about it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Look up "Istedford" and "Liverpool" on Google. The Istedford was scheduled to be in Liverpool in 2007, however cancelled. In 1977 Wales played a home match at Anfield vs Scotland. Cardiff stadium was reduced in capacity because of safety, so the Welsh chose Liverpool to host their home match. Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Bristol are all much nearer to Cardiff.Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First Picture

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

The city has the largest personal and commercial insurance services sector outside of London in England. It also has more stockbroking firms, indeed the largest Tilney's which is still independent of the public banks, than any other UK city outside London. Tony S 79.72.115.198 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See RJ Tilney & Co. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

south Sefton & Knowsley

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

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

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

I think you comments show that is you that does not wish to find common ground.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Both of you need to cool down over this. It's irrelevant who is 'local' and who is not; if you have sourced and cited information then add it to the article if it meets the verifiability and neutral point of view criteria. ColdmachineTalk 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a source goto Merseyside Police as that lists the areas as local! 92.28.106.16 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Local to what?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In following

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

Not part of the city but in the city

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

discussion

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

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

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


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


Sister Cities

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

re above, I have not researched so I cannot answer your question but I personally think it unlikely, since you brought it to the fore I am puzzled by the entry of Istanbul. Dmcm2008 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not on the council's list [1], so it seems unlikely and therefore I've removed it. --RFBailey (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

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

Liverpool skyline

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

slurs

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

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

Update

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

Woah Woah Woah

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

Wikiproject Merseyside

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

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

I think you could get enough people, and I'd support you in spirit (as opposed to full membership). I would be great to get a Merseyside project off the ground, as so many of its articles are stalling and failing, whilst WP:GM is rocketing away.
Perhaps try a notice at WP:UKGEO, coupled with all the major Merseyside borough and town articles would help? Also, it might be worth asking the Category:Wikipedians in Merseyside for their support. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

Please do not berate your fellow editors who are investing their own free time voluntarily to remove vandalism from a number of pages on Wikipedia, besides Liverpool. Many of us simply do not have the time to spend on one article, and if you check the contribution history of those of us who have reverted vandalism here you'll see we do so elsewhere as well. Since reverting vandalism requires no technical know-how or special tools then there is absolutely nothing stopping you from spending more time to ensure Liverpool is vandal-free. I think, however, you will find it a mammoth task since this is a high-risk article. ColdmachineTalk 07:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made a semi protect request for this article. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that will only offer a temporary respite: semi protection rarely lasts long, particularly on articles such as Liverpool since IP edits can be of use and contributions of benefit to the project. However, it may deter persistent vandals in the meantime at least. The problem is also that some vandalism takes place here through accounts; it isn't just IPs. In any event, we can only do what we can only do. ColdmachineTalk 08:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You can request a longer semi protect...I've seen it put on for 6 months. Also semi protect applies to newly created accounts as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Merseyside? (again)

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

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

New radio station: City Talk

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

City Of Liverpool template

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

Demography section

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

I'd positively encourage it! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've made a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous Liverpudlians

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside

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

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

Governance

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

The new "Governance" section is certainly a lot more coherent than what was there before. However, I'm a bit concerned by the various "definitions", specifically the "Borough of Liverpool" and "City of Liverpool": there seems to be a hint of original research here. Now, city status in the United Kingdom is a complex topic, which doesn't help simplify matters, but as far as I was aware the local government district called "Liverpool" holds city status rather than borough status, and thus try to distinguish between the two is problematic at best. It also doesn't help that the ONS-defined Liverpool Urban Area is, well, barking mad.
Incidentally, the story of the militant tendency of the 1980s is told in the article on Liverpool City Council. --RFBailey (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand the issue here given wiki policy. As far as I'm aware Liverpool is a Metropolitan Borough which has city status and as such both terms are correct when applied to it. The differentiation I was drawing was between the official government defined boundaries of the city (which I refered to as the borough of Liverpool) and the continuous urban expance that is Liverpool in everyting but politics (which I refered to as City of Liverpool). I mean 5 minutes from where I live you have a road where houses on one side have purple bins (Liverpool) and the other side red bins(Knowsley). For the government to claim that one side is not 'officially' in Liverpool is absolutely ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous, it's just that the border goes down the middle of the street. (There is a street in Kerkrade with the Dutch/German border down the middle, but it would be ridiculous to claim that both sides of the street are in the Netherlands.)
Anyway, that you took it upon yourself to create definitions for the names "City of Liverpool" and "Borough of Liverpool" is original research. --RFBailey (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed as realistically there will never be a verifiable title that the city has which includes Huyton, Halewood etc. The only options would be to have the officially bounded area as 'City of Liverpool' and the non official area as 'Liverpool Metropolitan area'. Alternatively using the precedent of London would be an option as it suffers the same issue (that is that the London extends far beyond its official boundaries). Any thoughts? --Daviessimo (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the definitions are a little awry. The local government district of Liverpool holds the city status (as well as borough status - they're not mutually exclusive). However, the settlement of Liverpool itself is defined by the ONS and is slightly larger than the local government district - though that's not unusual and is true for other places, the most obvious one being Reading. There's nothing wrong with talking about those "extra" areas as part of Liverpool (noting that they're in different local government districts) as they're verifiably so. However, places such as Huyton are outside those two verifiable definitions of Liverpool.
The Liverpool Urban Area is perfectly reasonable, though that's the conurbation of which Liverpool is the largest settlement within. It's all related to continuous built-up areas, and there's a huge gap in the built-up area between Liverpool and Birkenhead, even if that is the Mersey! It's nothing else to do with the city itself - it's a bit like claiming that the whole of the West Yorkshire conurbation is related to Leeds, or the whole of the West Midlands conurbation is Birmingham. The Metropolitan County of Merseyside is also NOT Liverpool, though Liverpool is contained within.
The comments re: London are red herrings. There is no "Mayor of Liverpool" in the same was as there is in (Greater) London, the Merseyside Metropolitan Boroughs are not "Liverpool Boroughs", and so on.
All in all, there's lots there that is unnecessary and to tie it all up as "Liverpool" is definately OR. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Again I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying however I still don't see how this will solve the issue of OR. The use of London as an example is to highlight the problem of ambiguous boundaries. Someone from Shepherd's Bush would say they where from London not the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and likewise someone from Halewood will refer to themselves as being from Liverpool not the Borough of Knowsley. Officially someone from Hammersmith is not a Londener because they are not from the City of London but it doesn't change the way the term London is used. Thus I have suggested there needs to be some differentiation between the 'official' area and the 'actual' area that makes up Liverpool
I'll admit Huyton could be considered a less a part of Liverpool but none the less a resident of Huyton will see themselves as a Liverpudlian (for example Steven Gerrard). As for the broader terms I clearly state that Liverpools is part of these places. Whether wikipedia like it or not Merseyside and Liverpool are synonymous. Otherwise why is it called the Merseyside derby or why are Liverpool's docks run by the Mersey docks and harbour company? Or to put it another way how many people hear Merseyside and immediately see a curly perm and Adidas Samba! --Daviessimo (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(Calm down, calm down.....) Don't try telling anyone from the Wirral that they're from Liverpool--you'll never hear the end of it. As for the name of the MDHC, what is the name of the river on which the docks can be found?
The fact of the matter is, that in the "real world" (i.e. not on Wikipedia), the term "Liverpool" is often used informally to include areas beyond the city boundary (Aintree, Bootle, Halewood, Kirkby, etc.). However, as this usage is informal, it will never be uniform (some will claim Huyton, or Crosby, or Maghull should be included, others will not), nor will it be easy to find reliable sources that indicate this. (That doesn't mean, however, that there won't ever be any.) --RFBailey (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've merged borough and city definitions together because user jza84 decided to unnecessarily delete all my contributions i'd made (including fully referenced sections).
I have to say I've been on wikipedia for just 1 week and already i'm regretting it. I try and make a decent effort and and then a load of users throw a rule book at you rather than trying to work out a solution. I leave messages to try and open up discussion on the Merseyside project page and instead editors simply revert anything they don't agree with. I've left a message only a couple of hours ago on this talk page asking for opinions on how to deal with the issue but instead get repeatedly told that its all original research and must go. Instead I spend more of my time changing the article not knowing if someone will still thinks its OR and delete it all. It seems to me that some editors prefer to point out things that are wrong rather than working at making them right --Daviessimo (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has said that everything was original research and all had to go. Only one thing was a problem: the "definitions" section. Now, I originally posted on this discussion to try and work out a solution, as you would have liked. I must also say that I think User:Jza84's blind revert was categorically unhelpful, and have told him as much on his talk page.
Now, I've had a go at rewriting some aspects of the offending section, and would be interested to hear people's responses. (In particular, I wholly disagree with the notion that Merseyside is synonymous with Liverpool: if you suggested this to anyone from the Wirral (e.g. a large number of my own relatives.....), they would not be pleased! --RFBailey (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The comments I made were just after the revert had been made and i was pretty angry so sorry if you took them as a direct attack on you because they weren't. Regarding your edit i'm happy with the clarifications you've made and certainly feel all 4 of the bullets are valid as three link to their own articles which further clarify them whilst the other refers to this article. Regarding the Merseyside issue I do agree that many on the Wirral may take offence to the statement however I think it is necessary to highlight to strong association to two have. For example the following Echo article talks about the 'Liverpool Echo' being the 'heart of Merseyside' [2]. Also the article by enjoyengland talks about Merseyside as a port town and seems to merge all the areas into a larger urban expanse[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviessimo (talk • contribs) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

So let me get this straight. I'm a new user on Wikipedia who feels he can make a contribution to article related to the city and county in which he lives. I start to make article revisions and request opinions of other users on how development should occur. I recieve no replies and thus have to continue without fully knowing what others thinks and am then accused of unhelpful edits and have many hours of work reverted because apparently it doesn't help the article. Then to top it of i'm accused of being a sockpuppet of another user who apparently also vandalised this very article. This despite the facte that I have made helpful edits to other articles, ITN and even this very article. All of this and only one user, RFBailey has made any attempt to communicate with me. User Jza84 has still not replied to messages posted on the Wikiproject Merseyside page or to comments left on his talk page. Someone please explain what I have done to cause so much offense --Daviessimo (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
See User_talk:Dmcm2008 please. The issue of Liverpool's extent has been debated extensively. WP:CITE is none-negotiable - if you want uncited stuff to remain owing to you building up the material piece-by-piece (as you claimed in an edit summary), then please use a sandbox to write your draft, not the main article. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Gay section necessary?

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

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


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

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

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


To the person who write "It is necessary to all those people who cant go out for a night out without prejudice, threats and violence...": Grow up you conformist! Get a life! I am laughing to you you sanctomonious politically correct prick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.252.217 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kettle, pot. ^--198.179.147.171 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Woollyback

I wonder whether any editors here have knowledge of the term woollyback, the WP article for which was removed over the Christmas period and which I have requested be restored. It is still up for nomination so if you have views for or against this you may wish to let your views be known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woollyback. If you have any more useful and especially sourced information about the term your contributions to the woollyback article would be welcome. --Hauskalainen 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sports section - small error

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

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

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

I query the description of Everton's departure from Anfield as being "evicted". This isn't supported by the original Club records now held by Liverpool Records Office & accessible on-line. As the comment dosen't cite any reference it should be altered to a more accurate wording. Unfortunately I'm unable to make this correction myself. Gwladys24 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

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

Sounds good. Also, I think the image shows a fair number of Georgian properties so it could be linked in with the section which discusses that. ColdmachineTalk 17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation

Where the article says Liverpool has more galleries and national museums than any other city in the United Kingdom apart from London I have found a reference for it here: [4]. Unfortunately the article is protected so I cannot add this in, but I hope this will be useful to anyone who can edit it. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.28.14 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Education

Where in this is the mention of LIPA?! The Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts. website here: LIPA

94.192.162.158 (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Weather

Under geography section the article suggests that there are 282 days of rain in Liverpool whilst the avergae for the UK is 154. Enough to put you off coming here.

The former reference is from what appears to be a somewhat dodgy source called 'weatherbase' whilst the latter (Uk average) is from an authoratitive source - the UK Met office. The same Met office source indicates (from mapped averages data) that liverpool has in fact less than 130 days rain - so is somewhat less than UK average.

I have confirmed this from other sources (which ties in with my own weather experience living/working around UK).

Unless anyone has objections - I'll go try and change this. I am new to Wikipedia so should make an intersting small challenge.Quantum MaxPlanck (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering Manchester has 140 days of rain per year [5], 282 for Liverpool seems very high, especially since the UK figure of 154 covers Scotland which is very wet. It's probably safe to say 282 is wrong, so if you can find a reliable source that would be great. Since you're new, other more experienced users will be able to handle any formatting, but it might be worth reading wikipedia's policy on what is and isn't a reliable source. If you can find something published by the government or local authority, that would be considered enough. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, one way or another it needs to be sorted out. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This was flagged as a basic error some time ag- - with the suggestion being that Liverpool has twice the rain of the UK average. If good comparitive stats cant be found - they should all be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldohert (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[ttp://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/world/eng/europe/uk/liverpool_e.htm]puts it at 136. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection???

This article needs a lot of work on it and I don't think it being protected for prolonged periods of time is constructive. Non registered users can make important contributions and at the moment they are unable to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.161.190 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article has also been the target of persistent and significant long-term vandalism by non-registered users. If you'd like to contribute and feel this article is in need of improvement, then why not sign up for an account? ColdmachineTalk 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this because of scouser vs. manc rivalry? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Note - I mean nothing wrong by saying Scouser or Manc. But England = weird 192.12.88.7 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it had nothing to do with any rivalry, the article just gets vandalised a lot because it's a high traffic article. Last month it had c129,000 visitors. What changes need to be made to the article can be discussed here, on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'Self Pity City' - removal of nickname

The reason for the stated removal of the nick name, 'The Self Pity City' was rm nickname - sources are a mix of forums and yahoo answers - not reliable. All reliable sources show that the term is used in the pejorative sense and can be considered a slur. Might I add that the nickname is most definitely a slur, but a widely used nickname none the less. The sources provided showed that the nickname was used (though obviously not by the City Council), whether the nickname is considered to be complimentary or pejorative is hardly relevent to the stated fact. I hardly think council's in Bradford or Blackpool are going to run out and change their signs to say 'Bradistan' or 'Cesspool', but these are nicknames they are given all the same, in Bradford's case for its high Asian population, and Blackpool's over the assumend cleanliness of the town, beach and sea. The 'Self Pity City' is a nickname used in the media and by everyday people on the street, whether it was less the comlimentary, really doesn't matter, if we were only allowed to write nice things on Wikipedia, there really wouldn't be much point. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of this nickname 79.65.73.128 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The sources you provide a not reliable. If you can find a reliable source that uses the term in a non-historical reference sense then you've got a case. However, even then just because its used doesn't mean it is legitimate. Pretty much every area of the British media has at some point referred to Cristiano Ronaldo as the whinker or some derivative form but that doesn't mean his nickname is now that. To be honest, digging up nicknames that have such offensive and negative connotations seems a bit odd. Are you next going to add the nickname 'thief' to the scouser page, or perhaps 'terrorist' to the muslim page?? OK they are extreme cases, but what I am saying is that if you really want it mentioning it should go in the history section where it really belongs and not on the top of the page were its is likely to cause offence --Daviessimo (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Also neither the Blackpool or Bradford articles have the nicknames you mention in their infoboxes, so why are you intent on forcing it on the Liverpool article?? --Daviessimo (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The nickname is certainly justified (no offense lol), but unless there are plenty of valid sources describing it that way it shouldnt be in the article. Just had a quick look at where it was before, there is certainly no way it should be used in the info box. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Such edits are hardly encyclopaedic. Should we write in England that English people have a stiff upper lip, wear bowler hats, and don't like it when Germans take the best sun loungers? Or that Jews are money grubbing? Stereotypes don't inform the reader of anything and only seek to fuel the fires of prejudice and ignorance. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
None of the sources provided (a forum, answers.com and chavtowns.com) can be considered even close to reliable. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly have thought that as editors, it is within our powers of discretion to prove or disprove the stereotypes and base our edits on that, we simply state the facts (positive or negative, inoffensive or otherwise, there can be no comprimise on this, otherwise we are failing to provide concise information). I did not state that Liverpool was indeed a city full of self pitying, perm sporting charvers, that would hardly be my place, I simply stated that the nickname in question was used to refer to the city. In my mind the above references provided evidence that it was being used within certain factions, how well it has to be used to be considered a nickname is open to debate.

For instance, The Leeds page, gives the nicknames, 'Capital of the North' and 'Knightsbridge of the North', these are cited, but are certainly not nicknames used by anyone I know, they've just been lifted out of Lonely Planet and a couple of other guidebooks. The man on the street would never use them, the North doesn't have a capital and Leeds probably better emulates Croydon then Knightsbridge. The 'Self Pity City' nickname is somewhat different, it would certainly not be used in council literature, but it is actually used by everyday people in the street. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V we go on verifiability, not 'truth'. ColdmachineTalk 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
From the first line of the Lonely Planet article - "Lonely Planet Publications (usually known as Lonely Planet or LP) is one of the largest travel guidebook publishers in the world". They a reliable source and one of the foremost authorities on travel literature. The sources you provided are not. --Daviessimo (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The nickname 'the pool' has been added, with no citation, and I have never heard of this. The term 'pool' or 'pools' is more often used as an abreviation for Hartlepool. The page for Mackworth lists 'Smackworth' as a nick name and the page for Pontefract lists 'Ponte Carlo' as a nick name, neither of which is complimentary, although one with a unique sense of irony. I would not say that Lonely Planet or other prentensious travel guides listing these terms makes them 'nicknames', In my eyes proving they are used in an every day context makes them a nickname, while the citations I provided may not have been from the most respected authorities, an encyclopeia Brittanica citation would have been inpertinent given the context of the information. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

cathedrals/universities

While you may be strictly correct in deleting my sentence I think your reasoning is wrong. The "cathedrals" you speak of elsewhere are little more than nice parish churches, awarded "cathedral" status simply because of a the establishment of a new, usually Catholic, bishopric. Liverpool's two cathedrals were both purpose-built as such, and with the possible exception of the extension to Coventry cathedral are, AFAIK, the last two cathedrals to be built in the UK. I will seek sources. Also Liverpool does have three universities, which again I think is unique outside London. RodCrosby (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote the first line of WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". All information added to an article needs to be referenced and the statement you added wasn't. Just because information in the past was added without references doesn't mean it is alright to do it today. Anyway, whenever such a claim is made there is no way it can be left up there without a reliable reference.
I should also point out that it is very risky to add bold claims when they are not true because it can be perceived as POV pushing. It is not our place to decide what constitutes a 'real' cathedral. Irrelevant of how big they are or why they were built, other cities in the UK have two Cathedrals and you can't dispute that - they are the seat of the relevant diocese of the Catholic or Anglican church and that is a fact. Likewise the claim that Liverpool is the only city outside London to have three universities also appears false as the Birmingham article states that they have three as well. I appreciate that you are making edits in good faith but it is an absolute imperative that all new information you add to the article is referenced. --Daviessimo (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Bluecoat chambers

There is something wrong there. It is manifestly not in "Queen Anne style" as defined by WP Queen Anne style. Liverpool city council are not an "authority" on architectural styles, I would have thought. Perhaps they were using it as shorthand for buildings constructed in the style of the period of Queen Anne, which, confusingly, is something quite different to Queen Anne style. Sharples (2004) does not describe it as Queen Anne style; he does not ascribe any formal stylistic category to it, but describes it as "a vigorous but provincial style derived from Wren." [p.7] NB: compare photo of Hampton Court on the Wren page. RodCrosby (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact Queen Anne style contains information about such confusion. I think this needs to be changed to "Wren-style" RodCrosby (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have two sources that state Queen Anne Style. One, from the bid report provided to UNESCO, which gives a complete account of all areas under the WHS. This report states that information was provided by authorative bodies in Liverpool including the Universities and Museums and, interestingly enough, Joseph Sharples. Secondly, a book by Quentin Hughes, who can be considered somewhat of an authority on architecture in Liverpool, specifically states Queen Anne Style.
The assertion that because the Pevsner Guide (I presume this is the book you are refering to) does not give a style, all other information is false, does not hold up on Wikipedia, because it is entirely possible it the lacks the information because it wasn't known to the author. These guides contain a lot of older information that may not have been updated. Also it is worth remembering that per WP:V, the criteria for inclusion is not what is 'true', but what is verified. If you feel it is incorrect, you must find a source that states this and not rely upon the information being missing from one book, to provide evidence --Daviessimo (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't selectively quote me. I said in addition to Sharples not describing it as QAS he did describe it as something else - namely "a vigorous but provincial style derived from Wren." Also, I would have thought if you are going to try and use Sharples against Sharples a primary source trumps a secondary source! There is a manifest confusion here (the dates alone indicate that) and even WP:QAS itself highlights terminological confusion. With respect, it's a bit like insisting that Joe Bloggs, verifiably born 1923, fought in WWI, because a "source" says so, and refusing to budge until a "source" is produced verifying the existence of the error... Occam's razor says "WWI" is simply a misprint for "WWII." RodCrosby (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
So what are you proposing? Despite that fact that we have two sources that explicitly state it is Queen Anne, we remove becuase one source doesn't say it is (without explicitly stating that it isn't). I'm no expert on architecture, but I presume that whilst the styles come into and out of fashion, there is no definitive start and end point. Queen Anne reigned in the period immediately prior to construction of Bluecoat Chambers, and you would expect the subsequent architectural style has to relate in some way to building styles of this period (even it was most popular some time after). At the end of the day, there are two sources that state QAS and none that say it isn't, so there is no logic in removing the information. --Daviessimo (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No offence, but have you actually read WP:QAS? quote 'Confusion between buildings constructed during the reign of Queen Anne and the "Queen Anne" Style still persists, especially in England.' So there really are two separate things:- 'Queen Anne Style' and 'Queen Anne Style'. Ergo, just because a source says "Queen Anne Style" it should not necessarily point to WP:QAS. Bluecoat Chambers was constructed approx 150 years before WP:QAS was "coined" or "popularised" in its current form, so BC can't be WP:QAS, and I really don't think its the job of WP to perpetuate confusion. Can we leave it as "dubious" and see what others think? RodCrosby (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
reading between the lines, it appears there may be a case for Queen Anne Style (US) and Queen Anne Style (British)... RodCrosby (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - You should know I was thinking the same thing as you see from the reply I was posting below before the EC. I make the neccesary amendment. :)
Thats all well and good but on Wikipedia you can't cite Wikipedia - information has to come from a third party source. It is noticeable that in the paragraph where the confusion is mentioned no citation is provided. It is also noticeable that the article is heavily biased towards American Queen Anne style and usage, even though the origins of the style are in England. In that sense that paragraph could be breaching both WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but without sources we can't know. I still feel that irrelevant of what is said there, when you have two sources that state the building is QAS, it is wrong to assume that they are false. It is also interesting to note that the features quoted as being Queen Anne style from the times article in that para, are the same as the features defined in my Quentin Hughes book. That leads me to two conclusions:
-(1) The QAS article breaks NPOV and is heavily biased towards the American style. As such by lacking any information on the original UK Queen Anne style it is factually incorrect.
-(2) Bluecoat Chambers is likely an architectural hybrid in that it is influenced by multiple styles. I suspect both Queen Anne and Wren-style architecture have provided influence over its design. We have reliable sources that attest to both. This is not uncommon on Liverpool - the Cunard Building is a mix of Italian Rennaisance, Greek Revival and American Beaux Arts!
Now, as a compromise I will make an amendment that solves this issue, however, as the phrase QAS is references I will not remove from the article. I hope this is ok :)--Daviessimo (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've clarified it is British Queen Anne style, removed the link to that 'Americanised' article on it, and added the Wren influence. Can you provide a page reference for that. Cheers :s --Daviessimo (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. My memory has just been jogged why I had a "feeling" about this. 5 years ago I was on holiday in Canada (Vancouver), I made a special trip to New Westminster to see the 'Queen Anne Style' houses expecting to see something resembling the Bluecoat. I came away very confused! LOL! RodCrosby (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

New Infobox Picture

Hi, I have noticted you have changed your infobox pic. Personally I prefer the older one as the new one looks like there is a dirty, dark cloud over the city and you can't see the tree graces easily. I just think the older one looked better and I think it should be back as it creates a better picture of the city for people from outside the city. I think the new one creates a bad image, besides it's in the dark and most other cities infobox pics are in the light. What do you think guys? Please comment. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The pic would be good if that grey cloud wasn't on it. It just dosen't look very nice for a infobox pic. If someone could get another simular to that, but without that awful cloud it would be great for an infobox pic. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I prefer the old one. The new one smells of a copyright violation too.... but I must assume good faith that it isn't. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
strange picture, though not uninteresting or thought-provoking. It reminds me too much of a still from "Escape from New York"! RodCrosby (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I also prefer the old picture, as its the historic skyline that the city is renowned for. When was it actually changed? I've been away from Wiki for a while so I'm not sure. Anyway, in the interests of fairness, I think a poll is in order. Just add your votes --Daviessimo (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Original File:Liverpool_Pier_Head.jpg

--Daviessimo (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A problem with this nice photo is it is now quite out of date! RodCrosby (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support this image or something like it. It shows the three Graces and the Anglican cathedral and is the iconic view of the city; either this or a more modern equivalent. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Peter pretty much covers everything: while some of the details on the fringes may no longer be up-to-date, the Three Graces are still there and are more representative of Liverpool than the other picture, which could be one of any number of places. --RFBailey (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New File:Liverpool_city_centre_skyline.jpg


Well it's been a couple of days since anyone commented and I think that at the moment the original image remains the best bet. Obviously if we can get a more up to date image that would be great but at the moment this is the best we've got. Anyway unless there are any objections I'll change the images back round later --Daviessimo (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is fantastic that you guys have changed it back, it looks far better than the other one. But RodCrosby is right, the image is out of date now, and maybe someone should think about taking some new pics that are simular to the infobox pic now. However the current pic is good... for now at least. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New Again

I stitched together some images to produce

it's a panorama but from Everton Brow is this the true Liverpool.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks nice, I would recomend you use it on the article somewhere (not as the Infobox pic though).93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Wide image can be used for this kind of image. See below for how it would look. Nev1 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
How does this look?

any songs about Liverpool?

List of songs about Liverpool
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added In the town where I was born and Maggie May--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't remember any references about Liverpool in the Rod Stewart song, but apparantly there is one by the same name. I thus might modify it later, giving credit to both rod and the trad song.Civic Cat (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Rod Stewart's Maggie May is a different song from the Maggie Mae on The Beatles' Let it be album; the latter is the more traditional, local, version. Rodhullandemu 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Railways

This should be added..

Liverpool was the most innovative city in the world in rail alone. Liverpool has more railway first than any other city. The father of railways. Ask the average man in Church St and he will blankly look at you.

Merseyrail metro is the second oldest urban, underground, railway in the world, however sections of the network are quite historic being the oldest of any urban railway in the world. Merseyrail is in effect older than London Underground.

  • The first underground section of Merseyrail with stations originated in 1886 - Mersey Railway, the world's second underground rail network.
  • The world's first deep-level underground railway - 1886. The platforms of Hamilton Square are over 100 feet below the surface. Only elevators could reach the platforms.
  • The first underground stations bored out of solid rock.
  • The oldest currently electrified section dates from 1848, from Kirkdale to near the old Exchange Station, now a part of the Northern Line. The oldest of any electrified metro network in the world.
  • The oldest diesel section dates from 1830, being a part of the original Liverpool-Manchester Passenger railway, now a part of the City Line. The oldest part of any urban railway in the world.
  • The world's oldest used railway station, Broad Green, dating from 1830, is on the Merseyrail network.
  • Merseyrail runs through the worlds oldest used tunnel at Edge Hill station - 1836.
  • Liverpool Overhead Railway was the first designed from the outset as an electric urban railway.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first railway in the world to be multi-level. Passengers on top with freight under.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first to use light-rail trains.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first to use Electric Multiple Unit trains (EMUs). No locomotive is used as the traction motors are under the passenger cars. It is the model used world-wide today.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first to use EMUs underground at Dingle.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first to use electric light signals.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first to use auto signalling.
  • Liverpool Overhead was the first to use an escalator.
  • Liverpool, the first inter-city railway - to Manchester. The model used today world-wide.
  • Liverpool's 1829 1.26 mile long Wapping Tunnel was the first bored under a metropolis. (could be re-used again and it would be the oldest underground section of any railway in the world).
  • Liverpool built the world's first goods station at Park Lane - Kings Dock. Accessed by a 1.26 mile long tunnel.
  • Liverpool built the world's first rail junction/goods yard at Edge Hill
  • Liverpool built the first ocean liner/rail terminal - Riverside station. accessed by a 2.1 mile tunnel.

Liverpool had abandoned two rail stations by the time London built its first station. 79.65.73.128 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Crime rate 1988-1992

Researchers connected to the Transcendental Meditation movement published a study in a peer-reviewed journal which claims that the crime rate of Merseyside was dramatically reduced in the 1988-1992 period due to the effect of having many people meditating in Skelmersdale, about 19km away, which they call the Maharishi Effect. In addition to lowering the crime rate, their actions kept the rate down in Merseyside while they say it increased by 45% in the rest of the country. They calculate that 255,000 crimes were prevented in Merseyside over the five years. Based on a statement by the Home office that the average cost of a crime is £5,000, they calculate that they saved the citizens of Merseyside £1,250,000,000, or about US $2.1 billion.

Setting aside questions about the Maharishi Effect, do these numbers seem plausible? The BBC reported that there were 716,500 crimes across the country in 2001, presumably more than in 1992 due to increased population. Is it possible that there was a reduction of 50,000 crimes per year in Merseyside alone? Merseyside accounts for only about 3% of the country's population, so a reduction in crimes equal to about 7% of all crimes in the country seems extraordinary. This may be headed from the WP:FRINGE noticeboard, but I thought I'd ask here first to see if anyone had additional information or insight about these statistics.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool/Archive_2&oldid=1136959545"