Talk:Liverpool/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

Sports

Rugby League

Rugby league is a developing sport in Liverpool, with many community partners assisting the sport's governing body (RFL) to offer opportunities to participate. These include well established professional clubs in the neighbouring towns of St. Helens and Widnes. The city has a thriving student rugby league scene; Liverpool University took part in the first university game in 1968 and the other universities have been regular participants in the BUSA competition.

Today there are a number of non-professional clubs in the city, including Liverpool Buccaneers, who in 2006 won the regional final of the Rugby League Conference and in 2008 were elevated to the Rugby League Conference National division. Two junior clubs, Liverpool Lions (based in Croxteth) and Liverpool Storm (based in Childwall), have been established in 2008. They will be competing in the NWC Junior leagues in 2009. Rugby league has more recently returned to Huyton-with-Roby in the form of the Huyton Bulldogs A.R.L.F.C. Huyton Bulldogs currently compete in the RL Merit League, and their home ground is at the Jubilee Playing Fields, Twig Lane, Huyton.

A number of secondary schools throughout Merseyside are now participating in the inaugural merit league and 2008 is the first year that Merseyside schools have qualified for the RFL's Champion Schools tournament. Primary schools have been competing in tag festivals for a few years and the annual Tag World Cup is one of the major events in the Liverpool schools' competition calendar.

source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Stanley (rugby league in liverpool) 172.193.50.222 (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source for other articles. External published sources must be provided to support your request. See WP:CIRCULAR for further information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool vs "Liverpool Authority" area

I have previously explained via edit summaries why the changes made are incorrect. Below is the comment I left at Correctus2kX page for clarity. He has not responded to the talk page requests, nor has he provided sources nor explanation of why he is correct in his interpretation. In addition he has claimed other cities also differentiate between their city area and their "council area" (whatever that means) but per the below, I checked over three dozen other city articles and could find not a single UK city that did so, and only in the limited cases of smaller Met Boroughs named for smaller areas could I find anywhere close. However in those cases, the smaller component parts each had their own articles, as did the named "borough".

Copying for benefit of Correctus2kX from his talk page:

Okay, I am going to assume you have completely misread or misunderstand legal and government entities. Firstly, Birmingham does not reference the Met Borough because the Met Borough is the city. It does mention the metropolitan area in the lede however, which consists of Birmingham and its surrounding cities and towns (the equivalent of the Liverpool/Birkenhead Metropolitan area which is mentioned in Liverpool's lede).

Secondly, if you look at the Manchester article for instance, it is treated as one and the same because of the self same reasons as I have given for Liverpool (Greater Manchester being a distinct entity to the Met Borough of Manchester which is the City of Manchester). In fact I don't think you will find a single Metropolitan borough which is both a city and unitary authority that differentiates between the city proper and the met borough because in law they are the same thing since 1972 (or in subsequent law).

In contrast, Metropolitan Borough of St Helens and Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley are distinct as they are made up of multiple distinct towns of villages falling under a new single authority. There is no single city authority in law, so they are named for something or after something. Koncorde (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is here to prompt discussion. Koncorde (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Per most recent revert "I have not provided any information" I point to the above and ask the user, what do you want? ONS? Already linked and used for all regional, area and population statistics? What definition are you using of Liverpool? Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I support Koncorde's wording - it is clear, while Correctus2kX's wording is confusing. Hopefully we can all agree that the city, metropolitan borough, council and local authority are all synonymous with each other. In discussing the population of Liverpool, it makes sense to go from the smallest (the borough), to the next largest (the urban area), and then to that of the metropolitan area or city region. The wording by Correctus, in contrast, goes from that of the city/borough to that of the metropolitan area, with a final sentence concerning the urban area. That approach is confusing. I will revert the text to Koncorde's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to accept changes in ordering, or even if there is some new definition or alternate definition of Liverpool "city" be that the centre, or including the current suburban zones, or even some historic expanse, but everything must be sourced to reliable sources and historic population references (such as including "Bootle" and / or the areas in the immediate proximity to the north and south) needs exceptional referencing and likely to be placed in the historic, or even the demographics / geography sections where it can be dealt with in detail. Koncorde (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This whole problem may be an issue of British usage. In the UK, the term "city" relates specifically to the local authority area and boundaries. It does not refer to the wider urban area, which includes suburbs in different local authorities such as Bootle. See the article on City status in the United Kingdom. I've linked the word "city" to that article, for clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding Bootle, like Crosby / Formby have never been part of Liverpool (similarly Huyton /Roby) usually falling under other distinct parishes, districts or Boroughs (unless I have missed one in my research over the years, I think Bootle was a manor then Township, then Civil Parish, then wrapped up in a district before finally ending up in Sections boundaries). So if there is some other concept of Liverpool covering those areas - it's niche, probably one of those soft references about it being 'swallowed up'. Koncorde (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

this wording is more confusing and needs rewording to reflect that that is the population of the Liverpool city council area only. Readers are not being informed of this with the current wording.Correctus2kX (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference? Do you have any sources that indicate the thing you say? What is the difference between Liverpool, the City of Liverpool and the Metropolitan Borough by your definitions because I can't find anything like them? Koncorde (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

Dyaluk08 has attempted on two occasions to make poor quality edits to the lead. Firstly, the lead is a summary of the main article - new material should be included there, with or without citations. Secondly, there is no source for giving Germany primacy as a source of immigrants, or indeed to separate out Norway and Sweden. Thirdly, it is incorrect to pipe Ireland to the Republic, as historically immigrants to Liverpool came from all parts of the island of Ireland. Fourthly, the claim that "many Liverpudlians [consider] themselves more Irish than English" is very poorly sourced. Fifthly, the reference to T. P. O'Connor gives it undue weight for the lead. Sixthly, the reference to the city's anti-Conservative feelings (while very possibly true) is very poorly written, and unsourced. Finally, all the references use bare URLs, which is very bad practice. The paragraph should be reverted to its pre-existing state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Would agree with the above. Sourcing in particular was problematic. I would have no objection to a sentence referring to the influence of Irish, and also of Catholicism, as they probably are significant enough historically to the formation of the city culturally. However the claim that Liverpudlians don't see themselves as English is going to take some extraordinary sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The basic problem comes when well-intentioned but relatively inexperienced editors attempt to add interesting material to the lead section of an article, without first addressing the much bigger problems in the main text of the article. Both this article and the History of Liverpool article are really quite poor in giving an overview of the key points in the historical development of the city. It's a big job, and it isn't best addressed by adding in ad hoc snippets of information. I have several large books on the history of Liverpool, covering such matters as the immigration to the city from Ireland, Wales and elsewhere - and everything else. Whether I will ever find the time or inclination to add it into this or related articles, I'm not sure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Lots to do. Lot of history to summarise from a lot of perspectives. There may be some of the work already done if there as Irish diaspora article somewhere perhaps? Koncorde (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

skatepark 82.20.70.194 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done: the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". -- Dr Greg  talk  09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

Rohan Westbury (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC) The history of Liverpool can be traced back to 1190 when the place was known as 'Liuerpul', possibly meaning a pool or creek with muddy water, though other origins of the name have been suggested.

 Not done. This is already mentioned under "Origins of the name", and there is no evidence that there was a settlement there before 1207. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

The population of Liverpool in 2020 is 901708 not 498,042 as that is what it was in 2011 82.10.198.57 (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done A source would be required for that. But separately, just logically, can you imagine a city nearly doubling in population size in a decade? So something is wrong, or at least very questionable. So, what you are probably looking at is the population figure of the Liverpool Urban Area, which is not Liverpool. Koncorde (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Liverpool has a population of 901,623 82.10.198.57 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Already dealt with above. You are not referring to Liverpool but the urban area. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

Is the following citation sufficient to change the text ...Battles for control of the town were waged during the English Civil War, including an eighteen-day siege in 1644.[citation needed]... to .....Battles for control of the town were waged during the English Civil War, including a four day siege in 1644. I have found a reference to four days siege in the following citation on page 71. It reads The siege began on 7 June and lasted over four days. Gratton, Malcolm (2007). "Liverpool under parliament: the anatomy of a civil war garrison, May 1643 to June 1644" (PDF). Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 156 (2007): 51–74. doi:10.3828/transactions.156.4. Retrieved 2020-06-29.}. CaseyJones121974 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I did some surface-level digging and it seems like sources don't all agree, which is why I think this change should first be discussed:

• The ref at History of Liverpool says sixteen, though I personally have strong doubts about the reliability as a source of a cartoon history site for kids.
• John Corry writes twenty-four starting on June 2nd: The History of Liverpool: From the Earliest Authenticated Period Down to the Present Times, p. 58, at Google Books.
• Henry Smithers also writes twenty-four: Liverpool, Its Commerce, Statistics, and Institutions: With a History of the Cotton Trade, p. 28, at Google Books.
• E. M. Platt writes four or five starting on the 7th: Platt, E. M. (March 4, 1909). "Liverpool during the Civil War" (PDF). Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 61 (1909): 188. Retrieved June 29, 2020.
• Richard Brooke writes about twenty-four: Liverpool as it was During the Last Quarter of the Eighteenth Century. 1775 to 1800, p. 126, at Google Books.

Not sure what the typical procedure is for conflicting sources, but discussion can't hurt. Rummskartoffel (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

City nicknames

So I have never thought to really look at the list of nicknames, assuming they were obscure or irreverent because I have never heard of most of them, or only heard versions of them informally, but @Dyaluk08: did a fix tonight about some quotations and I notice the Jung quote which jarred as I remembered reading the full quote decades ago, and realised that's what we were sourcing the nickname claim to. Anyway, the Nickname tag at the top is meant to be used for names that are synonymous with the city (such as "The Big Apple" for New York), but all I can see or find are temporarily assigned titles (such as for promotional work for the City of Culture which have since been abandoned) or passing recognition from Guinness Book of Records (which I have added for the moment as at least it is sourced, and people might have a clue which city is being referred to it). Worryingly, some such as the "Pool of Life" have now been co-opted by a hotel chain who have had the great idea of adding a "copyright" to the titles of a variety of nicknames for cities all over the UK. Not sure how they hope to enforce that or whether it is only associated with the artwork. Anyway, if anyone can find some authoritative source for nicknames being used (and I know there were definitely some in the 1800's when Liverpool docks were considered a modern wonder of the world), let me know as otherwise it just seems like unsourced cruft. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of North West England.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Headers are broken

Can someone fix the headers? They're all messed up Sikiwucks (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done --David Biddulph (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Change "it" to "its" in "...led to it becoming a tourist destination." The gerund "becoming" requires a possessive pronoun to precede it in this case. Joshuawf01 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "[has] led to it becoming a tourist destination" sounds like perfectly acceptable English to my non-grammatician ears. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool

Liverpool is going to make crazy in the fa cup it's a going to be a good year for them and spurs should really start practicing. 41.114.139.182 (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the city. There is a separate article about Liverpool F.C., but it should not contain predictions unless they are relevant and cite a reliable source. Certes (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Liverpool Population, again

@Atrahasis01, Correctus2kX, Chrism, Ghmyrtle, LicenceToCrenellate, Dr Greg, and EdJohnston: I have pinged recent contributers to the talk page, or that have bee directly involved in the edit / reversion process. Further to recent changes to the lede. To cover all bases.

1. Liverpool is both a City and a Metropolitan Borough. There is no delineation between the two. There is no official metric of a Liverpool that is not both the City and the Borough as a minimum. In case this is unclear - Liverpool was a Borough (with a council) before it was a City. When City status was conferred, it was conferred on Liverpool as a Borough (with a council).
2. There is no population difference between Liverpool Metropolitan Borough and the City. There is no functional difference between the Local Authority (as was previously attempted to be changed) and the Borough, as the Local Authority is the representative and administrative entity for the Borough and City. We have asked previously for any sources to back up any of these changes and none have been provided. In contrast the sources currently provided are the two main principle authorities on the matter The ONS[1] and NOMIS (using the ONS dataset).

Prior discussion was here in the archive.

• To quote Ghmyrtle at that time: "Hopefully we can all agree that the city, metropolitan borough, council and local authority are all synonymous with each other".
• To quote Correctus: "this wording is more confusing and needs rewording to reflect that that is the population of the Liverpool city council area only. Readers are not being informed of this with the current wording".

These positions are mutually exclusive, and as yet there has been no explanation of why there is a difference, nor have any sources been provided to counter the position of the ONS (even colloquially). Koncorde (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the text of the citation can be improved. It states "The mid-2019 est. population for the whole of Liverpool was 498,042....", which could be ambiguous as "the whole of Liverpool" could refer to a wider area. It might be better to say "the Metropolitan Borough...". The term "city" also has a specific meaning in the UK - as well as a more general meaning - which may be at variance with that used elsewhere, and we should be cautious about using the word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea why anyone would say "whole of Liverpool" unless they think something within Liverpool isn't actually, and City is pretty common parlance. It is used in 90% of the 60 or so cities I checked last time such as Manchester. The lede sentence is pretty much a carbon copy, as was, of those I checked to try and be neutral. Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Ghmyrtle, the current wording of the opening paragraph is clear without misleading people about the figure which the 498,042 refers to. It can't be ambiguous. Correctus2kX (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Correctus2kX:That is not what Ghmyrtle said... Ghmyrtle is referring to the citation being ambiguous for using the term "whole of Liverpool" suggesting that there is a difference between the "whole" and the "not whole" He is not referring to the body text. Still no evidence as to what you are referring to here by suggesting there is a difference between Borough and City. Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think he/she can speak for themselves. There is no implication of difference in making it clear which population definition is referred to by the 498,042 figure. Correctus2kX (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Umm. They did when they said "I wonder if the text of the citation can be improved", and yes, the inference is clear that there is some difference, otherwise why would you try to insert it, particularly after failing to use "local authority" previously. You evidently believe this is somehow an improvement, but the prior discussion ended with you not responding at all when asked to clarify what you meant. If you are intending there not to be a difference between the two - then the clarification is not required. If you are intending there to be a difference, please provide a citation to that effect. Koncorde (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't comment on the opening sentence, only on the footnote. The clearest way of opening the article would be to say: "Liverpool is a city and metropolitan borough in Merseyside, England. Its population in 2019 was...." The city and borough are synonymous with each other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle and how they have suggested it be worded. If there is no evidence there is a difference between the city and borough stats then it serves no purpose using 'borough'. "Its population in 2019 was...." is right. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Population: Whilst I understand there is no distinction between metropolitan district and city as we are talking about the same thing, I believe the article can factually state that Liverpool is the 6th largest English city based on the same 'list of English districts' article, because you just exclude the entries that are not both a metropolitan district and a city. It's also worth noting that the Manchester article does not use the same population reference and has preferred to reference the urban area (i.e. Greater Manchester population, not just Manchester). Consistency of approach should be the goal. SO937 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Economic impact

Hello @LicenceToCrenellate: As the source reflects this is relevant to human travel with an animal, animal importation for sale to a human in the UK, the employment of those handling animals, and livestock in the country. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 July 2022 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with Liverpool (i.e. what is the relevant content) and what significance does this actually have to warrant inclusion at this particular article versus every other article? It seems to be something that would have to be extraordinarily significant. Way more than Table 1 would warrant, which seems to be associated specifically with Quarantine Kennels which are (for obvious reasons) associated with Ports of entry so a coincidence of location rather than some particular source of an outbreak (i.e. you would expect a Quarantine Kennel to be the place to find infectious diseases and parasites before being released into general population). Koncorde (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That is inadequate yes. I will find more support in a few hours. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

Hi the page needs an edit on the community shield as Liverpool have now won it again in 2022/23 season Kieran2200022 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

population 498.042 (est2019) to 486,100 (2021 census)

Sim2500 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm pretty sure there's an alternative to using xlsx files Aaron Liu (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

Please correct the date of birth for Jean Alexander 194.207.67.188 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Declined - First of all your request appears to be misplaced as there is no mention of "Jean Alexander" within the article. Secondly, you have not stated what the DOB is. We at Wikipedia are not mind readers, y'know. And last but not least, you need to provide a Reliable Source for your change, otherwise it will just be declined again. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

You have not stated that Andrew Jameson is a notable swimmer. He is from Liverpool and went to school in Liverpool (in my class) before he was whisked away while still of school age to train to be the Olympic swimmer he was and win a gold medal in the commonwealth games. 2A02:C7E:C93:D900:A8EC:4CB5:729B:675A (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

The Population is now 500,500 it was in the Liverpool echo today, Confirmed population of Liverpool in 2022 78.145.42.49 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Please change official_name from Liverpool to Liverpool, United Kingdom Lace.her (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Simple answer - no. Longer answer - see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I don't think anyone would argue that the city of Liverpool in the United Kingdom is the primary topic should anyone mention "Liverpool" without any sort of qualification. Everything else Liverpool related, derived its name from the city so it is right that Liverpool points to this article and everything else can be see at Liverpool (disambiguation). You are of course welcome to challenge this by requesting a page move - see WP:MOVE and read the instructions on how to do this. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Jones

Your list of surnames and their origins is incorrect. The surname Jones originated in England - it begins with a letter not even contained in the Welsh alphabet! Such articles as this are liable to be infiltrated by various nationalists who are eager to drive an artificially divided picture of the United Kingdom. Roberts is also not a surname of Welsh origin.

(81.129.126.104 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC))

Thanks for the post. I have no opinion on what you say, but as it happens, the geographic origins were not referenced - the newspaper articles only listed the names, not their origins - and so I have removed them as original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

• The Pain Relief Foundation: 3 March 2010.

Please add website link to the Pain Relief Foundation https://painrelieffoundation.org.uk/ 85.255.237.220 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Lightoil (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

In the section headed 'Religion' the top photograph of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral has a caption with the word 'Cathedrals'. "Please change Cathedral's to Cathedrals" since it's not possessive. 82.71.17.250 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

• The Pain Relief Foundation: 3 March 2010.

Please add website link to the Pain Relief Foundation https://painrelieffoundation.org.uk/ 85.255.237.220 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Lightoil (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

In the section headed 'Religion' the top photograph of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral has a caption with the word 'Cathedrals'. "Please change Cathedral's to Cathedrals" since it's not possessive. 82.71.17.250 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

@Liverpolitan1980, rather than WP:EDITWAR, it's better we discuss on here first and try to come to a consensus with others. I can see you feel passionately about it and I've nothing against a line that Liverpool has a metropolitan area of over 2 million. But we really do need a better source than an independent report from well over a decade ago. Especially given that the report was to recommend the creation of the Liverpool City Region LEP which has ended up with a population of 1.5 million. Formerly, the claim was based on the ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom of Liverpool-Birkenhead. But that data is from 2001 and the UK doesn't seem to use this category since we left the European Union. I think probably the nearest thing now is the travel to work areas. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also just noticed you've added the line and reference twice in two separate parts of the lead. Surely once will suffice? Dgp4004 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming your position. I agree that there is no controversy over Liverpool's metropolitan area. That is the reason that this fact has stood the test of time through the consensus of other contributors. A better source has now been added from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority which makes it clear that Liverpool's metropolitan area extends in to northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire. Indeed, the Liverpool city region shares its boundaries with neighbouring areas including Cheshire West and Chester, Lancashire, Warrington, and Wigan. It is virtually one contigous urban sprawl. If you would like further proof of this, I can show you a night time satellite view from the international space station? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing it. It doesn't matter what I think - only that we can find decent sources to back it up. This second source is more recent which is good. But it still doesn't say that there's a Liverpool metropolitan area with a population of 2 million. What I can find is:

"Situated in the northwest of England, the Liverpool City Region covers an area of 724 square kilometres and has a population of around 1.5 million people. The City Region also has a much bigger economic hinterland extending into northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire. It shares its boundaries geographically with neighbouring areas including Cheshire West and Chester, Lancashire, Warrington, and Wigan."

But if that's the best we have, leave it in until something better comes up I suppose. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I am sure it's out there. The metropolitan area isn't going anywhere in that time. The counties haven't moved since 2011 and neither has the population shrunk. I agree that we should leave it as it is now and add more sources if they can be found. Thanks for that, all the best! Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also just a note to say that the second comma here makes it read that Liverpool has a population of 1.5 million, not Liverpool City Region. Without the comma, the LCR has a pop of 1.5 million:

'It is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK, with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021.'

We could either do away with the second comma or perhaps rephrase it. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I agree come to think of it, youre right. Happy for the second comma to go. Thanks a lot! (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC))

This source doesn't support the Met area without OR and SYNTH. Page 19 references an "economic" region, but this is specifically not a metropolitan area (which has a very specific methodology for calculation) and is instead a mishmash of travel to work zones. Even it's claim of an "urban area" does not align with the definition of an urban area. This is fine when talking in a general sense (such as in the Demography section) to talk about the different ways the region may be defined in different situations - but a stretch to assert that the definition is common or current.

This Article only tangentally refers to the metropolitan area, but it's specifically only in reference to the LCR (so excludes those other areas mentioned).

Reliance on an independent report from 2011 and a document about Rights of Way to support several of the new additions is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in the current way it is structured.

Regarding ESPON, as the last formal measure of the Met Areas it is the one retained at the moment on wikipedia. There is a broader discussion (or multiple thereof) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography trying to resolve the issue between BUA, BUASD, Met Urban Area and myriad other measurements that have come and gone without ever being formally updated.

Echoing DGP comment, the sentence around "It is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK, with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021" isn't well worded and is conflating a number of things and combined with the Built Up Area, and so on, it means we're referring to 3 different ways of measuring largely the same area and its population based on different ONS or similar metrics and criteria. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is nothing incorrect about the fact that Liverpool is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021. It is fact and there is nothing wrong with the wording either. 3 different ways of measuring largely the same area is not wrong either. This is wikipedia - it is an encycolpedia where different measurements are displayed. Liverpool is a large city within a wider built up area within a metropolitan area. It's the same with all big cities around the world. Move on, nothing to see here. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also be careful to apply the precise same logic to every single city on wikipedia - paying particular attention to the core UK cities of Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. Not that there is a separate logic for UK geography. Whatever you discuss here applies to every city on Wikipedia so you might as well start a very large discussion about all those cities. As far as I can see on first glance, pay attention to Glasgow, Belfast, Bristol and Nottingham who make reference to their built up areas and/or metropolitan areas. Perhaps remove them and make a talk conversation there. Or maybe we could just leave things as they have been for years where absolutely no big issue has been made about the fact that Liverpool happens to be in the middle of a large urban area. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to: you cannot both claim something was "abolished" at a census (it wasn't, the data just wasn't updated) while referencing the Liverpool Built-up Area in the third sentence of this article and also claiming other, older, data remains valid. The actual methodology has changed as they have functionally not created an updated version of the broader BUA concept, and instead simplified the BUASD as the BUA, but can find the relevant 2021 article here at the ONS and the dataset is here.

A battleground attitude isn't going to work with me, I suggest you re-read my words. Koncorde (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Greater Manchester Built Up Area - yes that was abolished at the 2021 Census. It is now the Manchester built up area - DGP above updated the statistics accordingly and correctly. The Liverpool Built-up Area still exists. Check your facts. The other, older, data remains valid - it is not coming from outdated ONS methodologies. On the other hand - any double standard applies to you. If you wish to keep outdated ONS methodologies then you must keep information which you claim to be outdated. You can't have it both ways. A battleground won't work me either - I don't do rubbish arguments that are biased to one area. I see you haven't started a discussion on every single city page on wikipedia?

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't "abolish" things in the ONS, they change methodology or change definitions which makes historic measurements less relevant (or easier to compare with). This: Liverpool Built-up Area and this Greater Manchester Built-up Area use the same methodology that was only updated in 2011 and not 2021. In 2021 they defined the BUASD (previously the areas known as Liverpool, St Helens, Huyton and so on) as BUA. The "Liverpool Built-up Area" is now solely E63001374, just as "Manchester Built-up Area" is E63001295 for the purposes of arguing that one or the other has been abolished. Again, if can you please read my words (and yes, I have engaged repeatedly at wikiproject geography about the correct definitions used). Koncorde (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I will clarify. 'Abolish' to mean that the methodology is no longer used. Abolish means to formally put an end to a system, practice, or institution. Which the ONS has done because they no longer calculate the Greater Manchester built up area. But that is rather splitting hairs. You are welcome to re-instate the figure if you wish so long as you apply the same logic to other older sources from the exact same year - 2011. I don't see what your problem is here. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You picked a fight because you failed to read my original message, and instead have gone off onto other stuff. If you actually read my comments I have not demanded any changes, I have pointed out issues with sourcing, I pointed out the reason the ESPON figures have been used on wikipedia and directed conversation / question to the main wikiproject talk board for more information, and I agreed with DGP's criticism of that sentence - and expanded on the conflation of subject. These were entirely neutral comments on the topic with absolutely 0 personal animus and yet the response was clearly not AGF. I "have no problem", I am contributing to an article I have contributed to for over a decade. Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why cities can't be measured in 3 different ways. That is the whole point that we measure built up areas and metropolitan areas in the first place. I am afraid you have no argument there. And there is nothing wrong with the sources.

The RT Hon Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy refer to an urban region "centred on Liverpool" that spreads from Wrexham and Flintshire to Chester, Warrington, West Lancashire and across to Southport with a population of some 2.3m in October 2011.

The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority refers to the city region having "a much bigger economic hinterland extending into northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire." That source is from 2018. I am happy to find more sources that refer to this exact same area because I am certain that they are out there. And the concept of Liverpool's metropolitan area has been on the article for quite some time - without any controversy.

It is precisely the same geographic area in both sources whatever way you try to twist it.

So I will ask you again. What is it that you have a problem with. Is it the population? Shall we calculate that here by adding up all the various local authorities in this area? I have no issue with the population being "over 2 million". It is merely a guide.

Could it be that Liverpool is recognised as being part of larger area with a 2 million strong population perhaps?

Or is it wikipedia experience that you have a problem with, I am not sure why you brought that up.

I have contributed over 97,000 bytes to this article. Also from an old username that I retired some time ago. By far and way the single biggest contributor to it. But I am sure neither of us wish to claim ownership. No-one has caused any controversy over the subject of Liverpool having a metropolitan area before, however, I have come across your username before over the years though and I seem to remember you being focussed on Liverpool's population for some time. Particularly within the context of it being in a larger area. I am not sure why you find that strange.

I am glad to see that you are not demanding any changes here. Perhaps we should let this rest. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't read what I said and are instead assuming a battleground mentality. I have no issue with their being a "Metropolitan area". Your sources do not support it however, and are a form of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have a reliable source (ESPON) that is out of date (but "over 2 million" would be acceptable), or some other specific measurable of a metropolitan area if you can source it - but claims such as "which includes urban areas in the neighbouring counties of northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire" is incorrect and unsupported without OR and SYNTH.

With regards to three different measurements: I am explaining that they are conflating meanings. That's it. Particularly when choosing between different variations of the city, the borough, the district, the built up area, urban area, met area to conflate in any given sentence. I have no issue with Liverpool being part of, or within, or a member, or principal of a larger whole. But what is claimed must be supported.

And I mention my background because you are alleging, and again here, something. I have WP:AGF'd your contributions. You are not extending the same to me.

I'll "let this rest" when you actually understand the issue with the sourcing and phrasing and engage in consensus building. Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As regards my phraseology "which includes urban areas in the neighbouring counties of northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire". This is explicitly supported by The RT Hon Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy. They literally refer to an urban region "centred on Liverpool" that spreads from Wrexham and Flintshire to Chester, Warrington, West Lancashire and across to Southport with a population of some 2.3m in October 2011. How much more support do you want?

I would be happy to reinstate the ESPON source and state "over 2 million". It was not me that removed it.

There is also no reasoning behind the lead 'conflating meanings'. It is very clear as to which population refers to which specific geography. Any conflation would be through a lack of comprehension and I credit wiki readers with more intelligence than that. As I say, no big controversy there.

I will have to leave it there for tonight.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

An urban region is not a metropolitan and so on and so forth. Your interpretation is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR of a paper that is specifically not stating what such a met area is. It's really simple. The paper discusses the Liverpool City Region, it then discusses the idea of an economic region around the LCR. If you wanted to use the paper correctly the sentence would read: "The city forms part of a larger urban area that stretches from North-East Wales to Lancashire and Greater Manchester, with a population over 2.3 million people." This then neither conflicts with the ESPON, which remains the only authoritative study of Metropolitan areas in Europe, or the discussion of the Megalopolis when referred to later in Demography or economic areas and so on.

To break down some of the conflation: "The city is part of the third largest contiguous built-up area in England and Wales (excluding London)." The "Built-up Area" links to the Liverpool Built Up Area page which is indeed a "contiguous built-up area", population 864,000. This reflects List of urban areas in the United Kingdom this list, which would make Liverpool 4th or 5th depending on inclusion or exclusion of London (and Glasgow). Pointless to "exclude" London, "outside London" would be better phrasing. However the source that has been added is the 2021 ONS figures of the BUA of Liverpool only (previously the BUASD of Liverpool within the Liverpool Built-up Area) of 506k. This is not the same "contiguous built-up area" methodology of 2011. So which population figure is intended, because the infobox then lists this same ONS BUA figure as the Urban population total.

Subsequently we use the term "District". It's clunky when just as easy to say the city or borough. The sentence is easily parsed as meaning the District (unmentioned until now) as having the population of 1.5m "It is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021.". It is instead clearer to write "Liverpool is the largest borough in the Liverpool City Region. The LCR is a combined authority with a population of 1.5m, the fourth largest in the UK". or "Liverpool is the largest borough in the Liverpool City Region combined authority. The LCR has a population of 1.5m, the fourth largest in the UK". Koncorde (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If it is just a matter of phrasing I am sure that is simple. I will work on it, however, some of that phrasing hasn't come from me and has been amended in time. We agree that Liverpool sits in a larger urban region so without overcomplicating any more this can be settled quite easily I am sure. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with district in my view. I know some people dislike the term thinking of it as an Americanism. But it is the term used by the ONS and that's good enough for me. We certainly can't say 'largest city' as it's the only city in LCR. 'Borough' is alright if you can't abide 'district'. But it's not as clear as district. Strictly speaking, you'd have to know that every district in LCR is a borough first. But I'm nitpicking there.

On the BUA, personally I'd oppose going back to 2011 statistics which are now well over a decade out of date and are no longer used by the ONS. But I also don't see the point of including the new 2021 BUA figure personally. In one of the sections perhaps but not the lead or the infobox. The article is primarily about the district (there are separate articles about the built up area). And given that the BUA is now only a little larger than the district population, it doesn't lend itself to showing how Liverpool is part of something bigger, if that's the aim.

And I'd oppose even stronger quoting a statistic (ESPON) from 2001, going on for 25 years old. If it was the year 2000, we wouldn't countenance including statistics from the 1970s.

To me, the obvious next level up for Liverpool is the Liverpool City Region. Just as wider region for Manchester is the Greater Manchester city region. There's no need to be quoting ancient statistics when we have figures for 2021 for the city regions. And they'll be updated for 2022 in spring 2024. And for every year from now.

My own preference would be to quote the population of the district and perhaps the population of the LCR. But drop the 2011 and 2001 figures. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have amended the lead taking on board thecomments. I don't think it's helpful to get in to debates as to whether the built up area should or should not be included – so long as sources are reliable and verifiable there is no reason to discount them. I think we have all agreed on that already and we should put personal preferences aside. The surrounding urban region is better clarified by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority whom share close political and economic links with surrounding local authorities. There is every reason to include this since this is the situation that Liverpool finds itself in and it fairly common for major cities to inlclude information on their wider metropolitan context. I am fairly happy that there is no more need to overcomplicate things.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Liverpolitan identity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liverpolitan identity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpolitan identity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)