Wikipedia

Talk:Liverpool City Region

Latest comment: 24 days ago by Koncorde in topic Nomination of Liverpolitan identity for deletion
Learn more about this page

Concern edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Like Greater Liverpool, I'm a little bit concerned that this article is based not on a reliable source, but personal perspective. Can anybody out there do a quick attribution of sources please? Otherwise, I'm tempted to prod this article for deletion on grounds of WP:CITE. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Liverpool City Region redirects to Greater Merseyside, as far as I know this 'region' of Merseyside & Halton is called the City Region not Greater Merseyside, there are sources for this. It would be better to rename this page as Liverpool City Region and alter some of the text on this page. The Manchester City Region page is an example and it is much more direct. I would personally have the city region as the lead page for this article with perhaps a sub section on Greater Merseyside(the official term/Origins) and Greater Liverpool (the unofficial term) which does have some merits. But that is my personal opinionDmcm2008 (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I also favour the renaming of this as Liverpool City Region - compatibility with Manchester City Region is relevant here I think. Some of the information clearly requires better sourcing, but not deletion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

On top of this there is the also the 'Category:Liverpool City Region' page. Like previous discussion, on 'Greater Liverpool', there is scope for a 'greater Merseyside' section here that refers to the wider area - Merseyside(ie Southport, St Helens) plus Ormskirk, Skelmersdale, Ellesmere Port, Warrington, Widnes and Runcorn. - This is like the A-Z map/book of Greater Merseyside. Dmcm2008 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've just done a speedy cleanup and title-rename per both your points. I hope it's satisfactory. Feel free to ammend as appropriate. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Im happy with this, it just needs some more expansion Dmcm2008 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Reinstating edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm resinstating the Greater Merseyside text. Greater Merseyside is defined by the LSC and also acknowledge by Halton Council. The Liverpool CIty region is far less well defined and the article lacks references.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merger Proposal edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The Greater Merseyside article seems to duplicate alot of information in this article and seems to be about the exact same subject. Eopsid (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Support merger. Whatever reasons were given for creating the Greater Merseyside article, covering exactly the same area so far as I can see, don't seem to justify a separate article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
They are used by different groups to represent different areas. Liverpool CIty reagion does not include WIrral as for as the ONS is concerned.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be confusing the Liverpool CIty reagion with the Liverpool Urban Area the city region does include Wirral as the map on this article clearly indicates. Eopsid (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have now gone ahead with the merger. Eopsid (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

File:Unilever Port Sunlight.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Unilever Port Sunlight.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Unilever Port Sunlight.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Liverpool City Region edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is laid out in this official document: http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/documents/oct_08/nwra_1224233363_Final_adopted_RSS_300908_Liver.pdf The North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021.

The area covered is the same as Merseyside as laid out in the Redcliffe–Maud Report, which includes: The city of Liverpool, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton, Wirral, West Lancashire, Halton, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Chester and a part of Vale Royal. As an aside, the 1970 Tory government slashed the area of Merseyside to the small area we have today. The Liverpool City Region is now a defacto Merseyside showing that the Redcliffe–Maud Report got it right.

In the current article the first link does not work. I inserted the official document link and someone reverted it back to the link that does not work because a population figure was not mentioned. Really? Also the map in the article is now out of date and should be removed. The map of the Liverpool City Region is in the official document I linked to.

ONS Official Labour Market Statistics available at Nomisweb.co.uk gives the Liverpool City Region a 2.3 million population. This is backed up by Lord Hesseltines document, Liverpool City Region - Building on its Strengths: An independent report. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32080/11-1338-rebalancing-britain-liverpool-city-region.pdf I am changing the article to reflect new current documents. 188.222.101.49 (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the term "Liverpool City Region" has various alternative definitions, and you are attempting to impose one single definition on the whole article without adequate explanation. The RSS - which, incidentally, was revoked in 2010 and so is not a current or official document - has a highly fudged wording. "For the purposes of articulating RSS policy" it "is defined as the City of Liverpool and local authority districts of Halton, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, Wirral" - but at the same time "extends as far as Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Vale Royal and West Lancashire." The Heseltine report does indeed give a figure of 2.3 million for "an urban region centred on Liverpool that spreads from Wrexham and Flintshire to Chester, Warrington, West Lancashire and across to Southport." But, the proposed Merseyside combined authority, for example - which much of the article discusses - covers a much smaller area, the authorities of Liverpool, Halton, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral. So, I've reworded the introduction to clarify that various definitions exist, and show different populations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/liverpoollimestreets
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Liverpool City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Liverpool City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at WikiProject UK geography edit

Latest comment: 27 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Raising a notice that there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Liverpool City Region about this article. Be free to add comments there, to maintain a centralised discussion. DankJae 20:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've only just realised that this is not the page for Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, nor is it the page for Merseyside and this seems incredibly confusing if not misleading as according to the first sentence, this article is about a 'combined authority area' and I wouldn't think that's even a thing! I'd really welcome this discussion being reopened. It seems to me like some of this page should be in Merseyside (and in fact already is) and some should be in Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
In the meantime, I will add Liverpool City Region Combined Authority to the 'not to be confused with' hatnote as I'm sure I can't be the only one who finds this confusing. Orange sticker (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The area within the LCRCA is the LCR. The LCRLEP is now also the LCR. The entire thing would do no harm being merged at this point. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have left a message on A.D. Hopes talk page regarding this, as the conversation DankJae is referring to was derailed by a SPA we both know. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Liverpolitan identity for deletion edit

Latest comment: 24 days ago18 comments7 people in discussion
 
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) 16:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The outcome of the AfD was to redirect the term Liverpolitan to Liverpool, however the author has copied large sections of the now defunct article into this one, despite many of the claims and references it contains having already been debunked in the deletion discussion. Therefore, the Liverpool_City_Region#Demonym section needs a lot of revision and improvement. Orange sticker (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go ahead and WP:BOLD and delete this section as it's already been discussed at great length. Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That discussion concluded that there was no need for a separate article for the Liverpolitan identity. It was agreed that the content was better served on the Liverpool and city region articles. Please do not remove whole sections which are cited - without discussion. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC))Reply
As I have just said on the Talk page for Liverpool, the result of the AfD was redirect, not merge. The content of your article was found to be unsupported by its references yet you have retained them in this article. Please respect the consensus that many editors took a great deal of time working on. Orange sticker (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The outcome was that the liverpolitan identity did not warrant an entirely separate article. There was no debunking of the sources. There was a discussion that its notability was not enough for a separate article. It is a step too far to wipe these sources out of existence. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC))Reply
Have added Template:Cite check section to the Demonyms section with link to this talk thread. Orange sticker (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did a cursory citation check and do have some WP:DUE concerns. A lot of the citations mention "liverpolitans" but only in a passing sense of a politician from the region using the term to describe constituents. I would recommend leaving the section there for now as there is evidence that the term is notable, but a fair bit of work is required to ensure it is neutral and of due length.Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've trimmed the demonym section down to remove a lot of the cruft and passing mentions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see that @Koncorde has also refined the Demonyms section to reflect the content of the references, however is it now safe to suggest that this section is now redundant, seeing as all it does is explain that there is no demonym for the region, and most of the references were originally added by an editor with an undeclared WP:COI? Orange sticker (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think there's any harm in it being discussed, not least because there are several articles not specifically related to the one person campaign that have brought it up (even if just CityMonitor, which if we were to rely on would need to be attributed). There's also some legitimacy in the question because it did get the attention of (at least) one senior politician. For instance Joe Anderson is on the record rejecting it - so at some level the campaign did get attention even if it was a one person campaign predicated on user generated content that the Echo decided to pick up on for some reason. If we ignore how the content was brought up initially - the actual discussion exists. Quite how much attention there should be is another thing that I am happy for other editors to feed back on. I've just reduced the current sources down to what is significant in them that would lend WP:DUE without getting into the rather flakey origins and clickbait articles. Koncorde (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's inappropriate for this article, which is about the city region area, a geographic area only defined by its common political governance, not a cultural or historical place and so unlikely to have its only demonym, outside maybe official documents. The only other "combined authority area" articles that include demonyms are Greater Manchester (one sentence, one reference) and City of York (infobox). My stance overlaps in some ways with how I feel this article's focus is slightly too wide, mainly the transport section, which is only partially relevant to the LCR specifically and some of which is indeed already featured on Merseyside. While we could, like York, put 'Liverpolitan' back into the infobox for this article I still think that would be misleading as there are no credible references (so far!) that this word's meaning is widely understood, agreed upon and used. Orange sticker (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree and don't think the section is needed. As you say, all of the demonyms mentioned relate to Liverpool and not the wider region. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but I also have doubts about the existence of this article In addition to the Liverpool, Merseyside, and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority articles. An article with a headnote saying "Not to be confused with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority" that then starts "Liverpool City Region is a combined authority area..." looks problematic. Brunton (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Liverpool (City), Merseyside (County) and LCRCA (local government tier) are all distinct. The LCR itself is very much just describes the region the LCRCA has devolved administrative powers over, as created by central government. From what I can see all other City Regions are treated as part and parcel of the Combined Authority, and would suggest a merge.
The only time a split like this would happen is if (say) the LCRCA is abolished for something else in the future, but the LCR then goes on to have its own distinct identity (perhaps with different authorities, or no authorities at all, involved). Koncorde (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Brief Summary of Liverpool "area" articles edit

Just to cover the current articles (generally) for Liverpool / Merseyside that would need to be considered if we do merge LCRCA & LCR, as there's a mess going on at the moment where some things are "part of", or "in" depending on if the subject is viewed as an Authority, or a Geographic Region.

Categories of interest:

  • Category:Combined authorities - most combined authorities are just part of the CA, Leeds and Liverpool have been created as their own City Region subcategory, inside which exists the Combined Authority category. This seems back to front. LCRCA should be the subcat. I don't want to generalise about Leeds City Region here, as its relationship predates the CA, and has traditionally different areas included / excluded - but would still suggest there is some confusion.
  • Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities - part of such confusion is the creation of another cat seemingly covering very similar ground.
  • Category:Liverpool City Region - because of the misprioritising of categories this leads to a strange thing where both Borough and Council articles are both part of the LCR, rather than (if this was done correctly per how this page appears to be set up) the LCRCA would have the council articles and the LCR, and the LCR would have the Borough articles. Also Merseytravel for instance should definitely be LCRCA > LCR. Basically, category is a mess.
  • Category:Merseyside - nice clean category for comparison

Template of interest:

Dissolved:

I may try tidying up some of the Categories and such because I can see some issues with Prescot and others causing issues at the moment. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's worth noting that for each Combined Authority in this list: Combined_authorities_and_combined_county_authorities#Current_combined_authorities_and_combined_county_authorities there is an article about the respective Combined Authority Area, e.g. East Midlands Combined County Authority & East Midlands, West of England Combined Authority & West of England - I think the West of England one is a good example, because like the LCR it only really exists in relation to its Combined Authority. Orange sticker (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suspect some of the City Region articles were created before the LCRCA were created, and so never merged (or never existed in the case of things like "West of England"). Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool_City_Region&oldid=1217774898"