Talk:Mayor of Liverpool

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Directly elected mayor of Liverpool → Mayor of Liverpool – The current title is out of line with all other articles which currently cover elected Mayors in England. The phrase "directly elected" is not used in other articles and simple disambiguation sentences to "Lord Mayors" See: Mayor of Bedford
Mayor of Doncaster
Mayor of Bristol
Mayor of London

relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Sport and politics (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

The REDIRECT (the target of this move) has been busy:
(cur | prev) 18:38, 19 November 2012‎ AvicBot (Robot: Fixing double redirect to Directly elected mayor of Liverpool) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:22, 19 November 2012‎ Atban3000 (←Redirected page to City Mayor of Liverpool) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:57, 13 February 2012‎ MRSC (←Redirected page to Directly elected mayor of Liverpool )
(cur | prev) 17:42, 10 December 2009‎ Lord Cornwallis (←Redirected page to Lord Mayor of Liverpool)
Oppose at least for the time being. The nomination says this article is inconsistent, but Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom doesn't support that comment. Mayor of Liverpool may now need to be a disambiguation page between City Mayor of Liverpool and Lord Mayor of Liverpool. There seems to be not much consistency around UK "mayor of" articles after the introductions of the last few years, which reflects inconsistency in real life. But in this case, most references in G Books refer to the historical mayors, and now we have two. Messy, but this move would make it even more messy. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but relisting. The proposal seems to make some incorrect assumptions, such as the one pointed out by IIC. The current articles are a confusing mess, admittedly describing a messy situation. Unsure how to sort it out. Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Directly elected Mayor of Liverpool" gets one hit on Highbeam for the last two years. "Mayor of Liverpool" gets 331. If you subtract 199 for "Lord Mayor of Liverpool", the ratio is 1-133 in favor of the proposed form. Kauffner (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of those 1-133 refer to the other article: Lord Mayor of Liverpool. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Seems a no-brainer to me, that the proposal should be adopted. Tony (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the problem for this city, which the nomination doesn't establish, is whether of the two existing mayors 1. City Mayor of Liverpool and 2. Lord Mayor of Liverpool the first is clearly the WP:PRIMARY, given that all historical references (and the vast majority of GB hits) naturally refer to the second. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The line disambiguating as seen in the Mayor of London article adequately covers the (non) issue raised above and can easily be done in this case. This proposal is a simple proposal bringing the article in line with the other articles on directly elected executive Mayors in England. Currently there are none outside of England. Sport and politics (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sport and Politics,
1. please see WP:PRIMARY. To make a case for this move you need to present evidence that between the City Mayor of Liverpool and Lord Mayor of Liverpool the former is so much the WP:PRIMARY for "Mayor of Liverpool" that WP:PRECISION can be disregarded in this case, not London. Obviously for London Boris is WP:PRIMARY not Roger Gifford who only covers a tiny part of the banking district. That isn't directly comparable with Liverpool.
2. As regards other articles in Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom, it's a mess. Whether fixed by hatnote, lede or inclusion, several centuries of mayors for some of these towns cannot just be ignored. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are that worried about civic and historic mayors rather than opposing the cleaning up of the articles titles so all directly elected executive Mayors end up with the same consistent title, be bold and fix the issues surrounding the historic mayors with new articles or improvements to existing articles. As for WP:PRIMARY that has been established by Kauffner and going forwards the Mayor of Liverpool will be the directly elected executive Mayor. The precedent for this title is the Mayor of London where the Lord Mayor is still in existence, in this case the historic civic/Lord/city mayor has to my knowledge been scrapped.Sport and politics (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sport and politics.
Not according to the article, the Lord Mayor of Liverpool still exists as "2010–11 Hazel Williams 2011-12 Frank Prendergast"
No one opposes "cleaning up of the articles titles." Please see above. To make a case for this move you need to present evidence that between the City Mayor of Liverpool and Lord Mayor of Liverpool the former is so much the WP:PRIMARY for "Mayor of Liverpool" that WP:PRECISION can be disregarded in this case, not London. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine number one result is this how much cleaer do you want that it is the primary topic. The City of Liverpool Council refer to the executive Mayor as the "Mayor of Liverpool". This is a no-brainier and the concerns are really non-concerns over minor semantics. Sport and politics (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/mayor/ is 1st hit on Google. And it should be. But that isn't how WP:AT works. You'll need to convince others on this RM of that.
As a secondary issue - you do realise I'm sure that Georgian/Victorian/Edwardian mayors, prior to universal suffrage in 1918 were extremely powerful local figures, despite (or because) they were undemocratically semi-elected. This affects notability. The non-notable chain and robe wearing ribbon-cutters of the recent past I'd agree aren't that notable. But if past Mayor of Middlesbrough = an industrial behemoth like Henry Bolckow in 1853 it'd be very WP:FORKy to claim he was the ancestor of the chain wearing current Chair of the Council of Middlesbrough. Each city's history is different. Then. Now. Despite some uniformity around the Municipal Corporation Act and after. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:consensus from the other articles and WP:commonname are saying that the articles on Directly Elected Executive Mayors in England are simply called "Mayor of X". I see no reason to have this article out of line with the other articles and the common name. The discussion is now deviating into unrelated historical aspects which are getting away from the RM at hand. Please try and stay on topic and direct other issues to seperate sections of this page, the appropriate wikiproject or User talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the RfC?
I don't see that WP:CONSENSUS has anything about denial of history. As much as we may dislike Britain's undemocratic past it shouldn't be whitewashed out of an article called "Mayor of Liverpool." That the article contains a line such as "The office of Mayor of Liverpool differs from that of Lord Mayor of Liverpool, a ceremonial office that had existed in some form since 1207." is WP:OR/WP:POV on a quite ambitious scale (I haven't looked at history to see who added that). There is no way that from 1207 to Robert Durning Holt in 1892 this was a "ceremonial office" - mayors wielded considerable real power, oppressing the masses, building infrastructure and so on. It isn't WP's job to whitewash history. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "today" into lede sentence. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has got completely off the point. The point here and the need to move the page and the purpose of the RM is to bring this article title in line with the other article titles on elected Executive Mayors in England. This has nothing at all to do with the historical posts or British democratic history. Those are for wider discussions on the article itself and not the title of the article. The overwhelming consensus is to title these articles "Mayor of X" and the other posts have "(suffix) Mayor of X". Please can this discussion get back to the discussion of this article title and not the content of the article that is not what an RM is for. Sport and politics (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but as before
1. per WP:AT the content and the title of articles should correlate. Very often in RM discussions a move can only be made by expanding/reducing article content at the same time.
2. "the purpose of the RM is to bring this article title in line with the other article titles on elected Executive Mayors in England" - your purpose is understood. However real life isn't consistent. The UK has now a very diverse situation. Including towns which have the old system, towns which have 2 mayors, towns which are opposed to having 2 mayors and have moved ceremonial functions to "Chair of the Council" etc. The only sources relevant for Liverpool are Liverpool.
3. the article should reflect reality as found in reliable sources. You proposed this RM believing as above "in this case the historic civic/Lord/city mayor has to my knowledge been scrapped" - which it hasn't. This in itself doesn't make the RM impossible, but requires WP:PRIMARY to be demonstrated.
4. articles should not contradict references. If a ref says "The first mayor of Liverpool was 1207" the article text cannot say "the first mayor of Liverpool was 2012". And deleting the ref isn't the solution. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(out dent)Please see the following article titles:

The above all refer to the post of elected executive Mayor simply as "Mayor of x". As such this article needs bringing into line. Sport and politics (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, as above 1. 4. in particular. Most of these articles haven't had seven hundred years of history erased. With respect you're creating this problem against your own move by deleting anything related to "Mayor of Liverpool" prior to Joe Anderson, 5 May 2012 from the article. Most of these articles don't only have the Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom. Best wishes.
I do not understand this (non) argument of history erasure. There is no such erasure occurring. The information being claimed to be "erased" is simply included in a separate and more appropriate article, referring to the unelected mayor in all of its incarnations. This is getting a little silly this argument of "erasure" as it is simply not occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:FORK. Subjects suggested by use of the article title in reliable sources can be developed in subsidiary articles, but must not be entirely removed from the main article. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FORK does not apply here there is no mirroring or large scale copying with little changes. This is completely different. The two articles are on two wholy different offices. One is an annual office. One is direclty elected by the electorate of the City of Liverpool at four year intervals. One is highly Party Political one is largely ceremonial. One is Brand New one is steeped in history. These are not subsidiary articles they are two main articles covering two separate posts, A subsidiary article would be on the Liverpool mayoral election, 2012.This issue is better covered by WP:RELART. The articles are related but not the same, neither are they a subsidiary of anything and neither are they to do with the same office. Also the main point other directly elected executive Mayor articles are titles "Mayor of X" and this article needs bringing into line. Sport and politics (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sport and politics
Well, let's test that with 3 questions:
Question 1. In Google Books how many hits does "Mayor of Liverpool" get?
Question 2. What percentage of those hits refer to the directly elected mayor?
Question 3. See Catherine F. Patterson Urban Patronage in Early Modern England: Corporate Boroughs 1999 Page 66 "At almost every level — local, regional, and national — the earls of Derby were the most powerful figures in the area. ... As mayor of Liverpool in 1604, William Earl of Derby helped to obtain a new charter for the borough of Liverpool. Would you say that William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby occupied a "largely ceremonial" role? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to "test" this against anything. Other users can do that for them self if they like. I have made my position abundantly clear and you have made yours clear. I am not going to contribute on this thread on this tact again, as it is distracting from the point. My position will not change my position as this is simply about bringing the article title in line with the other article titles on Executive elected Mayors in England. This article is nothing to do with the non-elected Mayor office and that is how the article must remain to avoid confusing conflation of the two offices. Sport and politics (talk)
You're not going to test your title against Google Books?
Then this RM is over.
In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This RM is not over. I am simply disengaging from the distracting and unwieldy discussion occurring above. Just because the nominator disengages does not mean they have withdrawn the RM. The nominator is not required to engage in all discussions with all users who choose to discuss the RM. I will wait for an appropriate closing Admin before declaring this closed. Sport and politics (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1207-2012 Mayors of Liverpool airbrushed out, WP:FORK concern[edit]

Excuse the reference to Vladimír Clementis on the balcony. I leave it someone else to judge the wisdom of this edit. My view is that history cannot be denied. From 1207-1892 there was a Mayor of Liverpool. From 1892 to 1918 the "Lord Mayor" was also a functioning empowered role. If the article is to be re-named "fruit" it cannot have a lede which says "fruit is an apple, for oranges see FORK". It can say "fruit today is an apple for oranges see FORK" In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Directly elected mayor of Copeland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The referendum was cancelled.[edit]

The referendum was cancelled. [1] 2A02:C7E:B91:2A00:24E8:FEE4:DD02:44E (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Liverpool to abandon promised referendum on controversial mayor position". The Independent. 21 January 2022. Archived from the original on 3 February 2021. Retrieved 27 March 2022. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 6 February 2022 suggested (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mayor_of_Liverpool&oldid=1203932263"