Talk:Liverpool/Archive 3

Canning and other such 'trendy designer names'
I am being thwarted by users Jza84 and KitchenKnife over any edits I make to do with Liverpool. That I have an interested in expanding Liverpool WP pages and correcting any mistakes are challenged everytime I edit...but nevertheless.. For the record, Falkner Square is edited as being in 'Canning'. I have argured there is no such district..it is a name given to a grouping of city centre streets because of the architecture...Also known as the Georgian Quarter. There are other such places that exist that are not districts but are modern trendy names....like Breckfield in Anfield/Everton border....and Granby in Toxteth...so too Ropewalks. Because Canning is proven to exist by websites it must exist...what nonesense...Unfortunately I cannot argue against this pair because they run wikipedia so I will let them get on with it. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Once Liverpool was a made up name. What does it take for there to be an area with a name. The council use Canning etc. You view seem to be arbitary. Names like Hartington have gone out of use should we still use that?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While to describe "Canning" as such may be a relatively new idea (probably dreamed up by estate agents.....), if there are sources which report on this then it is not unreasonable to talk of them. Estate agents are very good at inventing names like this, and do it everywhere, not just in Liverpool: sometimes the names catch on and stick, other times they don't and go away and die quietly.  --RFBailey (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the above, some names are dreamed up by some organisation or other. In this instance Canning, in others say Breckfield. I cannot argue that if someone wants to use these terms. All I wanted to say was there was no actual area so Canning should be regarded as a name given to a group of streets on the edge of the city centre. The other used name is Georgian Quarter. In response to Kitchen Knife, there must be some 'control' over use of names. While I personally would be a hypocrite if I said it should be closed shop, but some older names like Stanley and Dog and Gun are no longer used. Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets just stick to the recognised 'Wards' of Liverpool rather than invented local names for areas such as Little Italy, or Little Russia etc etc. Or better still.. stick to Postcodes aye?--92.234.248.31 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of using "Canning". I've lived there for over 20 years and all locals call it that. It is not a trendy designer name, though "Georgian Quarter is (used only by estate agents). In my opinion, using ward names would be a mistake, since wards are drawn up for administrative conveience and often bear no relation to either the traditional districts or the sense of local communities and divisions betwen them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdls (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's weird, I have lived by the cathedral for over 20 years too, but have never called the area 'Canning' nor do my neighbours. It's the kind of place which has been crying out for a proper name for years but has never had one. The council started calling the area 'Canning' in the mid 80s for housing and social services puposes just to group the streets into a convenient administrative area. Other housing groups of the time like LHT, MIH etc used the 'Canning' tag too, so people were aware of the use of the name, but it was always viewed as a kind of artificial construction rather than a real name. It was the box you ticked on housing lists alongside other mythical paces as Breckfield and Granby. I've never heard anyone say 'I live in Canning' as though that was just the accepted name of the neighbourhood. People just say thinks like, 'round Canning Street', ' by the cathedral' 'off Catharine Street' etc. The 'georgian quarter' rebranding came in aroung 2005 and I'm not sure whether this was initiated by the council or estate agents, but it could have been either. It just seemed to happen in the same way that the pier head became the 'three graces'. It doesn't bother me as a title, but it's not a real name. I think it probably suits the nouveau riche who moved in as the area when the gentrification really took off at the end of the nineties. As regards using the name of the ward, I dont think this helps. We used to be 'Abercromby' which was basically the 'Canning' area, but we've since been merged into Princes Park which is much bigger altogether. It might just help to say that the area doesn't have an agreed name. It was called Mosslake Fields when it was farmland. 62.25.109.197 (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Section
This is clunky and the English requires to be smoother and progressive. This version is better and more professional and should be included.

''Liverpool (pronounced /ˈlɪvəpuːl/) is a city and metropolitan borough of Merseyside, England, located on the eastern bank of the River Mersey Estuary. Founded as a borough in 1207, city status was granted in 1880. The population is 435,500, with the city being core of the wider Liverpool Urban Area, having a total population of 816,216. Merseyside's population is 1.3 million.''

Historically a part of Lancashire, the urbanisation and expansion of Liverpool were broadly brought about by the city's status as a major port.

''Salt, from the nearby Cheshire salt mines, was the first major commodity handled by the port leading to expansion. Irish, French and coastal trade was predominant in the 16th and 17th centuries. Being a natural deep water haven, Liverpool grew rapidly in the late 17th century with the growth of English colonies in North America and the West Indies. Liverpool was well placed to trade with colonies across the Atlantic and beyond. The Atlantic Slave Trade was monopolised by Liverpool, however not a major aspect in the port meteoric rise. ''

''The natural deep water haven and the invention of the steam engine, entailing fast larger ships and fast railways to swiftly handle goods, catapulted the port forwards. By the early 19th century, 40% of the world's trade passed through Liverpool's docks.''

''Inhabitants of Liverpool are referred to as Liverpudlians but are have acquired a nickname, Scousers, in reference to the local dish known as scouse. A form of stew known as labskaus, originating in Northern Germany and Scandinavia, scouse was adopted by the city. The word Scouse has also become synonymous with the Liverpool accent. Not all of the inhabitants are easy being referred to as Scousers.''

Being a port city has contributed to the ethnically diverse population, drawing from a wide range of peoples, cultures, and religions.

''The popularity of The Beatles and the other musicians from the Merseybeat era contributes to Liverpool's status as a tourist destination. Tourism forms a significant part of the city's modern economy. In 2007 the city celebrated its 800th anniversary, and in 2008 jointly hosted the European Capital of Culture with Stavanger, Norway.[2]''

''In 2004, several areas throughout the city centre were granted World Heritage Site status by UNESCO, recognising the importance of the city in world sea trade and populating North America. Referred to as the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City, the site comprises six separate locations in the city including the Pier Head, Albert Dock, William Brown Street including many of the city's most famous landmarks.[3] '' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.31.192 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This site is victim to suppression of views by certain individuals, by removing comments.


 * What on earth is a "natural deep water haven"? Do you mean the dock or that it's next to the sea? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I'd prefer it if Wikipedia had some original prose. Eh Waterways? And for the last time - You need sources to back up your claims. Do I have to make that any more clear? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of what the anon suggests isn't bad, but he/she needs to be mindful of our editorial guidelines at WP:LEAD and WP:UKCITIES, as well as WP:V as Sillyfolkboy points out. We are required by policy to have no more than four paragraphs to succinctly cover the topic of Liverpool in the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk 11:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Sillyfolboy- thanks for that link; should a WP:RANGEBLOCK be required to prevent this person from editing here, well, he's just shot himself in the foot. At point blank range. Rodhull  andemu  12:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the pronunciation. Why would the pronunciation be put as an American English speaker would say it? Wikipedia is full of this phenomenon - Melbourne Australia has that rhotic vowel on its Wikipedia page, but most Melburnians, like most people from Liverpool, don't say it that way. DR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.158.107 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish
The article states: The city is also known for its large Irish and Welsh populations. These two groups are not prominent in the city at all - only in decent. IT comes across as if large ethnically born Irish and Welsh are in the city. This passage is wrong and needs correcting. Many modern Liverpudlians will have mixed ancestry, few having one continuous line backwards. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is clearly placed in a historical context in the article. RodCrosby (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still misleading, that is why I brought it up. It is not in an historical context as it reads as if it refers to how matters are today.    It does not reflect the modern Liverpudlian.  The passage is still wrong and should be corrected.  The city is also known for its large Irish and Welsh populations, clearly refers to how it is now, not how it was.  Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about The city is also known for its large population of Irish and Welsh descent ? RodCrosby (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
Not opposed to a montage for this page, but I'm a little disappointed with the quality of File:Liverpool main article collage.jpg. Can I suggest a speedy revert while a consensus is formed? --Jza84 |  Talk 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you've done this, and you have been reverted. While consensus is forming, WP:BRD applies, and we are now at the "D" part; on that basis, I will revert the addition and direct the editor here for duscussion. Rodhull  andemu  22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beat you to it! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's not a very good montage. The middle image in particular is of very poor quality. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the poor image quality, but I believe it is extremely important to have such an image at the top, when it is representing a large city such as Liverpool. It doesn't truly reflect the city just having one photo. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you answer yourself: the image is of too poor a quality. Again, I'm not opposed to a montage, but if the image is so important, group participation would be more than nice, surely? --Jza84 |  Talk 23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the montage idea is a good one but I also agree that grainy (e.g. the central skyline) and poorly framed (e.g. the three graces, which seem to have become very squashed along the vertical axis) images should be avoided. The New York lead image is a much higher resolution and I think we should aim for that sort of clarity. Also I think more discussion is needed on what images to be included as well --Daviessimo (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would adobe photoshop or something like that be the best programme to collate images with? Also I believe some of important photos to be included are: The Liverpool Skyline, the three graces, something associated with the docks, buildings along William Brown Street/ Lime Street and the famous cathedrals. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I produced this image for the London article and used photoshop. I think we just need to agree on which images to use first. Would anybody like to ask WP:MERSEY to participate. --Jza84 |  Talk 15:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with the concerns about the graininess of the middle image, but that's the only real concern I have (save for a small grumble about the jaunty angle of the Chinatown picture). In principle, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a montage. --RFBailey (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A montage in my opinion just looks like one of those tacky tourist postcards from the 1970s. There are so many simply stunning buildings in Liverpool we could never agree on what should be in the montage, or there would be so many that it would just look ridiculous. The Three Graces give Liverpool its "face", and are as instantly-recognisable as Manhattan or the Golden Gate Bridge. RodCrosby (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nail, head; head, nail. For large cities, there are usually so many iconic images available that attempting to cram them into the infobox, which is intended to be an overview, seems to me to be unnecessary. For most cities, one selected iconic image would seem to be enough, with others in the body of that article/or subarticles, as appropriate. I looked, as a random example, at Rio de Janeiro, which to me, suffers the same problem as this collage: although it gave me several views of the city, it did not encapsulate for me what should be in the infobox, which I would expect to be the Cristo Redentor statue on the Corcovado Hill as the iconic representation of that city. For Liverpool, there may be several choices, and that is up for negotiation. Rodhull  andemu  01:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the music of Liverpool, how could you forget The Beatles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.183.245 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, it seems that most people are in agreement with a collage, and for those in disagreement: this article isn't called the Royal Liver Building, its called Liverpool therefore the first thing to be seen when opening the article is a reflection of various sites across the city. Calling it 'tacky' doesn't justify why not to go ahead with a collage. Everyone should state their best ideas for the collage and possibly Jza84 could collate them all, or anyone else with photoshop installed. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just expressing my view that a good iconic image of any city which is internationally recognisable - and which, in Liverpool's case, would be the estuary frontage - is preferable to a montage, which is almost inevitably going to look messy and uninformative, even if it consists of images which are individually good ones. There's no reason why a range of images giving a wider perspective on the city can't be included in the article itself.  The view that "most people" prefer to have a montage seems premature, at best.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, it does represent the city from an international perspective however look a fe hundred meters up or down stream and what do you see, the city's new financial district, or the Echo arena. I just think it is a bit dated having one single picture of one or two building. Comparing it to having the main photo of Paris as the Eiffel tower is basically only tourist orientated and definitely does not reflect the history etc of the city as a whole at all. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just make the point that this is an international encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia for residents of Liverpool, or even of Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that categories |Category:Visitor attractions in Liverpool could prove very useful in deciding which images to use as it already lists Visitor attractions. Tsange ► talk 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a whole lot of extra Images on COmmons.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Image change
User:Stevvvv4444 has changed the infobox image again, this time to File:Liverpool waterfront from Birkenhead 300809.JPG. I appreciate what he's trying to do, namely show more than just the Three Graces; however, the image is rather grainy, maybe a bit underexposed, and most of the foreground is water. The previous image was much a much better quality photograph. --RFBailey (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

''I agree As I think that we should try to find a better infobo iage that shows ore of Lierpool rather than just the Pier Head but I think that the new piture is heading into the right diretion --L. Gregson 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The last point that RF Bailey makes is exactly the reason I'm not a fan of skyline images. By attempting to include such a wide panorama, the image easily loses focus and more often than not the buildings become so small as to be almost unrecognisable (but obviously not to someone who is from the city). I would also agree that this new image is a very poor quality and really shouldn't be a lead image.


 * My advice to Stevvvv 4444 is that if you really feel the article would benefit from a different style lead image, work at it. If necessary go out and take pictures yourself on clear sunny days so you can get the clarity and quality that is needed (My personal opinion would be to try and take the picture from the Mersey Ferry because it will bring you in a lot closer on the river side). Otherwise every time you put an image up its going to come back to the talk page where people will invariably say thanks, but no thanks and return the image to the three graces --Daviessimo (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per our last discussion, this image should not have been changed without a proposal/consensus first, but we are where we are. I agree that the image is not of befitting quality to be in the infobox. I'm not opposed to a montage, but I feel we must agree upon suitable imagery first. I suggest in the meantime that we have a speedy revert. --Jza84 |  Talk 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've nominally retired as a contributer to the Wikimedia projects but I couldn't help but notice via general browsing that photo which I took appeared on this article. I completely agree that it is not of sufficient quality to be here. Yes it is underexposed, the default auto-settings on that camera have that problem for some reason and I've since been correcting it on more recent images by manually increasing the exposure bias. But overall, I'm no longer happy with the quality produced by that budget camera anymore and in fact I'm getting a new one. Its range of exposure is poor and the lens isn't that great either. The photo also has a rather high jpeg compression, the default setting of the camera is clearly too lossy. Then of course is the composition, it is mostly water and of course does not even contain the St Johns beacon, or either of the Cathedrals. Totally agree that a far better picture should be taken from the ferry, preferably with a higher grade camera. Finally is the time of day of the photo. It was taken around 8:20am which is totally the wrong time for photographing Liverpool waterfront from the Wirral. The afternoon sun would light the buildings up much better. In the above photo, the Sun angle is all wrong. So, why did I upload it? Well, it was just one of a huge batch of photos I auto-uploaded using the "commonist" bulk uploader program and whilst it may be conceivably useful in some minor role, I never thought I would see it on the lead of the Liverpool article! Besides, there's much more to Liverpool than just the waterfront. In conclusion, it's up to the community to decide to revert or otherwise. My own opinion is that it should be reverted as clearly it is insufficient quality, and I took it! Regards, Benkid77 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, per consensus I'll return the image to the previous one --Daviessimo (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what everyone has to say, but I agree with Jza84, this really isn't getting anywhere. I am not a professional photographer, and even if I did manage to take a photo that I would believe appropriate for use, numerous users are bound to debate about the quality of the photo. There are quite a lot of panoramas of Liverpool available on Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think that there is a single photo that again everyone will agree on. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Panoramas_of_Liverpool) Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming we wanted to consider a montage, are there 5 landmarks that would be worth considering? I imagine the present infobox image would be one of the 5? --Jza84 |  Talk 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that way there are numerous landmarks within one photo. Other landmarks which may be considered are the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, Albert Dock, the city's new commercial district/ highrises, Anfield and/or Goodison Park. Some other options are Chinatown, something associated with the Beetles (most likely the Cavern Club) and St. John's Beacon. What are your thoughts and opinions? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion images such as Chinatown may be problematic because who's to say the Chinese community is anymore a central part of Liverpool than say the African, Caribbean, Irish communities etc (its noticeable that both the London and New York City lead images avoid these types of images). As such, I would be inclined towards images that are symbolic of Liverpool, but which also transcend differences between groups within the city. Thus for me, I'd be inclined towards a mix of traditional representations of Liverpool such as St George's Hall, the Albert Dock, the Cavern Club or the Liver Bird (or Liver Building), as well as more modern images of the city such as Liverpool One, the commercial district centred around Old Hall Street or even something like the Superlambanana --Daviessimo (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some images which could possibly be used in a montage (and I know some of the photos i've suggested aren't bright and sunny skies, but is that really necessary, is it a true reflection of the local weather??, also could some photos such as the skyline ones be cropped down so there isn't too much water or sky in the photo). Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Single skyline shot
Since, yet again we don't seem to be getting anywhere here, I have taken to Flickr to see if I could find any good skyline shots of Liverpool. I will try to seek permission for use on Wikipedia if anyone agrees with my choice of the following: Also any other suggestions are of course welcome. I chose the above photos, as they are clear, good quality, represent the city in its true current form, and are a nice mix of building in the city that originate from all eras. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/alancookson/3473893786/sizes/l/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan_taylor/995977931/sizes/l/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/28411479@N08/3180583640/sizes/l/
 * I think on the above images, a montage would have to comprise images with roughly comparable exposures and contrasts, to avoid looking clumsy and jarring the reader's eye. Also, I think we should be looking for iconic images, and on that point, the Cavern Club, Liverpool One and Anfield could be almost anywhere, given that when combined into a montage, it's very hard to perceive any relation to Liverpool. As for the flickr images, they are all "All rights reserved", so best of luck with getting the permission. They all have problems, in my view. The first would need cropping to remove what are effectively nondescript modern buildings, the second makes the city centre look like a building site with all those cranes, and contains little of iconic status, and the third has clearly been taken with a telephoto lens and is foreshortened to jumble it all together; in addition, I don't think the focus helps, and that yellow extending platform is intrusive. I'll go with whatever consensus arises, however. Rodhull  andemu  18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contribution, however what you have said basically leaves us still at square one. I also disagree about the comment that the Cavern Club, Liverpool One and Anfield could be anywhere. They are clearly not and there are no exact replicas of the buildings in question. There are very few buildings across the country that couldn't pass for being in another place. Also, it's the 21st century, what is your problem with 'modernist' buildings, they are keeping with the times. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the length, but it is hard to say a lot without writing a lot!. I would say it is probably going to be very hard to find 5 images of Liverpool that are unmistakeably recognisable as being of the city. Two or three maybe, but I would be astounded if we could find five. Only a handful of cities have instantly recognisable landmarks and they are more often than not Alpha cities (I.e.New York, London, Paris etc). Singapore is one of the most important cities in the world, but how many of its landmarks are recognisable to us in the UK. I do agree however, that whatever images are selected, they need to be well balanced and of a good quality. If I had to choose five images are would rationalise it as follows :-
 * Skyline Image - Liverpool is fortunate that as a city it sits on one side of a river, which provides a perfect platform for framing a skyline image. A broad panorama can be used in a montage across the centre, but it needs to be clear, well focused and crucially you need to be able to see the buildings. I would suggest an image taken from the Mersey ferry stretching at most from West tower to either the Albert Dock or the Echo arena would be the sort of thing to aim for.
 * Music or Football - There's no getting away from the fact that for most people outside of the UK, Liverpool is most renowned for either football or music. Football is hard to encapsulate in one image, particularly when you have two big clubs in the city and unless we can find an image the includes both the reds and the blues I think we should leave this out. Music is slightly easier because the obvious focus is the Beatles. In this instance I think you have three possibilities - the Cavern, the Mathew Street Festival, or the Beatles Story
 * Historical Architecture - As the article states Liverpool has an abundance of quality architecture, generally dominated by older buildings and there is no doubt about how important it is to the city. St George's Hall or more broadly William Brown Street would arguably be an obvious choice if you can develop a clear skyline image were the Pier Head and Albert Dock are already visible, but whether that can be achieved remains to be seen
 * Modern Architecture - If we have already included West tower and possibly the Echo arena in the skyline, there's probably no need to add anything else, but we could possibly place the skyline focus on the Pier Head and Albert Dock, with more modern architecture in its own image
 * Culture - Again, much like architecture you have a fair choice in terms of cultural images of Liverpool, although both religious and ethnic imagery are likely to be like sport in that you have to be wary about giving preference to one group over another. There is also the visual arts that could be included such as the Tate Liverpool or Superlambanana. Or of course you have the Liver Bird, which is itself the symbol of Liverpool.
 * Ultimately, I think it depends what we can get in terms of a good quality skyline image, but my personal opinion would be to include the following:-
 * Skyline image including Pier Head and Albert Dock (taken from Mersey Ferry)
 * William Brown street and St George's Hall (taken from position approximate to Unite Union building)
 * West Tower and commercial area (taken from either top end of Old Hall Street or from Princes Dock/Pier Head)
 * The Liver Bird as it is the symbol of Liverpool (probably best taken late afternoon from River side of Liver Building)
 * The Beatles Story (Probably best to be angled to include peripheral imagery of the Albert Dock building itself)
 * --Daviessimo (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with what you have said there Daviessimo, do you believe there are already photos to good standards that could be used? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe these two photos would look good in a collage. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The cavern image will need to be 'brightened' if it is to be used because when the image is so small, as it will be, it is too dark in the foreground. I'm also still wary of using Anfield alone and would personally prefer a more neutral image --Daviessimo (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, is there any chance you could try to brighten the photo, since I don't have photoshop are anything along those lines myself. I have also been fairly succesful at getting permission for flickr users to change the copyright status' of their images for commerical use. I have just searched flickr, i have found plenty of photos of games between Liverpool and Everton. However the majority of these are close ups of the players. I will continue to look for some more 'panoramic photos', but is it not appropriate to have a photo of notable players from each team? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempt 1
OK, so I've given it a go using Roxio image suite and come up with this. As I was playing about with the images I found it very hard to position many of them, primarily due to the fact that most of them were too square (as in the width and height dimension were too similar). Anyway, in order to get a better balance to the image, I searched through Flickr and found a skyline image that was a decent quality and used that instead of the image taken from the top of the Liver Building. The plus side of this skyline shot is it includes the HMS Ark Royal at the Cruise terminal which is nice, but on the down side it happened to be, rather typically, overcast on that day. As for the final picture, aside from my weariness in having just one club represented, the amount of space left was too small for that picture of Anfield. In the end, having tried a dozen images from commons and flickr I found an Albert Dock one, which even when heavily cropped still looked pretty good.

Anyway, any feedback would be appreciated and I'd like to get any ideas on how we could possibly improve on this. If anybody has any images that they would feel sit better in the collage, let me know and I'll give them a go. Simples. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have done a great job. I could easily link every image in the montage to Liverpool, even the ones you have cropped look good. The skyline image is also great, I know the weather in it isn't particularly that nice, but I suppose it is a true reflection of Liverpool. I like the quality of the photo and how all the colours in it easily compliment each other. I actually see no reason why this can't become the articles lead image. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since a decision is yet to be made, and considering how long this has dragged on for, I have decided to go ahead with replacing the the main Liverpool image. If anyone has any serious issues, please comment below and do not change the image unless you have done so and have a valid reason. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say that the new lead image is great. Making a montarge of images is worth it. This idea should be used more in other settlement articles, maybe we could do this type of thing for the rest of the major Merseyside settlements.--L. Gregson (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it too. Not sure it would be wise to roll out to other towns. Certainly it would be useful to have something like this for every metropolitan borough I think though.


 * Incidently, I think we need to have a caption, as per London. --Jza84 |  Talk 16:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a basic caption, but feel free to change it --Daviessimo (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The new lead image looks great, well done. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, congratulations on your fine work Stevvvv4444, the lead image is much better now. I'm glad the initial discussion took place because the end result was certainly worth it. Benkid77 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendship links
A list of Liverpool's "friendship links" has recently been added to the article. The section states "These links have no formal constitution and are based on the exchange of information and greetings" (which, incidentally, is copied from the Liverpool City Council website), so I wonder whether they are worth mentioning. The links seem very informal and are not twinning agreements. Are they notable enough for inclusion? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that they should stay because if someone is looking of twinned cities of Liverpool I think that it would be relevant to them to know about friendship links aswell. Tsange ► talk 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that it's not clear what a "friendship link" actually is, in substantive terms. Is this an established arrangement that other cities have (as with twinning), or is it just a Liverpool thing? To me, it sounds like a very informal arrangement, hence my scepticism about how notable it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure: there's enough hard information in the article (and I guess more to be added), so that including "informal" "exchange of greeting", is pretty low key, and may well not last. It fills a lot of space with pretty flags and IMO adds nothing to the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed them because of the ambiguity. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The name
In modern English, one might think Liverpool was named for a pool of livers someone discarded after butchering animals. I had to look it up elsewhere on the net, but it seems "Liverpool" comes from Old Saxon words meaning "Brackish Water" referring to the sea water that flowed into local fresh water, making it undrinkable.

Can anyone find a legitimate source for this? Anyone out there speak Old Saxon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact origins of the name are unknown, although most sources state that if derives from Liuerpul, which means muddy pool or creek. I'm not sure if that is the same are what you have seen, although it sounds similar. If you can find a source, its probably best being put in the History of Liverpool article for know, as there is no toponomy section in this article, which is where the origin of the name should go. I'll have to add that to my to do list for the future --Daviessimo (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I watched a recent documentary about liverpool. The name is Latin, Li(THE) Ver (Prima Vera= SPRING) Pool (Pudlium sp? = pool or anchorage) Liverpool= The Spring Anchorage. This was a rallying point for the start of the campaigning season;for sailing over to Ireland to bash the locals. The sport of kings many years ago. The latin name does not suggest a Roman connection, but just the written language of the original charter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.171.233 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Do you have a reference?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A reference ? hmmmm... The documentary/ arty BBC film is called, Passport to Liverpool. www.brightmoonfilms.co.uk. on BBC3-4 a few months ago. Part of the capital of culture thing. The naming of the city is at the start of the movie. Not much of a reference, but a semi-reputable reasoning behind the name. The best explaination so far...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.120.191 (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

population
I think the article should include the population of the Liverpool City Region, around 2.12 million according to page 9 of this source: http://www.merseyside.org.uk/dbimgs/PMD_227_-_Main_Document.pdf - any objections/opinions? Billyjmitchell (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should include the population of the Liverpool City Region, around 2.12 million according to page 9 of this source: http://www.merseyside.org.uk/dbimgs/PMD_227_-_Main_Document.pdf Billyjmitchell (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting suggestion. "Liverpool city region" seems to be an arbitrary concept though and encroaches into Cheshire and Wales (see page 12 of the PDF for a breakdown of the population); there's no administrative link for starters. It may be interesting to add a line though, although the article should first and foremost be about the city of Liverpool. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---


 * I am not sure about this; it does not appear clear from that document what, exactly, the "Liverpool city region" actually is; the document discusses the 'concept' of the region, rather than specifics.


 * In addition, the source of the population data is not clear from the table; is it from 2003, as the job information is?


 * If this addition were to go ahead, I would suggest something like the following, added to the end of the first para of 'Demographics';


 * The "Liverpool city region", as defined by the Mersey Partnership, includes Wirral, Warrington, Flintshire, Chester and other areas, and has a population in excess of 2 million.


 * I am leaving this semi-protected edit request in place, for others to decide upon.  Chzz  ►  23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * After discussing with others, per WP:BOLD, I'm adding this.  Chzz  ►  01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

School of tropical medicine
The photo for this is of the old building it has since moved to a modern one. The article needs to reflect that at least in the caption. 79.76.156.173 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) ✅

Edit request from 86.141.174.179, 27 October 2010
Link the 'A tour through the Whole Island of Great Britain' to its wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_tour_thro'_the_Whole_Island_of_Great_Britain), possibly changing the spelling in the Liverpool article to reflect the actual name of the book (through -> thro').

86.141.174.179 (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Education
Could someone include a reference to Blackburne House and Greenbank here, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburne_House http://www.blackburnehouse.co.uk/

Greenbank doesn't seem to have a wiki entry as yet http://www.greenbankcollege.org.uk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessy76 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Economy
Can you add: "As of 08-12-2010, Liverpool has the fastest growing economy of any major UK city outside of London."

Source: http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2010/12/08/liverpool-had-fastest-growing-economy-outside-london-in-2008-92534-27790121/

Thanks, Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.164.19 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Population
Surely this list List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population Is the corrsct list to use when stating population figures for UK Cities within Wikipedia, the list currently used List of English districts by population is ridiculous as it also includes counties and skews data for smaller cities such as Leeds and Sheffield as they include the metropolitan areas in their figures.

Clearly the wrong information, as Manchester and Liverpool are both approx twice as populous as Leeds or Sheffield.

Thanks

Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.164.19 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms
An updated version is avaliable at File:Coat of arms of Liverpool City Council.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.104.235 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Government : Re 1980's - Derek Hatton and 'Militant'
It would be good if someone would somehow weave / explain the subject into the Government section (or elsewhere), there's plenty of archive available on the period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.176.112 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Housing
This should be changed: "Thousands of families were rehoused from the inner-city to new suburban housing estates, based on the pretext that this would improve their standard of living, though this is largely subjective."

New housing clearly improved the standard of living. The writer is mixing "quality of life" with "standard of living". This is better.. "Thousands of families were rehoused from the inner-city to new suburban housing estates, to improve living conditions."81.178.161.227 (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Innovations
Worrabout the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient?86.31.105.33 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Transport
I find it amazing that the Merseyrail metro is not mentioned. It is the second oldest underground urban railway in the world. It has 67 stations in all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liverpool-8-boy (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Try this link. Rodhull  andemu  00:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail is a part underground metro network and parts of it are the oldest of any urban railway in the world. The second oldest underground urban railway in the world. The oldest used tunnel in the world. This is all significant. None of this is mentioned, not even that the city has a partial underground metro network. Just blanket terms like railway, etc are used. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ferries, railways, transatlantic steamships, municipal trams,[17] electric trains[18] and the helicopter[19] were all pioneered in Liverpool as modes of mass transit."

Really? Liverpool has/had mass-transit helicopters? Excellent! Ministry (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation of possible 'List of places in Liverpool' page
This talk page is full of discussion about areas of Liverpool, with some believing that Liverpool stops at the city council limits, and others believing that a 'Greater Liverpool' exists, into most parts of the urban area and possibly beyond.

I've been having a look at the Glasgow page, and whilst the there doesn't seem to be a heated discussion like here, they also seem to have varying definitions, which they have merged into a single page List of places in Glasgow. This includes the City of Glasgow, urban area and the city region. I'm aware these pages exist for Liverpool as well, so I am proposing that a similar page be constructed, styled 'List of places in Liverpool', perhaps also including areas falling within the Liverpool Post Town.

I'm not an experienced editor, so I feel that if others are also of the opinion that this is a half decent idea to be considered, then perhaps someone could give it a go! Cheers. 92.25.236.169 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool Street Gallery
Can i ask anyone, if they also see what i see, that the Liverpool Street Gallery link on all districts is defunct? I have suspected this for some time, but i've only just decided to ask here. If anyone can just verify this? (Was set up by Dave Woods). If it is then surely they will all have to be removed. Babydoll9799 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes
Ibrox was founded in 1899 not 1879. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Paddy's Wigwam
Offensive? Yes, to some people, but my impression is now less so than formerly. I tried to indicate that with a footnote. Like it or not, the nickname has stuck, and I speak as a nominal Catholic. RodCrosby (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated it with a BBC ref. Offensive or not if it is used then it should be in. I wonder if the person who removed it is either Irish, Catholic or from Liverpool or a Native American?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you are Orange Order to come out such a crass statement. It is NOT used, so should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.6.144 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though perhaps we should add it looks like a Tipi.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the section again. Firstly, the reference provided doesn't support the etymology of the term and secondly it describes the name as one of many so I'd argue that its "undue" to use that term to describe the cathedral over another unless there is clear sourcing that this is the common nickname. Not going to get into a fight over this but there was an email into OTRS about this and if you are to include it, I think the sourcing needs to support everything there and we need to think about the phraseology. I'm sorry I should have left a talk note about this yesterday but was editing in a hurry. To be clear, I have not made the edit as an OTRS volunteer but simply as an editor who does agree that the term could be considered offensive to some readers and hoping that we can find a more sensitive way of handling it for our more sensitive readers. (yes I know we are not censored but it never hurts to be thoughtful about stuff anyway). Spartaz Humbug! 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And to answer Kitchen Knife, I'm while, English, a southerner, living in Europe, a professional and I'm an atheist. Does any of that have any bearing on my edit? Judging people by their background is exactly why we have problems like this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who does it judge people by their backgrounds? Liverpool has strong ties with Ireland it is twinned with Dublin. Is you assumption that Paddy is offensive? If we wanted to I'd use the archaeological term "ritual site" to describe the place as I find the idea that "religion" is anything other than mumbo jumbo, delusion and manipulation offensive.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculating about what kind of person I am when discussing the edit is clearly seeking to judge my edit by my background. Spartaz Humbug! 13:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's trying to work out what you basis for thinking it offensive is.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As Rod has suggested and as far as I am aware the term is, for the most part, no longer used in a pejorative sense, but is rather used in more of an affectionate way (i.e. Where do you wanna meet? By Paddy's Wigwam). That being said, having an explanation for its emergence without a reference is against wiki policy, so removing this part is the right thing to do for now. --Daviessimo (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never ever heard anyone ever say "Paddy's Wigwam". I have only ever read it. A nickname is spoken. The term originally came from Orange Order people to sneer the cathedral - to them Catholic and Irish were all one. This should not be included. 79.65.73.128 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By stating that you have seen it you increase the reasons for it to be included. Wikipedia is not censored so regardless of whether or not people like the name if it is are has been used then it should be in as a matter of record.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go on the big wheel at present in Liverpool One, you will hear it described in the commentary as Paddy's Wigwam. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, as born and brought up Liverpudlian, I have never head this term spoken - EVER!!! How much much more Liverpudlian than Liverpool 8 do you get?  It is not in common use in any way whatsoever, and I could not care if I have occasionally read it (probably written by some outsider) or some dumbo put it on a big wheel commentary. It is clearly not in popular use and should not be included. It is a nickname myth.  Like we are supposed to say "Whacker" if you read papers and look on the TV, which is another word I have never heard anyone ever say.  Do not go by tabloid nicknames. The Catholic cathedral is NOT "colloquially" referred to as "Paddy's Wigwam", as this article states. This is untrue.  A nickname commonly used and a sneer word used by a religious organisation are two very different things.  This MUST be removed. 79.66.6.144 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I've never really heard this said in real terms. I've heard people refer to it having been called 'paddy's wigwam', but no-one's ever said 'I was walking past paddy's wigwam the other day'. It's kind of like the 'getting off at Edge Hill' -everyone can tell you about the expression and what it means, but no-one actually saysItalic text it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my parents grew up in 'working class' Birkenhead in the 1940s/50s, and routinely, almost exclusively, still call it 'Paddy's Wigwam'. They have no religious affilitations; it's just what it was (is?) called. No sneering is involved. Ministry (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. I was born in Liverpool in 1946 and have never moved away from the area. I've frequently heard the nickname used, even by local Catholics and certainly by people with no religious affiliation. Ramsey Campbell (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the term "Paddy's Wigwam" when I was teaching at Hopwood Hall college in Rochdale (Middleton campus). It's got an interesting chapel (used as a library when I was there) that looks very much like Liverpool's RC cathedral. I was told it was a small-scale version of "Paddy's Wigwam" in Liverpool built by way of trying out the design before going for the full-scale cathedral. The man who told me that was a middle aged Catholic Liverpudlian and seemed to relish the term "Paddy's Wigwam": certainly no sneering was involved, nor any direct influence from the Orange Order (which isn't hugely significant in England anyway). 86.133.61.201 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Population Error
The article claims that Liverpool is the third largest city England. This doesn't seem to be correct. It uses a reference from 2001, while this reference from 2008 puts Liverpool as the seventh in England. Also, check out our article on Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits. Even without the references, London, Birmingham and Manchester are bigger than Liverpool. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  12:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Slavery
The article states that from 1722, a slave setting foot on English soil was a free man.

However, the Wikipedia article on Slavery in Britain and Ireland states that the law wasn't settled that way in 1722, and I cannot find any reference on-line backing up the 1722 claim.

There was a significant case in 1772, but that did not settle the matter:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/slave_free.htm

"Mansfield ruled in 1772 that 'no master ever was allowed here (England) to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he deserted from his service...therefore the man must be discharged'. And so James Somerset won his freedom.

Lord Mansfield's judgement had a profound effect on slaves. Many of them misunderstood the ruling to mean that slaves were emancipated in Britain. This was not the case. The decision was that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain and sold into slavery"

"A few years later, in 1785, Mansfield himself ruled that 'black slaves in Britain were not entitled to be paid for their labour' (free Black people were, however, paid)."

- indicating that in 1785, there were in fact black slaves in England.

And then there's this, from http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/PULA/pula003002/pula003002007.pdf

"In 1677 the Solicitor-General declared, unequivocally, that 'negroes ought to be esteemed goods and commodities within the Acts of Trade and Navigation.' This legal view of black slaves as goods and chattels was confirmed in the common-law case of Butts V. Penny (1677) where it was ruled that since Africans were 'usually bought and sold among merchants, as merchandise, and being infidels there might be a property in them to maintain trover'."

The following is derived from the Slavery in Britain and Ireland article:

A case in 1569 ruled that English law could not recognise slavery.

The Lord Chief Justice ruled in 1701 that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.

But in 1729 the Yorke-Talbot slavery opinion was that slavery of Africans was lawful in England.

Yet from http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/PULA/pula003002/pula003002007.pdf:

"[...] Chief Justice Holt further ruled, in the case of Smith V. Gould (1706) that 'By the common law no man can have a property in another'. While such a ruling was seemingly clear, it had, however, no effect in practice. Slaves continued to be bought and sold in England."

The more I read, the more muddy seems the situation - but 1722 is clearly wrong...

What to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.61.201 (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dangling Modifier
Historically a part of Lancashire, LIVERPOOL... Would somebody please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.147.96 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fix it how? Liverpool has been part of the historic county of Lancashire since the 12th century. It remains so today, as the historic county has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'administrative' local government area formed in 1974 and was not affected by any local government boundary changes since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.15.94 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the issue is with the grammatical construction of the sentence "Historically a part of Lancashire, the urbanisation and expansion of Liverpool were both largely brought about by the city's status as a major port". The sentence as it is could be seen to imply that the 'urbanisation and expansion of Liverpool' was part of Lancashire, as opposed to Liverpool itself. Whilst they are technically correct, in the context of the whole paragraph I don't see any real issue... --Daviessimo (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.151.168.5, 11 September 2011 RELIGION :BUDDHISM IN LIVERPOOL
A branch of the Buddhist Society was established by 1909.After discontinuing in 1914 with the outbreak of World War 1,it was re-established in 1933.(cite Humphreys "Sixty Years of Buddhism in England,1968). Most major traditions are now represented eg the Duldzin Centre (New Kadampa Tradition)in Aigburth Drive,Sefton Park,the Liverpool Buddhist Centre (Triratna,formerly FWBO)and others.

109.151.168.5 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other sources for this - preferably online?  Googling "Buddhism Liverpool" produces some sources for including a statement like this, but nothing that's obviously independent or reliable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Crime?
No crime section? When I was studying in London in the mid-1990s, I was told not to go to Liverpool because it was so dangerous. In regards to crime, has it gotten better, worse, stayed the same since the 1990s? Or was I given false information?131.229.61.58 (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to these figures, Liverpool compares very favourably with other metropolitan areas. RodCrosby (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * London has always had the highest crime rates in the UK, though still favorable to the US Crime in the United States--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Three Graces
According to another user, on the Pier Head page, the Three Graces were only so called from 2001/2, ironically the time of the "Fourth Grace" debacle. Surely reference to the Three Graces is longstanding? Curiously, how on Earth did the "Forth Grace" get such a name (because the existing buildings were called the Three Graces!)
 * The user says sources for the "Three Graces" only come from 2002. I am no historian but i'm really staggered that this other user believes the "Three Graces" was only nicknamed in the last decade and wants proof to show otherwiseBabydoll9799 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This source says 2002. I'm sure the term was in use well before then, but the difficulty is in finding the reliable sources to confirm that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the "other user" mentioned above, can I suggest if anyone has any hard information about this that they bring it to the discussion here? Thanks. Swanny18 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I hadn't seen the Williams quote before; that is interesting...Swanny18 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found a 2001 reference here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and one from 2000 here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC

not much earlier, but 1998 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=inFvXOKRqFgC&pg=PA310&dq=three+graces+liverpool&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tIX7TsiTDIOo8QOH3M3gAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=three%20graces%20liverpool&f=false I can't believe that the phrase was only made around that time. I am going to have a proper look Sweetie candykim (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

also 1998 (page 18) 'celebrated waterfront's 'three graces' http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=h4b7TreKBoOl8gPD8a3XAQ&id=ZLLfAAAAMAAJ&dq=three+graces+liverpool&q=three+graces+#search_anchor Sweetie candykim (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe best if this discussion is kept in one place, rather than duplicating it? I suggest Talk:Pier Head, rather than here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011
Liverpool Religion:(as no reference so far to Buddhism): In 1933 a group of Buddhists in Liverpool revived the branch which had existed before the Second World War,called the Liverpool & District Buddhist Lodge(citation:Humphreys"Sixty Years of Buddhism in England"1968). Several Buddhist organisations of various traditions now exist in the city.

Virtuouscancerkimi3 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot make this edit, because you have not given a reliable souce. Sorry.  Chzz  ► 06:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool population
I've compared the Liverpool page with the nearby cities of Manchester and Leeds. Manchester has 3 sets of population figures in its intro paragraph, Leeds has 5!! I added the Liverpool City region population figures which stand at 1.5 million and these were removed by another contributor. This leaves Liverpool with only 2 population figures. Firstly how is this fair? And secondly, don't people think this downplays the actual importance of Liverpool's urban area in comparison to these other similiar sized cities? How do we intend on amending the Leeds and Manchester pages or how should we go about bringing Liverpool's up to the same standard? Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To C&P from your talk page: It's nothing personal and I never realised it was a matter of "fair"? Liverpool (both the city and the borough) has 1 population. The Liverpool Urban Area is not Liverpool. The Liverpool City region is not Liverpool, nor is Merseyside. The Leeds and Manchester articles are both also a mess of population sizes and descriptions. I have no idea why there is an obsession to introduce that amount of conflicting dimensions and population information in the lede rather than in the relevant sub-sections (be it Demography, Economy etc) or wiki pages particularly for things like the Liverpool City Region, which is a Local Authority association and not an actual area.


 * In contrast, I present London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Edinburgh. How many population figures are mentioned while still conveying all the information required? Koncorde (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's interesting you should pick London, there's 3 sets of population figures in the intro (that's the same as Manchester's and 1 more than Liverpool has presently). Newcastle has 4 sets in the little right hand side bar.  Edinburgh is a Scottish city and city regions only exist within England, therefore, it would be impossible to include a city region figure for Edinburgh.  I think you've proven my point, there is still a disparity between Liverpool's page and that of other major cities.  As I say, I think what you've done is downplay the significance of Liverpool in relation to other cities and I feel that this needs to be rectified...Anyone else like to add their views??  If no-one replies, would you like to help me amend the other cities Koncorde?  Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They were presented to show that many articles have many different approaches and show that no article (or city) is disenfranchised by not mentioning every possible statistical population measure (particularly for things such as MAA's) in the lede. There's a difference in how the information is presented and discussed and where it is relevant to do so without unintentionally confusing parameters. Is Newcastles article so terrible? Or "downplayed"? Or are both Leeds and Manchester a mess of jargon? Koncorde (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think for readability the various types of population mention in the lead need to be kept to a minimum. Mentionig urban areas and city regions in the first few sentences has the potential to confuse what is meant by Liverpool. In my opinion, the Leeds article should be a warning to how it can get out of control rather than an exemplar. The lead is dominated by various population estimates and doesn't really summarise the whole article (the second paragraph is almost superfluous). Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Second City of Empire
"Liverpool's status can be judged from the fact that it was the only British city ever to have its own Whitehall office."

Okay, what does that mean? Why was that important? 71.162.11.23 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
What is the etymology of the name "Liverpool"? Are there livers and pools involved? <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A fuller range of theories is summarised here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012
Another edit request. This article says that Mike Story is the current Lord Mayor this is incorrect. We are on our second Lord Mayor after Mike Story. http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/councillors-committees-and-meetings/lord-mayor/ Check this URL if you do not believe me. It is of the Council's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.221.52 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2012
The Open Championship was held at Hoylake in 2006, not 2008

86.41.119.98 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now corrected - thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Horror authors
Liverpool has a strong pedigree of horror fiction and most of it is referenced in the Literature section: "Liverpool has produced several noted writers of horror fiction, often set on Merseyside - Clive Barker and Peter Atkins among them. A collection of Liverpudlian horror fiction, Spook City was edited by a Liverpool expatriate, Angus Mackenzie, and introduced by Doug Bradley, also from Liverpool."

However this section makes no mention at all of Ramsey Campbell one of the premier names in horror fiction and probably on a par with Clive Barker for influence upon other writers in the field (although more low-key and less well known today than he deserves). Laughablefellow (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Climate
The box in the Liverpool section claims that Liverpool averages 282 days a year with precipitation. I've only lived in Liverpool for a year and, while I concede that it does rain a lot, 282 days a year seems implausibly high. In contrast, World Climate Guide claims 190 days a year, Weather2Travel claims 189 days and Holiday Check 146. (If you search on the web, disregard any Australian sites that claim about 100–110 rainy days a year, as they're probably talking about Liverpool, New South Wales.)

I'm very reluctant to just replace the stats in the article with a different set, since none of them looks particularly authoritative. But the figures quoted in the article are so far from my personal experience that I cannot believe them. Does anyone have a good source? Dricherby (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The source seems very authentic, but I do have to admit that 7 days of "Fog" in July does strike me as a bit strange (having lived in the area for 3 decades of my life, I can't for the life of me really ever remember a single day of fog in July, let alone an average of 7 each year). The same weather reports are also shared by St Helens, which is again strange as Liverpool has a localised weather pattern due to its coastal proximity. In comparison the website www.holiday-weather.com seems to give significantly different values . Their values definitely seem to match more accurately with the Met Office values given.
 * I think the source is questionable when it disagrees directly with the Met Office figures by 8 or 9 days in the middle of summer. Met says 12-14, the current source states 23 which would put Liverpool on par with the outliest parts of the Scottish highlands. Koncorde (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be reasonable to extract the figures from the Met Office maps? I'm not entirely happy with a source of "Look at this web page; you have to know which pixels correspond to Lierpool" but it seems much better than the current situation! Dricherby (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to use the accurate source, than a nicely formatted incorrect one. Koncorde (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This part of the article is clearly wrong. The figures for Manchester, which is only around 25 miles away but known for being rainy, has a figure of 140 days. How can Liverpool's be double that!? Lenatron (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Lenatron


 * I have amended the average rain fall days data. The average total per annum is now 194 days - still significantly and strangely higher than other places located near the rainy Pennines, but certainly more believable than the previous figure. Source: http://www.whatstheweatherlike.org/england/liverpool.htm Lenatron (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

Aerial shot
I took this pic on a flight the other day, I've made it CC so if anyone here wants it, feel free to upload it to commons. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Slave Trade - Edit Request - 27th Aug 2012
The article states that Liverpool "controlled" 41% of Europe's and 80% of the UK's trade in slaves. It isn't clear what this actually means and I find it misleading. How does a city, which is an inanimate object, control something? Only people could have controlled the trade but it is unclear exactly how many were directly and indirectly involved and to what extent they could meaningfully have controlled it. The article gives the impression that the entire population were in some way involved in the slave trade and that they were pulling the levers of what was a global system. I'm not aware of any research that has demonstrated this. Even for those directly involved, such as the ship owners and ship operatives, it is unclear to what extent they could have controlled what was a global system - involving slave traders in Africa and the Americas. If the statement, which doesn't have a source, means to say that ships registered in Liverpool were involved in 41%/80% of the transport, then that is what it should say. It seems imprecise to say that the city controlled any element of the trade.

Lenatron (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Lenatron


 * Added a source for both figures. Although it does not actually clarify them. <font color="8B0A50">noisy <font color="8B0A50">jinx  <font color="8B0A50">huh? 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, the source is an exceedingly weak one for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Liverpool-rooms.co.uk is a website specialising in the rental of bedrooms to students and no source has been provided on their website for what is, to say the very least, quite a bold statement. This information has no more authority than what one would find on the Travelodge website or on Gumtree. We don't even know who the person is who has made this claim. I think that for such an emotive and historically significant episode as this one that more authoritatively sourced information should be provided. The statement that Liverpool controlled 40% of Europe's and 80% of the UK's slave trade has no basis whatsoever - at best, it may refer to the number of Liverpool-registered ships involved in the transport of "goods" associated with the slave trade. I would recommend that the statement referred to should be removed entirely. Even if there is a peer-reviewed source for it, I would like to see the term "controlled" qualified or removed as it is misleading.

82.132.215.245 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Lenatron


 * In the absence of an appropriate source and having received no comments contradicting mine (above), I have removed the sentence reading: "By the close of the century Liverpool controlled over 41% of Europe's and 80% of Britain's slave commerce." Lenatron (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

Beatles capitalisation RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013
Hello Editors for Liverpool page,

My Zns Smith and I would like to request to edit info on Liverpool’d page? This additional text provides important overlooked historical facts regarding about Liverpool. Thank you.

Zns Smith (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can edit semiprotected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed. This will usualy happen when your account is at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits.  It looks like you have met the edit count number, and in another day or two your account will be old enough.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The user concerned has attempted to copy-paste copyright material elsewhere, and should not attempt to repeat the exercise here or anywhere else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sport
"Famous professional footballers from Liverpool include Peter Reid, Gary Ablett, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Tony Hibbert."

Not to get into a whole debate over who/what is a scouser but this article is about Liverpool. Reid, Gerrard and Hibbert are from Huyton. Carragher is from Bootle. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Grand National Section
Can the reference to John Smiths grand national be changed, as John Smith is no longer the title sponsor of the event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.136.26 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013
In the Football section under Sport, the semicolon in "including; Dixie Dean" should be a colon

108.18.250.6 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No punctuation mark is necessary after "including". I have removed the semicolon and placed a comma before it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Liverpolitan
Should this article mention the word "Liverpolitan", as "a supposedly status-enhancing adaptation of Liverpudlian"? I've certainly seen the word used, but whether it should be mentioned here is another matter. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's relevant. Aside from the Times using it in a snide way in 2002, there are a fair number of references from the 30's through to the 2000's of its use. Koncorde (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013
The Liverpool page says: 'By the early 19th century, 40% of the world's trade passed through Liverpool's docks' how can we be sure this is correct? Any facts to back this up? 40% of the whole worlds trade seems like an awful lot!

81.5.171.241 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It does seem an extraordinary claim, and it's unsourced. I'll add a  tag to it, but if a good source isn't found it ought to be removed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: A possible source is this. Is it a good enough source, and are we sure it isn't derived from our article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good enough reference, especially as that article quotes that 'This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.'. It sounds like they've got the information straight from this page. 40% of UK trade is entirely believable, but the whole world seems a very spurious claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.171.241 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that source is no good, and the claim is absurd -- it isn't even confining itself to international trade. Whatever it really was 40% of needs sourcing. I've gone ahead and removed it. --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)