Talk:Liverpool/Archive 1

Has anyone else noticed the satirical tomfoolery in the 'demographics' table of this article....?

May I suggest that anyone wanting to know even more about Liverpool, Britain's most interesting city, should look at www.seeliverpool.com which has 40 pages of information for the prospective visitor. Mike

Personal Opinion - One of the finest cities in England. TwoOneTwo

I'll second that! L1v3rp00l 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved here in the interests of a) neutrality and b) inaccuracy - everyone knows that honour falls to Plymouth :-) sjc

---

Who got the idea that Liverpool's underground system only has one line? It's got the Northern Line (Southport - Moorfields - Central - Hunts Cross) and the Wirral Line (Chester/Ellesmere Port/West Kirby - Birkenhead - James St - Moorfields - Lime St - Central - James St loop and back out)! Arwel 16:50 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

Is it worthwhile mentioning the political problems which have beset Liverpoool, perhaps mentioning its erstwhile deputy mayor Derek Hatton?

Not sure! David Martland 09:56, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning briefly as a lead onto to anotther article, but shouldn't fill up this page, Mintguy (T)

Hitler

I was under the impression that the conection had been atested to by a nephew and some documents, when found when they moved the registry office?--Jirate 21:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the story has been proven, having looked it up. So it's probably best not to claim it is a fact. G-Man 21:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Urban Myth. Hitler was completely broke at the time mentioned. And he was also teetotal so would have been unlikely to have frequented the pubs mentioned!

Exile 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Districts of Liverpool

Is it better to arrange the tables like this?

Aigburth	Allerton, England	Anfield	Childwall
Clubmoor	Cressington/Grassendale	Crosby	Croxteth
Dingle	Edge Hill	Everton	Fairfield
Fazakerley	Garston	Gateacre	Hunts Cross
Kirkdale	Knotty Ash	Litherland	Mossley Hill
Netherley	Norris Green	Old Swan	Seaforth
Sefton Park	Speke	St Michael's Hamlet	Toxteth
Tuebrook	Walton	Wavertree	West Derby
Woolton

Seaforth has been removed from the district list - it's not in Liverpool.

Exile 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And Litherland as well!

Exile 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Layout

Hi the reason I'm changing the layout is that on my system atleast the image runs into the data table which is puched to the left, which bumps into the toc.--Jirate 23:36, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Moved discussion from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool

• Partial self-nom, I dont know about everyone else but I think this article is pretty good. G-Man 22:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. This is an interesting article but needs more work in integrating the various comments that have been set out as single sentence paragraphs. The coat of arms of the city should be featured as should the dialect. The list of liverpudlians is too long and should be an article on its own. In fact, there are too many lists. Some of the writing needs attention, for example: "...until Liverpool has now become second only to the metropolis of Great Britain: " Tiles 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more work. See for example Birmingham which would be a better candidate. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's as good as Sarajevo, which is the featured article standard for cities. Also, the list of people from Liverpool should be moved to a separate article, and the media section should be expanded—two-line sections are not suffient for a featured article. The education section is also too short and discusses only colleges and universities, with no mention of primary or secondary education in Liverpool. Also, there's no "economy" section and no real geography or climate section. It's not a bad article–it's actually quite good–but it's not feature-quality yet. I think that soon it will be, though. Neutrality^talk 17:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Well, I don't support. IMO Liverpool should be a disambig page, as we have an extremely important council in Australia called Liverpool council. Our Federal opposition leader in Australia used to be mayor of the local council and so we have intense media scrutiny on this place every time Mark Latham's past history comes up. When Aussies come along to look for info on it on Wikipedia, they see Liverpool in England. Hardly encourages those users to stay on the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • There is a prominent link to the disambiguation page at the top, although if the place is important it could have its own link at the top rather than having to go through the disambig page. G-Man 21:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Thanks for the recomendations, I'll put this on the Liverpool talk page and see if things can be improved. G-Man 21:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • On the list front, I changed the areas to a table to reduce wastage. The same may be true for the personalities. I think making it a disambig would be sensible, are there any tools to help sort out links.Provide of course Brum and the smoke follow suit.--Jirate 22:24, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I put in a direct link to the Australian Liverpool so a disambig is probably unnecesary now. G-Man 23:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

REMOVED LINK

I was wondering why a link to my site was removed from the Liverpool Page.

www.liverpool-skyline.co.uk

*Liverpool SkylineDVD

Sure it linked to my homepage with images(given away free) and video clips (given away free)

---

You shouldn't be linking your own site in the first place, see Wikipedia:External links. --W(t) 00:55, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Greater Merseyside??

Can anybody provide a cite for this:

The Greater Merseyside conurbation which includes Merseyside, Halton borough in Cheshire (which itself includes the twin towns of Runcorn and Widnes) and the South Lancashire towns of Ormskirk and Skelmersdale has a population in excess of 2,100,000. It is one of England's core cities.

As far as I know no such an entity as "Greater Merseyside" exists officially. G-Man 19:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It used as a geographic term, refering to the conerbation/hinterland. It does seem to be aquiring an offical stats though [1][2][3] AltaVista produced those.--Jirate 19:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

'Greater Liverpool' and 'Liverpool Bay Area' are also gaining popularity. In fact I'm sure changing Merseyside to the latter has been seriously proposed on a couple of occassions. [Gareth Parr]

That would be tricky. Since there is no Merseyside County Council any more (which had the power to change the name of the county), it would have to be done with an Act. Very unlikely. Morwen - Talk 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Greater Liverpool" would go down like a lead balloon on the Wirral! In most of it (especially the parts facing the River Dee), "Merseyside" is bad enough already, but "Greater Liverpool" would be a million times worse...... --RFBailey 22:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Just Cheshire people really, rich with big houses and BBC accents apparently. Let's blow up the three river tunnels and end the association which is quite frankly embarrassing to the Wirral folk who are of a better heritage than the scouse scum. That way, commutng to Liverpool will be extremely difficult but let's face it, scousers need as many jobs as they can get, and Wirral people don't need to work anyway 'cause they're all rich!

What a ridiculous statement? Have you ever seen Birkenhead, Wallasey, Bebington and all the masses of council estates in the central area? A good proportion of the Wirral is far poorer than much of inner-city Liverpool! I am definitely in favour of "Greater Liverpool" (and I had the misfortune of growing up on the Wirral). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.69.33.236 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

See Greater Merseyside. Kahuzi 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Greater Liverpool would go down like a lead balloon in Ormskirk as well, not least for the fact it is in a different county.

Music

I can't believe there is no lonkage to the eighties and nineties music of Liverpool, and there is little 60's stuff.

youre totally right.150.101.101.74 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Titanic comment

re: The maiden voyage of Titanic was originally planned for Liverpool, but relocated to Southampton — this is often a point of confusion — no part of Titanic was actually constructed in Liverpool.

This may be the case. However, is it not worth pointing out that the reason for the maiden voyage beginning in Liverpool would have been because the White Star Line had it's head office in the city?

Also, according to http://www.plimsoll.org/Southampton/Titanic/quickquizresult.asp the ship's 'home port' was Liverpool, in common with "most UK-registered White Star vessels".

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic, the ship was built in Ireland, so the implication that it was built in Southampton is incorrect, and perhaps the whole remark is uneccessary.fatbarry2000 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

New Free Video's of Liverpool Available

To see Liverpool, why not view the video's on the Liverpool Skyline Website, which has many video's some in High Definition, available on free download.

Broad Green or Broadgreen?

Is the correct name of this district Broad Green (two words) or Broadgreen (one word)? The title of the article about it has it as one word, but I thought it was two (as it appears in both of my Liverpool street maps, and in the name of Broad Green railway station). --RFBailey 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The council has it as one [4] [5] as does the hospital. The OS says 2 words.--IanDavies 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Districts of Liverpool table

I have replaced the previous table of "Districts of Liverpool" with a list, for the following reasons:

1. The table was not an exhaustive list, and if any new districts were to be added (e.g. having both Cressington and Grassendale, or possible future articles on other districts), it would be more difficult to do this to a table than to a list.

2, Although the table had at one stage been in alphabetical order (although it is not necessarily clear whether ordering a table should be done across rows or down columns), subsequent edits had stopped this. It therefore was something of a mess, and putting them as a list made it easier to see the correct alphabetical order.

I stick by my comment that the change was made for ease of maintenance. --RFBailey 15:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be putting it back. It looks far better. And according to the OS Cessington does not exist as a diistrict. It's is not the difficult to maintain a table. The Norm for sorted tables like this is left to right, followed by rows. As it is for most European languages.--IanDavies 15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sport NPOV

The current content on Liverpool's sporting landscape, while improved from earlier versions, is still rather contentious. One could argue over the factors that define success and make an argument for either club: Liverpool hold more trophies but Everton hold the record of most seasons in the top flight and most points in the top flight; both strong indicators of consistent achievement. Irrespective, one has to consider whether any opinion on the relative merits of Liverpool's two most prominent football teams is appropriate for an article about the City of Liverpool. While taking out the claim of which team is greater would make the sport section embarrassingly light, perhaps a more diverse look at Liverpool's sporting situation would be useful? Surely sports beyond football exist in Liverpool? Veila 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree about Everton's prowess. The following statistics from Football365 (to end of 2002/3 season but results since then will not affect the ranking) show that although Everton have been in the top flight more seasons than Liverpool their points tally is inferior

         Team                    Sns  Pld   W   D    L    F    A   Pts  
       1 Liverpool                90 3602 1654 895 1053 5901 4467 4703
       2 Everton                 102 3986 1620 977 1389 6273 5634 4584

Barfbagger 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool Skyline link

Why is this in the article?

St. John's Beacon which dominates the Liverpool Skyline.

Not only does it link to someone's personal page (see question, above), but it also looks ridiculous within the text. For the time being, I have moved the link to 'external links'. fatbarry2000 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: To avoid confusion, this appears to be different from the 'liverpool skyline' link discussed above. It was, however, still in an incorrect place in the article. fatbarry2000 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Titanic

This sentence is rather confusing:

The maiden voyage of Titanic was originally planned for Liverpool, as Liverpool was it's port of registration and the home of owners White Star Line, but relocated to Southampton — this is often a point of confusion — no part of Titanic was actually constructed in Liverpool.

The Titanic was built in Belfast, so the fact that it wasn't built in Liverpool doesn't have anything to do with where its maiden voyage sailed from! --RFBailey 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Second city of the empire

Hmm, I'd always heard this phrase with respect to Calcutta, and Google seems to corroborate this (every single result for "second capital of the british empire" is about Calcutta). The few references I find to Liverpool with a similar bent are with the phrase "second city of the british empire", but even then there are far fewer of these compared to Glasgow. Either way, I suppose it can stay with city instead of capital, but I wouldn't be surprised if a more zealous editor in the future deletes it, if no source is cited to back it up. Aquilina 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename Category:Towns and villages in Liverpool to Category:Districts of Liverpool

Category:Towns and villages in Liverpool, which is related to this article, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Districts of Liverpool at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion.

i like things short and sweet.150.101.101.74 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Split History

Suggest the History section should be split in line with Wikipedia:Article size. Johnwalton 13:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support There is already a well populated Category History of Liverpool which shows the amount of information that is already available, and it can only grow. If it's not split now it will have to be done later, so why wait. Shrew 10:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new article at History of Liverpool and shortened the Liverpool History section, but it could probably do with tightening further. Johnwalton 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to chop it down as much as possible and almost create a bullet point summary. It probably still needs a little rebalancing so that key/minor points are given appropriate emphasis. Shrew 11:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Place-Name

I've done my research from place-name books, and it seems Liverpool's meaning is disputed. I'm not sure 'muddy creek' is the meaning... --Sunfazer (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the article mentions the eel theory. Was the research you did up to a higher standard than your reading of the article?--84.9.192.124 01:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can provide good evidence, which is of a higher standard than the article mentions. --Sunfazer (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Go on then rewrite it. You already shown you haven't read the article, I wait with baited breath for you evidence.--84.9.192.124 16:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask 5 different local historians and you would probably get 5 different answers. I've heard 'Muddy Pool', 'Laver Pool' (as in the seaweed), 'Eel Pool', 'Liver Pool' (as in pool shaped like a liver) and even one linked to the ancient celtic sea-god Llyr (who's son was Mannhan as in Isle of Man). There will be no consensious and each theory is about as varifiable as another.--Rjm 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The History section has now been split and a separate page History of Liverpool has been created. The concerns raised have been addressed in this article. Shrew 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

The positioning of Merseyside/Liverpool, on the larger England map is wildly inaccurate. The area highlighted in the square actualy shows the Fylde Coast & Morecambe Bay.

Er, no it isn't, actually. It just looks odd because Wales is totally omitted from the map. -- Arwel (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a bad graphical device as the blow out overlays the main map - and both the colouring and alpha channel don't make any attempt to highlight the region blow out. I'm not sure how maps are edited for WP, but I'd like to see if there is something I can do to improve this one. Nogwa 00:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a faded effect to the background and highlighted the zoom area - it's not perfect but I hope a lot better than the earlier map I've made the contrast more pronounced but to make any real improvement the blow out really needs to go into the Irish Sea. I'll have another stab at this if nobody beats me to it - I've asked to see if I can get an oricinal UK map graphic. BTW the reason it looks odd is because the zoomed box covers most of Wales and because they've chopped Scotland off the map. Nogwa 02:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

good for you.150.101.101.74 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I failed this because there are too many one sentence paragraphs and sub-headings, to much lists that needs to be converted to prose, image placing needs work, 6 web references, rather weak article overall. If you guys need help with it, I could help. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to cut down on the lists in the landmark section, getting rid of some less important ones and converting it to prose. I may need help with the theatres as I do not have much information to go on.--Rjm 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that: it was a good effort (despite what a certain user might think; he has a curious interpretation of "vandalism"). However, I did find it a bit mixed up (and a bit {{WP:NPOV|POV]] in places), and it did need a bit of copyediting! I've rewritten the section, trying to keep different themes together (e.g. the cathedrals, the docks, etc.), but using Rjm's version as the basis. If somebody could write something on similar lines about the theatres/arts venues, then that would be good. --RFBailey 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Scousers

I take objection to this statement:

"Inhabitants of Liverpool are referred to as "Liverpudlians" and nicknamed "Scousers", though this term is often (erroneously) used to cover other Merseysiders."

I've edited out the "erroneous" remark as some contend that you are indeed scousers and erroneous is a pejorative term to use against a legitimate alternative opinion.

above comment left by PJMulholland, 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. The sentence you have removed was explaining that Merseysiders from outside Liverpool (e.g. the Wirral) are not Scousers. Also, I don't know who "you" is referring to. I'm not from any part of Merseyside. --RFBailey 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening section states that Liverpudlians are nicknamed Scousers in reference to the Scouse dialect. This is rubbish as the dialect is only called Scouse after the nickname and is therefore a circular reference. --Barfbagger 07:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for this Barfbagger? It could equally be plausable that scousers were nicknamed because of their fondness of the danish sailors 'labscause' stew and so the accent is named after the people. After all, the accent is a mixture of many other accents, just like a stew is a mixture of other foods. --Rjm 22:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, but what evidence is there that the Liverpool dialect was called Scouse before Liverpudlians were called Scousers. I agree that the 'lobscouse/labscause' derivation may be the origin of the nickname so that surely would apply to the natives rather than the accent first, in which case the reference to the Scouse dialect should be deleted. On a purely personal pedantic note I would contest that the accent is an amalgam rather than a mixture of other accents. --Barfbagger 07:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This debate is appropriate to an section on the origin of the name of the people or the dialect, but on a purely practical basis people are referred to as "Scouse" because of the dialect, not because of the food. Scousers are not otherwise an identifiable group.Mtpt 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is not true either. I consider myself part of Liverpool and a Scouser, although my accent doesn't contain a great deal of Scouse, and my town is part of Merseyside but not part of Liverpool City. The view that only people from Liverpool proper can call themselves Scousers is a POV not shared by everyone. David L Rattigan 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the dialect/accent was not called Scouse out of thin air. It was called after the people who spoke it who came from a particular geographical region, so to say that people are called Scousers because their accent is called Scouse is the wrong way round. If we accept the derivation of the name then Liverpudlians were called Scousers because of the food but the accent is only called Scouse because it was spoken by Scousers. Speaking with a Scouse accent may be a way of identifying a Scouser but the phrasing insinuates that we are called that because of some arbitrary naming of the accent. Barfbagger 08:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing does not state Scouse is exclusively spoken in Liverpool "proper", nor that only people from there are called Scousers, or that the dialect's name pre-dates the nickname. Issues are relevant to - and indeed dealt with in - the article on Scouse. What the Liverpool article reflects is that the use of the nickname today, principally by third parties, is primarily a reference to the accent. Self-identification as Scouse is an entirely seperate issue. Mtpt 18:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, Barfbagger. I misunderstood your first response. I agree that the dialect/accent probably derives from the nickname of the people. Again, apologies.--Rjm 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

SPAM issue

Just for the record, the spamming issue tonight with new user Alliams was resolved amicably by email. David L Rattigan 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Media representation

Could somebody provide a source one way or the other for whether ITV news reports are edited in Liverpool or not? Does this refer to regional or national reports? If they're not edited in Liverpool, then where are they edited? Then again, is this relevant at all? I've removed this comment for now, as there isn't any agreement.

Also, I'm removed the "under-representation" rant: it sounded rather paranoid (although not living in the North West I can't really judge this for myself), was over-specific, and contained some irrelevant information (e.g. Manchester versus Greater Manchester). --RFBailey 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone from Liverpool, I can definately say that the BBC Manc/Granada issue is a bug bar for many. I wouldn't know where to find decent references of this from. You get the odd letter in the local paper about it on occassion. Internet-wise, Downtown Liverpool identify it as a key problem for the city and it frequently comes up in the Liverpool section of Skyscrapercity. I can vouch that many people in the city feel disenfranchised when it comes to regional televison. Most people I know reply on local papers for the local news, not the Manchester outposts of two London-based television companies. ~~

Very true. The simple fact is it is not something you will very easily be able to back up because of who it is exactly who controls the media. Clearly the BBC and Granada will say little, while the local newspapers have a vested interest in the status quo as local TV would undermine their sales. Ditto local commercial radio. On the net at least though (where opinion is uncensored) it often is discussed on Liverpool based BBS's, invariably in negative terms.

Image

The image at the very top of the article is a wonderful picture, but I really don't think it should stay where it is. It's far too wide, it pushes the page out, and it means that the article text and infobox actually start until a little way down, which is bad form for a Wiki article. Indeed, I'm not sure if it could stay on the page full stop - whatever happens, it's going to push margins right out past the width of most people's browser windows and thus render the page quite ugly and unprofessional-looking. Yet to reduce to a smaller thumbnail would look silly as it would practically be just a thin line. Does anyone have any thoughts? Could a cropped-off thumbnail perhaps be used to link to the full-length image?

In the meantime, I've removed the image and placed its code here so that it can be put back if there's a consensus to do so. Seb Patrick 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool waterfront by night, as seen from the Wirral.

Seb Patrick has a good point. It's a very nice picture, and we should try and find a suitable home for it somewhere in the Liverpool article. However, having it across the top of the page like that does mean it gets in the way a bit, and deviates from the usual style of articles. --RFBailey 07:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it you did not require consensus to remove it but it is required to put it back? Could it be your an arrogant bully perhaps, no offence like.--84.9.193.34 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "require" consensus. What I meant was that if people took issue, it made sense to discuss it here. But I thought it was worth taking the action in moving it rather than waiting days for a back-and-forth discussion, as per WP:BOLD. I personally feel that the image messes up the page, and is something that might prevent the article from getting Good or Featured status. I also assumed that, if someone had a good reason for reverting the edit, they would discuss it here first. Apparently not. And I'd refer you to WP:CIVIL if you're planning on spending any time around here, because personal attacks will do you no favours. Seb Patrick 17:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"so that it can be put back if there's a consensus". You cannot not be dishonest and civil at the same time. So I think your last msg may fall foul of any incivility rule. So can you do things you feel are right but others must discuss it? and why do you seek place constraints on others that you do not apply to yourself.--84.9.193.34 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably misused the word "consensus", in that case. What I meant to say was that I made a perfectly valid edit and outlined my reasons for doing so out of courtesy to whomever posted the original image. I even kept the code on the talk page so it could be put back with the minimum of fuss - but it's considered polite on Wikipedia, if you're reverting someone's edit, to explain why you're doing so. By "consensus", I meant that I hoped for a valid discussion of the pros and cons of keeping it there. Not for someone to just come along and revert without explanation.

You've completely misunderstood my intention here, and you've attacked me personally into the bargain. I don't want to be drawn into an edit war, but I would like to see a third party offer a genuine and rational opinion one way or the other, because this is going to get stupid otherwise. Seb Patrick 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that 84.9.xxx.xxx is the favourite IP address range of the hard-banned User:Irate, who is renowned for personal attacks like this.

Regarding the actual subject being discussed, Seb Patrick has a good point. It's a very nice picture, and we should try and find a suitable home for it somewhere in the Liverpool article. However, having it across the top of the page like that does mean it gets in the way a bit, and deviates from the usual style of articles. --RFBailey 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hard band eh? Your picking up the lingo. Soon you'll actually beleive it as well as parrot it. If you note on my page you'll see I'm actually banned because Jimbo isn't very bright.--84.9.194.43 22:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the picture, I think it would look better at a different point in the page but I think that it adds sufficient to the article to remain where it is until someone comes up with a better place for it. Being bold is good but making changes that remove worthwhile contributions that others may have put a lot of work into can cause bad feeling and it may have been better to discuss this on the talk page and let consensus develop.

84.9.etc, etc - take a chill pill sunshine. Gerry Lynch 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a great image for which a place should be found in the article if possible. But wherever it goes, it will break up the text significantly rather than letting the text sit around it, and this is contrary to the look of most good WP articles. If it's to go anywhere, I'd put it under "Landmarks" - but to do so, at least one (probably more) of the images already there would have to go (there are just far too many in the article), and then I'd probably get attacked by someone else for whichever one I arbitrarily chose to remove from there. What cannot be denied, though, is that as it stood the image broke Displayed image size policy by being over 550px in width - which is why I felt justified in removing it. I've put it back, and smaller, but it cannot stay at the top of the article - it goes against all established guidelines for an article's lead. If it could be reduced to a smaller thumbnail showing only a part of the image, that linked to the full image, I'd be all for that - but my attempts at being rational were soundly ignored by this (banned) reverter. Seb Patrick 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Seb, I can understand you feeling a bit put upon by the hysterical attacks on you. I'm sorry that you were subject to such unwarranted abuse. I still disagree wrt the image. Having thought about it, I think it does look best on top where it doesn't break up the body. Also, I'm not sure that reducing it has improved things. It is still big enough to be intrusive but isn't quite as visually impressive as it was before. In any case, it's not the only image breaking that particular policy - see Wellington,_New_Zealand#Panoramas or Vancouver#Skyline for example. Gerry Lynch 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well. I'd still rather see the image further down the article, but I think I'm in a minority on this one. If anyone wants to restore it to its original width, I won't revert, unless someone comes up with a better place to put it (like I say, I'm loath to get rid of any of the images under "Landmarks", even though this one is arguably better than any of them). Seb Patrick 10:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Capital of North Wales?

The Nicholas Crane UKTV History series "Coast" asserted in it's North Wales programme that the traditional capital of North Wales is, in fact, Liverpool. I can't find any other reference to that but if it's true it should be mentioned both here and in the North Wales section.

Liverpool has been called the capital of north wales not in any political or geographical sense but through the economic idea that in the 19th and 20th Century Liverpool was THE major town for many people living in North Wales. Closer and easier to get to than Cardiff. So great was the Welsh influence in Liverpool that the Eisteddfod (National Welsh Festival) was held in the city in 1884, 1900 and 1929.--Rjm 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as I hate Chester, I believe this can also state its claim on that title. Many people from North Wales go to Chester instead of going the extra mile to Liverpool. That's what I have found anyway. L1v3rp00l 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LIPA offering own degrees

I'm not sure about this: Recently, LIPA has been awarded the ability to issue its own degrees, and is moving towards becoming an independent higher education instution.

As far as I'm aware, LIPA has been working towards getting degree awarding status for some years, but a quick search of LIPA's website and Google returns no results that suggest this is the case.

Will continue the hunt, and remove until external references become available. fatbarry2000 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference seems to have re-appeared in the article, despite there being no official announcement of this. Will remove again. In the interests of accuracy, I have done the same to the LIPA page. fatbarry2000 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket

I have rephrased the sentence about county cricket. It is true that county cricket teams are not "representative" sides (in the way that Australian state cricket teams are), so to avoid any more arguing I have removed the term "represented". It is also true that Lancashire haven't played there every year in recent times (can't remember the details off the top of my head, but I'll look them up on Cricinfo), so I've been a bit vague and said they "typically" play there once a year. --RFBailey 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish

I think more should be said on the Irish or Irish-English population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.224.87 (talk • contribs) 10/09/06.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Kneale 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Districts of Liverpool

I've made a few changes to both the list of districts on this page and the Template:Liverpool. I've removed Sefton Park and would suggest the 'district' page be deleted, simply because Sefton Park itself and the peripheral Victorian houses are part of Mossley Hill - Sefton Park is not a standalone district, AKAIK. I'm also uncertain whether Canning is worthy of inclusion; I've always thought of it as being a part of Toxteth. Perhaps a link from the main Liverpool about it being the "Georgian Quarter" is sufficient.

I've added Dovecot, which was surprisingly omitted. It's located between Broadgreen, Knotty Ash and West Derby. This is definitely a proper district of the town as it is listed on signs around the area. I also feel we could mention in the districts section that places such as Roby and Crosby are commonly thought of as being Liverpool suburbs, as are part of the continuous urban area.

Lastly, I've made some changes to district pages such as Hunts Cross and Garston. I'm trying to standardise the page layouts for each of the districts, to allow for easy reading and organised information. I hope to work on the rest of the districts if I get some spare time.

If anyone has any suggestions about the district pages or would like to see Sefton Park put back, let me know! L1v3rp00l 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

Currently, the lead section of the Liverpool article does not conform with WP:LEAD. This needs addressing by editors with local, specialised knowledge to help summarise the article into a maximum of four paragraphs. Birmingham, Manchester and London are examples of English cities with which to use as possible examples for how to approach this. Jhamez84 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Places of worship

I have added 2 other important Synagogues to the places of worship section, one being in the Greenbank park area (may come under L15 or L17 postcode) and the other off Queens Drive (often assumed to be in Childwall but may also come under the L15 postcode) I have also included the fact that there are 2 Mosques in Liverpool (one in Mossley Hill though it may come under the title of 'Islamic centre' it is used as a Mosque for 5 daily prayers and has all the functions of a Mosque). I have also included that the Quilliam 'Mosque' (if it ever was one, acording to most historical documents it was a prayer-room) no longer exists. I have no idea why the al-Rahma Mosque makes a claim (if they indeed do and it is not just an error from a contributer to wikipedia) that there is a connection between the al-Rahma Mosque and Mr Quillian because there is very little if any connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.195.228 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

NYC twin town

In the wikipedia article twin towns in the UK new york is listed as one of Liverpool's twin cities yet in this article it isn't listed. Which is right??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.222.141 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I have corrected and expanded the 'Twin towns' section and renamed it 'International links' - New York isn't a twin town as such but has been given Freedom of the City of Liverpool. I have updated the 'twin towns in the UK' article too - Kneale 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)