Talk:Liverpool

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0

Population

Just as an observation, I was kind of surprised at the information supplied in this text: "The "Liverpool city region", as defined by the Mersey Partnership, includes Wirral, Warrington, Flintshire, Chester and other areas, and has a population of around 2 million.[89] The European Spatial Planning Observation Network defines a Liverpool metropolitan area consisting of the Merseyside metropolitan county, the borough of Halton, Wigan in Greater Manchester, the city of Chester as well as number of towns in Lancashire and Cheshire including Ormskirk and Warrington.[90] Liverpool and Manchester are sometimes considered as one large polynuclear metropolitan area,[91][92][93] or megalopolis".

Firstly, am I right in thinking the "City Region" is the 5 boroughs and Halton? Where then does Flintshire, Chester and other areas come in to it? Secondly, what on earth is European Spatial Planning Observation Network and what relevance are they to UK council's and borough population? Wigan and Chester are in outside regions. Thirdly, (my opinion) what nonsense about Manchester and Liverpool being one large polynuclear metropolitan area! By whom? Some professor or academic student or some business quango? They are two cities quite separateBabydoll9799 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Much of this confusion has arisen because Liverpool was so thoroughly dismembered by the local authority reorganization of the 1970s. It is plainly ridiculous to assert (as some do) that Birkenhead/Wirral has nothing to do with Liverpool simply because the River Mersey is more than 200 meters wide. Most cities try to "big themselves up" by flinging their political boundaries as far as they can; Liverpool is far less of a culprit in this regard than (say) Nottingham (which claims Derby as a suburb) and Leeds (which claims the whole of West Yorkshire). Even Leeds' agreed boundaries contain many semi-rural villages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.27.152 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reeks of hype

A lot of this page is given over to a wearying list of artificially boosted superlatives (deftly mixing world's first with the considerably less amazing Britain's first) and it's reminiscent of the Seoul page - doubtless based on a corresponding set of insecurities.

It would be of more service both to Wikipedia and to Liverpool to strip out some of the superfluous drivel and to bring the hype down to a level where mortals can safely read about this earthly paradise without swooning.

Let's face it, when you're relying on Guinness World Records to pronounce you the World City of Pop and you find it sufficiently authoritative to add to a page of information on Liverpool, you are revealing a certain desperation for recognition. Liverpool's musical status should be able to stand in its own right, and if that is too much to hope for, there are better sources of support than Guinness.

Liverpool today is a perfectly nice, modestly sized city of middling importance in the general scheme of things - even within England, let alone by world standards. It's not an important port - it's barely a port at all - or a major transhipment point, or a major centre of trade, industry, or finance. It is because those inconvenient facts - which have been true for many decades now - are being pushed aside that this page comes across sounding so needy.

219.98.16.135 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Liverpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716102900/http://www.lmi.org.uk/ambulance_merseyside.html to http://www.lmi.org.uk/ambulance_merseyside.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150324021853/http://www2.mssociety.org.uk/download/Achieving_equality_in_Service_Provision_across_the_Northwest_by_David_Stockdale.a9e2968a.pdf to http://www2.mssociety.org.uk/download/Achieving_equality_in_Service_Provision_across_the_Northwest_by_David_Stockdale.a9e2968a.pdf#page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100216174846/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/finance/financetopics/recession/uk-recession-telegraph-tour/5544024/Liverpools-retail-therapy-pays-off.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/uk-recession-telegraph-tour/5544024/Liverpools-retail-therapy-pays-off.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009163744/http://www.peel.co.uk/peelholdings/source/newsdetails.asp?type=1&page=1&newsid=169 to http://www.peel.co.uk/peelholdings/source/newsdetails.asp?type=1&page=1&newsid=169
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090626073949/http://www.merseyrail.org:80/about/?sGUID=2a45e2d07d59c0d621570a918cb62195 to http://www.merseyrail.org/about/?sGUID=2a45e2d07d59c0d621570a918cb62195

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan Area

The cited source is making a mess of it by referring to the totals reflected in this List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom which groups multiple metropolitan areas (or by Espon these are MUA or Morphological Urban Areas) together to create a "Functional Urban Area" which parses Liverpool and Birkenhead together. This is data as part of the Espon data from 2007. This article has an out of date warning on it. Quite specifically the document is linking multiple MUA (metropolitan areas) together to create something else entirely.

Since 2010 the Liverpool metropolitan area (otherwise known as Merseyside in most NUTS and Espon dialogue) is known as UKD7 (comprising UKD71, 72, 73, 74 which are East Merseyside (Knowsley, St Helens and Halton), Liverpool, Sefton, Wirral respectively). The article at the moment is using a 2007 piece listing UKD21, UKD22, UKD51, UKD52, UKD53, UKD54 of which Merseyside which were all adjusted and amended in 2010 and 2013 meaning much of the content is very inaccurate. A lot of this information can be found here at NUTS of the United Kingdom on wikipedia, or here and the actual population data is searchable here.

For reference, the article states the below population figures for 2010 through 2014 for UKD7 (Liverpool Metropolitan area) and UKD72 Liverpool itself.

• Merseyside 1,498,042 1,503,567 1,508,892 1,511,939 1,513,306
• Liverpool 459,459 463,529 467,672 470,228 470,537

I am going to update the article appropriately. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can this be reverted temporarily until a solution is found across the UK city articles? At present the statistics for Liverpool are not in line with those for other UK cities. The figures for Manchester for example can also be said to overstate the population of the city.

Correctus2kX (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would we revert to the wrong information? If you look at the cited source, it actually states "functional urban area" is Liverpool/Birkenhead - so how can that possibly ally itself with an article just about Liverpool? In contrast Manchesters FUA may actually well align with their Metropolitan area. Without looking I couldn't tell. Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the Manchester article, it appears they are using the "Urban area" which while still not exactly the NUTS2 (UKD3), is nonetheless at least only referring to "Greater Manchester" and far more accurate and sourced. Koncorde (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The ESPON data is an official European Union measure of population. I think the argument against using ESPON data is far from conclusive. What exactly is wrong with that figure? Chester is known to lie within the Liverpool travel-to-work area, so I think it's fair for it to be listed within the metropolitan area, as the ESPON data does. Correctus2kX (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eurostat provides the data and creates the agreed definitions which are then applied by the member countries. ESPON is an EU think-tank that plays with the data to try and create functional scenarios for the purpose of development and growth. Eurostat takes what the ONS reports and describes as NUTS (which is the British data). ESPON tries to build a model with that data.

You can use the ESPON data, but you can't describe it incorrectly or use it as a definition of something that it isn't. I don't question the figures accuracy (well I do, they're old and not referring to what people think they are) it is how they are being used incorrectly. It is the wrong "figure" entirely to refer to. It is the figure for "Liverpool / Birkenhead Functional Urban Areas" and it links not only the entire of Cheshire, but also parts of Greater Manchester and is almost 10 years out of date, using the wrong section codes for the areas and sub-areas. It has been incorrectly attributed as "Liverpool Metropolitan" population in the article, when it is actually a far greater zone linking together multiple metropolitan areas.

In contrast the Larger urban zone which is exactly the same data shows you the same thing as the NUTS of the United Kingdom and those figures are all from the ONS and Eurostat. The LUZ for instance lists the Liverpool Met area as 1.3m.

Also when you are reverting edits, please revert the content you object to - not all fixes. Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as pointless reversion continues; in short, please read the source.

You can see this on wikipedia at NUTS 2 statistical regions of the United Kingdom. Liverpool Metropolitan area is defined by the ONS and Eurostat as Merseyside (UKD7) containing:

• East Merseyside (Knowsley, St Helens and Halton) UKD71,
• Liverpool UKD72,
• Sefton UKD73,
• Wirral UKD74.

Similarly Greater Manchester (UKD3) is listed as containing:

• Manchester UKD33
• Greater Manchester South West (Salford and Trafford) UKD34
• Greater Manchester South East (Stockport and Tameside) UKD35
• Greater Manchester North West (Bolton and Wigan) UKD36
• Greater Manchester North East (Bury, Oldham and Rochdale) UKD37

If you actually look at the linked data from ESPON in the piece they list the following grouping of NUTS3 (and what has happened since their 2006 study):

• UKD21 - abolished to form UKD71 (East Merseyside) & UKD61 (Warrington)
• UKD22 - split into UKD62 (Cheshire East) & UKD63 (Cheshire West and Chester)
• UKD51 - abolished to form UKD71 (East Merseyside) & UKD61 (Warrington)
• UKD52 - renumbered to UKD72 (Liverpool)
• UKD53 - renumbered to UKD73 (Sefton)
• UKD54 - renumbered to UKD74 (Wirral)

However in their description of "towns" included they list they also bundle in Wigan and Ashton (part of UKD36) without mentioning that as part of their study.

So basically you are insisting that we use data that is demonstrably not current or up to date about regions and areas that are no longer described by the terms used by the official statistics body of the UK or EU.

The ESPON data is a study talking about the "Liverpool/Birkenhead" area (defined as a polynuclear metropolitan area, to indicate that it is more than 1 met area) and includes massive caveats in what they are doing when manipulating the data:

• "For each European metropolis or polycentric metropolitan area, we provide also with a proxy of the FUA at the NUTS-3 level, which will allow us later to give an estimation of the GDP and the economic structure of the FUA. We have included in the proxy all the NUTS-3 units contiguous to the NUTS-3 including the core and with at least 60% of their population in NUTS-5 units pertaining to the FUA. It is not possible to do accurately this exercise for cities with less than 500,000 inhabitants, due to their size generally much smaller than the one of the NUTS-3 unit in which they are incorporated."

Or;

• "Delineating and even defining the British urban areas is a very difficult exercise, insofar as statistical divisions often change, and even sometimes the names of the units."

Or this classic piece of interpretive dance;

• "To delineate the MUAs, we have used, as usual, the basic statistical NUTS-5 units, but since wards are often very small, their population densities need to be interpreted by means of an in-depth examination of the Google Earth images. For the FUAs, we used the official TTWA (Travel-to-Work Areas), and we sometimes merged some TTWAs around the main metropolitan areas. However, TTWAs are not exactly FUAs according to our criteria, as they cover the whole territory. Therefore, we have limited to twice the population of the MUA the population of some large TTWAs around small cities"

Or the accuracy of their own study:

• "However, ESPON 1.1.1 data seem to be very inaccurate. The report generally strongly underestimates the population of the FUAs, which are often even less than the MUA only and possibly limited to a central administrative unit of the latter.

There is no question that you are incorrectly reverting my changes. Koncorde (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For further clarification; the List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom is out of date, it is not appropriate to rely on that article when Wikipedia is not a reliable source to start with, and the data within it is almost a decade old. Referring back to a wikipedia article that out of date, and is based on the same data I have outlined above as inaccurate, does not gazump current accurate data from the governing statistical body. I can just as easily refer to more current articles based on current data such as this and this and point at wikipedias own current template for EU Data which refers to the LUZ's and NUTS primarily.

Using that article is just as inaccurate as referring to this article or historic books like this and this which pre-date those studies. In contrast more recent studies by the City Growth Commission have stuck by the more commonly referred to Merseyside Metropolitan, or Liverpool City Region, while statistical websites utilise the NUTS2 and 3 regions to derive their statistics.

The inaccuracy of wikipedia articles does not reinforce the need to be inaccurate elsewhere also. Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, nobody actually tackling the issue and instead re-inserting the wrong data because "Espon" which is demonstrably wrong. Now the article says "in 2014 the city local government district had a population of 470,537[2] and the wider Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area had a population of 2,241,000" when the data from ESPON is from 2006 at the latest, and the cited source is Eurostat and refers to a completely different dataset.

Anybody actually going to correct the ESPON data to their most recent datasets? Richie? Correctus? Or just going to keep referring to an old document using completely different sub-divisions? Koncorde (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

Hello, new to Wikipedia and only learning the process of contributions.

'Following the start of the Great Irish Famine, two million Irish people migrated to Liverpool in the space of one decade, many of them subsequently departing for the United States'

As a student of Irish History, this is quite literally a ridiculous claim from a near irrelevant source and should be removed.

Rorymc-c1 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide a more accurate statement of what happened, with a good reliable source to back it up. Is it just the number you are questioning? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they did not migrate to Liverpool, which only had a population of about 330,000 in 1851 at the height of the famine, but they may have migrated via Liverpool - again this needs a reliable source - Arjayay (talk)

My original post is definitely too strong looking back, and Arjayay reword certainly fits better. The number in such a space of time is still a bit too high, with a bit over 1 million emigrating from Ireland following the immediate years of the famine.

Ross, David, Ireland: History of a Nation (New Lanark, 2009)