Talk:Liverpool

The term Liverpolitan now directs to this page after its article was removed, and as you can see from the [] the claims and references made in the article were quite thoroughly debunked. However, much of the problematic content from that article has now been added to this page. This section needs improvement. I am therefore removing Liverpool#Other_demonyms and Liverpool#Liverpool_city_region_demonym as there has already been lengthy discussion as to why they are WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. Orange sticker (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on that discussion was that the Liverpolitan identity did not warrant a separate article. It was agreed that this was to be incorporated in to the Liverpool and city region articles. You also agreed to that yourself. Please do not remove whole sections without discussion. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

You also removed the entire paragraph about other Liverpool demonyms. Many of which predated Scouser. Please don't do this without discussion and consensus. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

That is simply not true, the discussion can be seen here where @Redfiona99 went to great trouble to check all your references and explain how they do not support the claims made in the article and these same arguments and reference are exactly the same in this article. The decision was to redirect WP:ATD-R the result of which is to blank and redirect WP:BLAR, not merge where the content is incorporated into another article WP:ATD-M.

There has already been lengthy discussion and wide consensus on this topic from all except you. Please respect that. Orange sticker (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not twist the outcome of that discussion. That discussion concerned a separate article for the Liverpolitan identity which you nominated for deletion. The deletion happened. There was consensus that the content was better served within the parent Liverpool and city region articles. Thank you. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

That is precisely why an admin has redirected Liverpolitan to this page. Please don't twist the outcome of the debate. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpolitan identity (2nd nomination) - "The result was redirect‎ to Liverpool#Demonyms and identity. There is consensus, except on the part of the creator Liverpolitan1980, that there is no basis for an article about a "Liverpolitan identity". But towards the end of the discussion a WP:ATD has gained acceptance, i.e. a redirect to Liverpool, where the term "Liverpolitan" is discussed among others. Since this outcome is not in conflict with the arguments for deletion made in the first half of the discussion, I am implementing it. I am also moving the redirected article from "Liverpolitan identity" to simply "Liverpolitan", since the redirect pertains to the demonym, not the supposed "identity". Sandstein 19:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)"

You have also moved parts of the article to Liverpool City Region without addressing the many problems discussed in the AfD. Orange sticker (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

that was done during the discussion that was taking place. There was no dispute as to the sources themselves. The dispute concerned the need for a separate article. Thank you. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

thank you sandstein. For the record, can you confirm that you are happy with the content as it is now written in the Liverpool article demonyms. For the record, I was always happy for it to be included in a parent article. I argued the case for a separate article in the best way I could. I am happy to concede that the argument was lost. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

Sorry, my mistake, that was not a reply from @Sandstein, just my copy & paste of their decision in the AfD. I bolded this to show that the arguments for deletion were sound. Orange sticker (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

so you have copied someone else's quote and signed it as if they have signed it themselves? (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

No, I simply made the error of copy and pasting with formatting so the links remained. Orange sticker (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Have added Template:Cite check section to this section with link to this talk thread. Orange sticker (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

there is no clear rationale for doing that. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

Rationale is discussed at great length in the deletion discussion for the article this content comes from. Orange sticker (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

that rationale pertains to the need for a separate article on the Liverpolitan identity. It was discussed ad nauseum. It was agreed to re-direct. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

It was pointed out by a few editors concerns over the sources being WP:OR and Synth, and it was pointed out (by myself at the least, but also by others) that the sources didn't say what has been presented even when they did mention the word Liverpolitan. These issues still exist. I have also fixed the Sandstein comment above to appear as an inline quotation to make it clear this isn't an original comment by themselves. Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not having followed this discussion in great detail, has anyone considered whether the content discussed here should instead be included at the page Culture of Liverpool? That is a very poor article, but one which could and should be greatly expanded and improved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at how other cities' demonyms are featured, it's generally just a field in the infobox, or a couple of sentences in the main article for the city. Terms like Brummie and Geordie have their own pages, but like Scouse they're predominantly about the dialect. I can't find any 'Culture of...' pages that include demonmyns. You're right though, that article really does need work. Orange sticker (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have cleared down the principle amount of OR and SYNTH to what is objectively supported by the actual reliable sources on the subject although I have left a few stragglers in for context I suspect these could and should also be tidied up, for instance linking to the full text of "Memorials of Liverpool, historical and topographical; including a history of the dock estate" to support the use of Liverpoldon is a big chunk of OR and should be attributed to Crowley if he wants to make the argument it was a significant alternative. I haven't had chance to read Crowley / Belchem or Boland to verify the content exactly - but there's contemporaneous discussions by themselves in other sources (such as with The Echo) and elsewhere to support their inclusion at present - and as actual published researchers on the subject in question their conclusions and arguments are uncontroversial. The "Liverpool City Region" demonym discussion isn't particularly relevant for this article, and is basically a one man campaign to promote the term via social media. Reporting in the Echo repeatedly brings up the same name across multiple articles, almost all referencing the term being added to Urban Dictionary in 2016. The few articles to discuss its use outside of that term of that are scant, and very specifically only about the LCR - and not a demonym for the people of Liverpool alone with zero political clout or support, so little more than a single persons opinion. Koncorde (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Rescuing my deleted comments from another thread as they are valid follow up, and will answer future questions when raised here, or at LCR or similar page. Just to run through the issues with sources used for the "Liverpolitan" demonym which do not build a picture of its common use, rather highlight its sporadic use. That's like arguing people still speak Latin by searching for "exeunt" on the internet. Instead what is required is a reliable source that clearly states Liverpolitan is a demonym used today. Instead the the sources (particularly Crowley, Belchem etc) all make it quite clear it was superseded by both Liverpudlian and Scouser.

• CityMonitor is predominately single use by an advocate. No indication it's a commonly used term.
• BBC is talking about one person advocating the use of the term. This refutes the claim it's commonly used.
• SouthportVisitor is another duplication of the user generated content over on UrbanDictionary. This is an argument for its use, this refutes the claim it's commonly used.
• Katie Burgess is a single instance of use, not evidence of common usage.
• ITVx is referring to the magazine that is called Liverpolitan, not the demonym. No indication it's a commonly used term.
• Fortune.com is referring to the magazine called Liverpolitan, not the demonym. No indication it's a commonly used term.
• Placenorthwest doesn't use it at all, a user comment is left by "Liverpolitis".
• Liverpolitan is used within the context of the name of a thing, not a demonym.
• Michael Starke is saying he doesn't like Scouser, the Echo offers two alternatives. There's, again, no suggestion of common use of the term.

This paragraph meanwhile is straight OR and Synth The term 'Liverpolitan' has its roots in the Victorian era.^[1] during a period when Liverpool was one of the world's most important ports^[2] at the height of Britain's global economic and imperial significance.^[3] It derived from the city's status as an important trading, mercantile and commercial centre.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]}

To run through the sources on that paragraph:

• British Newspaper archive just has a list of hits of the word, the sentence itself is unsupported, and undue.
• VisitLiverpool, English Heritage and Liverpool Museums make no reference to Liverpolitan. It is appended here to support a claim that is uncontroversial - but there's no indication of its relevance.
• Graeme Milne makes no reference to or about Liverpolitan.
• Historic Liverpool does reference both Victorian and Liverpolitan. So that only pretty much solves part 1, although status as reliable source etc as a personal blog type site is up for debate.
• Tony Crowley in the Echo literally says "But somehow I doubt we’ll be returning to ‘Dicky Sam’, ‘Liverpolitan’ or ‘Wacker’" - interestingly, Wacker is still used by the older generation still and has had a relative resurgence.
• Tony Crowley in his book talks about Liverpolitan historically - but "it derived from the city's status as an important trading, mercantile and commercial centre" is pure OR. Liverpolitan derives from Liver and common suffix politan.
• Belchems research: same issue as above.

Sources on the end of sentences need to actually say what they are referencing in some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that a contributor has changed the lead section of the Liverpool article just recently. The Liverpool lead section now only includes Liverpool's local authority population and the population of the official city region. Having looked at the Birmingham Leeds and Edinburgh articles, I notice that their lead sections make reference to the wider metropolitan area.

To quote the Birmingham article lead section: "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 4.3 million, making it the largest outside of London." The citation is worldpopulationreview.com

To quote the Leeds article: "The city is part of the fourth-largest built-up area by population in the United Kingdom, West Yorkshire Built-up Area, with a 2011 census population of 1.7 million" The citation is ONS Census 2011. The WY Built-up Area is out of date and is not calculated any more. But I am wondering if this needs to be in the lead section as an editor has removed mention of Liverpool metropolitan area from its lead section.

To quote the Edinburgh lead section, "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 912,490." The citation is OECD.

I am sure there are many many examples on wiki where city articles make reference to a wider 'urban region' or metropolitan area.

Should we be aiming for consistency in these articles? I have also started an RfC on the Leeds, Birmingham and Edinburgh articles. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The OCED data used in the Edinburgh article also shows a similar Liverpool FUA population to the LCR's - 1.5m. The 2.2 million figure I removed is only mentioned in two of the references that were political/economic reports, therefore it is only used for very specific purposes. If it is at all relevant it should not be in the lead per WP:UKCITIES.

The poll you have added is misleading, I don't see where anyone has disputed including the population of the metropolitan area, just the 2.2 million figure which relates to a vague and unofficial "urban region".

I have to add I am surprised to see you editing here as there is an open ANI relating to your conduct on this article and an AN which was only closed because you announced you were no longer going to edit. I am not optimistic that you have learnt how to act in good faith and accept consensus views, but I hope you will prove me wrong. Orange sticker (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate place to bring that up. This is a discussion. If you wish to discuss those matters, message on my Talk page please. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My views are as they were. I don't think the references for the claim are really sufficient. But if it is to be included, the body is preferable, not the lead.

For me, that extends to other city articles too, not just Liverpool. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, there doesn't seem to be any consistency.

Birmingham's lead mentions a 'wider metropolitan area.

The lead section of Leeds mentions the List of urban areas in the United Kingdom and West Yorkshire Built-up Area.

The lead section of Edinburgh mentions a wider metropolitan area as defined by the OECD. This is a FUA population.

I am sure there are many examples. However, this seems to be a peculiar touching point for Liverpool. Clearly, in Liverpool's case there is the official LCR and the wider 'urban region' cited by the authorities. I don't see why it should be controversial to mention that in the lead personally. Also, many city articles mention a 'metropolitan area'. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, other UK city articles mention the built up area in the lead, however, this was taken down in Liverpool's case. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC))

I have terminated the other three RfCs (none of which had attracted any response), because there is no need for four virtually identical RfCs. Please see WP:MULTI and discuss in one place only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

OK sorry about that, my bad. I am trying to gain consistency across the articles. Is there a better place for this discussion - a central one. As many wiki articles mention city metro areas. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You could leave neutrally-worded notes respecting WP:CANVAS at such pages as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, directing people here. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Redrose64, I'm afraid you are actually mistaken about this interpretation of appropriate procedure under policy, and Liverpolitan1980's approach was actually perfectly valid. WP:MULTI does not apply to a situation such as this: it directs us not to replicate discussions about a particular issue on a particular article (so, for example, you would not raise the same content dispute on Talk:Liverpool, and WP:NPOVN, and WP:VP, even if the issue could be resolved in any of those venues). However, it very much does not apply to parallel discussion about the same issue on multiple articles. This is because it is absolutely permissible (and not altogether uncommon) for different groups of editors working on different articles to adopt different standards for that issue (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). So even if there is a consensus result about the "correct" way to approach this issue here on the Liverpool article, it will not be binding on the other three articles, no matter how much attention it attracts from the WikiProjects in question. Nor is it particularly useful to host a centralized discussion on one of the WikiProjects themselves, because such a discussion will not be binding on any of the four articles, per WP:Advice page.

Now, if a clear consensus on the most rational, pragmatic, and policy-consistent approach to the issue is reached here and then Liverpolitan takes that solution to each of the three other articles and applies it, and no one else objects, then that's great--all's well that ends well, and there's no need to revive the other four RfCs. But your advice above actually is not necessarily best practice and risked confusing Liverpolitan as to next steps. Because, if for example a solution is reached here by clear consensus and the editors at one more of the other articles reject it (or even temporarily revert it per WP:BRD), Liverpolitan will in fact have to repeat the consensus discussion in each case. So arguably they were doing the most pragmatic thing by getting feedback (and potential local consensus) on the parallel issue across each of the four articles they want to harmonize, and may have no choice but to do that going forward if, for example, the editors working on Leeds or Birmingham disagree with the solution adopted here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Not withstanding the above, it appears that Liverpolitan1980 has elected to leave the project (and has been indefinitely blocked per concerns at ANI that their previous 'retirements' have involved some disruption). I'm not sure if this leaves anyone supporting Liverpolitan's advocated-for position, but if not, this RfC can probably be proceduraly closed (or just abandoned) and the related discussion above (about whether and how to discuss the same issue on other articles) is now moot, presuming no one on said articles supports a change in content similar to that proposed by Liverpolitan. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I will remove the tag and close this. Orange sticker (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the population of a settlement is one of the most basic pieces of information about it, so it should of course go in the lead section. To give merely the city population however is quite misleading for understanding the importance of a place if its part of a bigger conurbation, so that should go in the lead section as well. G-13114 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. That is why I personally would include the fact that gov.uk, Wirral Council and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority all acknowledge an urban region of over 2 million people. There could be further explanation that it isn't counted officially as part of the ONS statistics if a source supports that. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This is how it currently stands, city population of 496,770 and part of the Liverpool City Region which has a population of over 1.5m. The part I removed mentions a larger urban region of over 2 million people which extends into the neighbouring counties of Cheshire and Lancashire however the references cited only mention this area as part of the scope of the reports they are from, one is about rights of way in the Liverpool City Region. Who expects to see the population of Cheshire and Lancashire included in the lead of the article for Liverpool? Orange sticker (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow this point:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

One of the sources is in fact an independent report from The RT Hon the Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy. That is their opinion and analysis - not ours. The other two are from local authorities within the LCR.

In any case, I don't see why it has to be controversial that Liverpool is an important city within a larger region.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't support the statement and don't agree with each other.

1. Page 20 The extent of the region can be observed through such things as the catchment areas of the city centre shops, and of specialist health and education facilities, the circulation area of the regional daily newspapers and location of listeners to local radio stations, the spread of the Merseytravel train network and travel to work flows, the spread of housing markets, and the areas served by sports, entertainment and cultural facilities. These variously delineate an urban region centred on Liverpool that spreads from Wrexham and Flintshire to Chester, Warrington, West Lancashire and across to Southport. In total this urban region has a population of some 2.3m, similar in scale to the biggest metropolitan areas outside London including Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. Large and specialist employers in Liverpool typically draw a bit wider, from places such as Wigan which is a half hour commute, creating a labour market with around 3 million people.
2. Page 14 Situated in the northwest of England, the Liverpool City Region covers an area of 724 square kilometres and has a population of around 1.5 million people. The City Region also has a much bigger economic hinterland extending into northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire. No mention of the population of this 'economic hinterland'.
3. Page 20 The North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (2008) did not define a FEMA for the LCR, but did define the LCR for "the purposes of articulating RSS policy" as covering six local authorities10 and also stated that the LCR "extends as far as Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Vale Royal and West Lancashire.” Similarly a 2011 report, ‘Liverpool City Region - Building on its Strengths’, stated that the LCR has a population of around 1.5 million, but when catchment areas of “Liverpool city centre shops, and of specialist health and education facilities… the spread of the Merseytravel train network, travel to work flows, the spread of housing markets, and the areas served by sports, entertainment and cultural facilities” are considered, an urban region centred on Liverpool that spreads from Wrexham and Flintshire to Chester, Warrington, West Lancashire and across to Southport with a population of 2.3 million can be identified. This is simply a quotation from source 1.

So, source 1 states that Liverpool has economic and cultural relationships with its neighbours and places in neighbouring countries, and gives estimates of the population size of two examples of such areas. Source 2 is even vaguer in defining the scope of this area and does not give a population. Source 3 is a repeat of source 1. The statement "The city forms part of a larger urban region of over 2 million people which extends into the neighbouring counties of Cheshire and Lancashire" is WP:SYNTH - "combin(ing) material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". The inclusion of population figures for the city and city region are not in dispute here. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Simple then...

"Some sources delineate an urban region centred on Liverpool that spreads from Wrexham and Flintshire to Chester, Warrington, West Lancashire and across to Southport, with a population of over 2 million people. You can go in to further detail if you wish."

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We have been here before 1, 2 3 and each time it was dependent upon reflecting the weight of sources accurately and appropriately. And a lead should be a definitive definition, not a "some sources" situation. Koncorde (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand where the inconsistency is? Isn't the "part of the Liverpool City Region, a combined authority with a population of over 1.5 million" a reference to the wider urban region? Not from the UK so not familiar with all the terms. Brought here by Yapperbot. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

A County is a historic legislative entity (Merseyside), whose powers were devolved to Local Authorities. 20 something year later those Local Authorities formally created an entity known as a Combined Authority. Liverpool was typically described as being part of Merseyside, and its population until Merseyside fell out of favour in lieu of other bigger numbers (in Liverpools case because it's always compared with Greater Manchester, a fierce regional rivalry).

In contrast an urban area is a morphological feature of a city (i.e. its core). A metro is a wider area than Urban (typically) reaching into suburbs. However they are also (per the ONS) also specific methodological definitions. So an Urban Area (ONS) doesn't necessarily align with an urban area from some other source using a different methodology. Metropolitan area then extends that confusion. To top that off, the ONS stopped using "Urban Area" as a definition after 2010 and replaced them with Built Up Areas (broadly analogous with a Metropolitan Area), and Built Up Areas Subdivisions (broadly analogous with a Local Authority). Then in 2023 they didn't bother doing the BUA and just did the BUASD, but renamed them BUA. If you have followed so far, well done.

Arguments now ensue on articles about these various definitions, which are legit, any any discussion that involves trying to add these numbers is usually only interested in the biggest one that they can source that mentions their name. Koncorde (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been brought up before by @Koncorde and there was no response, so I'd like to go ahead and remove what is currently in the Nicknames field in the infobox:

They all seem too promotional and could even be perceived as offensive to Wales and Ireland. The first two sources are from the Liverpool Echo, which I am tempted to nominate for deprecation from WP:RS, one is a dead link to the Liverpool Museum website and the fourth is a press release. My rationale is that you couldn't set a pub quiz question asking who any of those nicknames refer to and expect Liverpool as the correct answer!

Question is though, does Liverpool have any legitimate, notable nicknames? I can only think of 'the pool', but so far have only been able to find one reference, as it's tricky to Google. Orange sticker (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree.

I've heard the first two terms being used in relationship to connections to Wales and Ireland, but never as a subsitute for saying Liverpool. It's not like one would use those terms in the same way you'd say 'Brum' or 'The Smoke' to refer to Birmingham or London, for example. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Birminghams "nicknames" are equally poorly supported (I have never heard Birmingham referred to as "0121" or "Pen shop of the World"). It's odd that such nicknames would only exist in the infobox. If it was significant enough to be a nickname, it would be an "also known as" in the introduction or equivalent. Koncorde (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Of all the poets who are connected with Liverpool, perhaps the greatest is Constantine P. Cavafy, a twentieth-century Greek cultural icon,

The above text is accompanied by an image with the caption;

Constantine P Cavafy, widely regarded as one of the most important figures in Western literature, spent a significant part of his life in Liverpool

• 1. Is he (perhaps) the greatest poet (loosely from Liverpool)?
• 2. Is he 'widely regarded' as an important figure?
• 3. Did he spend a 'significant part of his life in Liverpool'?

I can answer Q.3 from the text within the article; he came to Liverpool in 1872, aged nine. We are given this information twice for some reason. By 1877 his family had taken him back to Alexandria. His biography adds that during this period the family switched between Liverpool and London. So that is five years at absolute best, quite probably somewhat less, all between the ages of nine and fourteen. This is a poet who lived until he was 70, and <quote> "his most important poems were written after his fortieth birthday".

I confess I have never heard of him before, maybe because his poems were all Greek to me. Jokes aside, I am left feeling that one of his greatest fans has rather pumped his connection to Liverpool. Next we will be hearing that Charles Dickens was a son of the Mersey, on account of he once spent a long weekend in Formby. (Actually, Dickens did spend time in Liverpool, as did Gerard Manley Hopkins, and others)

I am happy to agree that Cavafy spend a few years of his young life in Liverpool, but I cannot see any justification for the exaggerated claims that have been written.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your edits and feel that, while I had heard of Cavafy and his links to the city before, some of this language does not keep to a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). In fact, I think large parts of this article would benefit from more neutral language and content as it often reads like WP:PROMO - for instance, the third paragraph in the lead with the Beatles being described as widely regarded as the most influential band of all time and that Liverpool has also produced many academics, actors, artists, comedians, filmmakers, poets, scientists, sportspeople, and writers. Feels more like tourist copy than encyclopaedic content. Orange sticker (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Although the main image is good, although it doesn’t show the building at the front of the three graces, and at the side. The Anglican Cathedral is shown twice on the set of images. The image appears very dated and dark. Thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Now you have blocked the view of at least one of the relevant buildings Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Which one? The cathedral is shown below in another image. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a terrible image - the right hand building is completely obscured. I have reverted back to yours. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s not fair to say terrible, that is someone’s image and created by someone. But the image before put in by Murgatroyed49 doesn’t show key buildings which are present today, which stipulates that they image is dated and not representative of Liverpool. Nor factual or evidence based. It’s leading people to think things haven’t changed and they have. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What does the image uploader's feelings have to do with this? That's not relevant at all. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that’s out of respect. But anyway that’s just me. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Images need to be factual and evidence base and not just because they may look better on a multiple set of images. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I generally believe that a new image needs to be identified to show the present day Liverpool and not an image from 2008, which makes the public believe things haven’t changed which they most certainly have. Thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you are in a minority though. As others think differently. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Two of you think different. It doesn’t mean to say I’m wrong. But I’m very much someone who is evidence base. And the image shown (as good as it is) doesn’t show how things look today. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

See the new image let me know what you think, it is slightly smaller. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It's better for sure. However, in future, when there is discussion about images, post them on the talk page first instead of the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

New buildings are most certainly relevant, as images need to be seen as the image shows today if not it becomes a distortion of the reality of fact. Of which I’m sure the people of Liverpool wouldn’t approve. Many thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Then find a modern image that isn't distorted and doesn't obscure the the subject of the image. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

A new image of the three graces would only show the building at the front. That’s how times change. I thought you mentioned that the three graces wasn’t the subject of the images. Anyway I’ll have a look. Thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

See the new image let me know what you think, it is slightly smaller. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Uncropped version is better, doesn't cut the head off the liver bird! That woud upset the locals. Not sure why you think an image labelled Three Graces didn't have them as the subject. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant looks good! MatthewDavid41 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how we have progressed from a skyline of the city, to a night view of the riverfront, to a poor picture of the Three Graces and ferry terminal to just the Three Graces, as an improvement. Met Cathedral still remains hopelessly dark fwiw. Koncorde (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Te Met cathedral is an "arty" shot as opposed to just dark, whether it is suitable for the montage could be up for discussion. Personally I don't like the other cathedral shot, the building seems to be falling over, but I have caused enough chaos and confusion about this montage already! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the ferry photograph actually the showing the Wirral across the river? And should a photograph of a ferry even better featured? Isn't it like having a photograph of an Aston Martin for Gaydon? Dgp4004 (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really! You can see Aston Martins all over the world but these vessels only operate on the Mersey and Manchester Ship Canal... I'm definitely biased towards keeping an image of my favourite boats, but agree one with the Pier Head or other Liverpool landmark might be better - perhaps? I might try and get a better one myself. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the second most famous song (and film) about Liverpool? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"Long Haired Lover from Liverpool" by Little Jimmy Osmond? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

it's anyone's guess! List of songs about Liverpool Orange sticker (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Context, we are talking about the Mersey ferries! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I guessed. They are I agree an iconic component of what goes to make Liverpool and should definitely be represented in the infobox images. Personally I'm not bothered what the background is (Wirral peninsual or Liverpool), in fact I'd be OK with an image that was cropped to show a ferry with no background at all. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's the only photo I have with both boats in shot. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

..and it's a really good photo with the bonus of showing both the "special" and the regular boat. The shoreline is irrelevant. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, a photograph with Liverpool in the background would be better, if one can be sourced. I can't seem to view the one in your link. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to digress, but the Three Graces is a colloquial name and doesn't seem fitting to me as people might confuse it with the more common meaning. I think the caption should either name all three buildings or just say Pier Head. I think the current selection of images is fine. Orange sticker (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I boldly made a compromise and changed it to "Pier Head – the Three Graces" 10mmsocket (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)