Talk:Greater Liverpool

New article, proposed deletion or merger

Article has only just been set up today (9th June) and I have created an informative page. However there is room for improvement and this should have been considered before deletion request, that the article has only just been set up and further substance shall be added. Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the content, it's the term 'Greater Liverpool' which has no status legally or otherwise. The aritcle is just WP:OR. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns of Joshii. Without citation, there's little hope of keeping this article. --Jza84 | Talk 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Joshii said, you need to demonstrate with appropriate reliable sources that someone other than yourself has ever used the term "Greater Liverpool".--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no need for this article, and it is highly POV (and not very well written as it stands). But there is a valid case that a statement along the lines that the boundaries of the contiguous built-up area extend beyond the Liverpool City Council boundaries should be included here, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...or even better, that some of the statements, if they can be justified, are included in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Greater Merseyside and Liverpool City Region too! Easily a candidate for a merger at best, I'm sure. --Jza84 | Talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, so if you wish to quote WP rules go ahead, make my day. I hope it is recognised what the page was, and the effort I put in to it. It seems a might unfair to dismiss the article as soon as it has begun. It does have merits but it takes time to build an article. I would like to suggest it is NOT merged with Liverpool urban area as that page includes areas outside what I would consider Greater Liverpool (ie St Helens). I am not seeking to offend anyone, however please give me a chance Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what you consider to be the case is not a valid reason for a new article, unless it is justified by external sources. In this case it seems highly unlikely that a case exists for an article sufficiently different from those existing already. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to save this article from deletion is to produce some evidence that the term "Greater Liverpool" is not one invented by you. Just provide a reliable source and it'll likely stay. It's not to do with "WP rules"; it's to do with common sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malleus Fatuarum for your kind comment, as long as people do not rush to remove my page in the next 24 hours I shall find reliable sources. It is puzzling to me that I cannot put across to people (as I am a scouser) that St Helens is not part of a Greater Liverpool because St Helens is of a different dialect, a rugby league town. Greater Liverpool also is not the same as Greater Merseyside/ City Region as they are based on 6 boroughs working together including St Helens and Halton. Hardly along the lines that I made in the page. Dmcm2008 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But please bear in mind this, and please take into account that Wikipedia exists for the benefit of its readers, not its writers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am told not to enter into personal attacks. I view that as a personal attack. For some reason you take offence to this article. The information is self explanitory, I just need some references. Dmcm2008 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was precluded in our WP:NPA policy Dmcm2008, I think it's a fair comment. Try to look at this differently - imagine, I say, "Greater Liverpool" is an "official term" and is the same as Greater Merseyside, and that Knowsley and Sefton really want to be part of it, WITHOUT ANY SOURCES. How would YOU go about verifying that the material is true and I'm not lying, or misunderstanding something? Do you understand our concern that the current page is totally point-of-view, as it does not prove it's real-world practice to us. As Ghmyrtle points out, Wikipedia really does exist for the benefit of its readers, not its writers - writing articles based on personal experience is forbidden. --Jza84 | Talk 10:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do understand your concern to a degree, Ghmyrtle has suggested that the page I have done contains original research which I had a look at but I don't get. Having said that I am not trying to force my opinions on to Wikipedia. There a number of these terms as you have previously commented on, for me to suggest 'greater Liverpool' is to inform and identify the modern-day concept of what is, what makes Liverpool, it's cuture and it's people and also to distinguish between these other terms which are a based on a broader slice of the region and are to do with things like economy and tourism. I've noted the opposition and while I would like to say I have references to back up my claim I do not have too many references and what I have may not be enough. I have also noted the request to merge with the Liverpool Urban Area. The difference is the Liverpool Urban Area page includes St Helens and Haydock based on the ONS but St Helens and Haydock are more Lancashire towns and even their dialect is different it is not Scouse. I have asked the ONS to explain why they include St Helens and Haydock and also why they do not include other areas like Maghull and Kirkby for example. I know from past experience there will be those that will argue all of these places are separate towns in their own right and I do not disagree. But their is close link to the city of Liverpool which is not quite the same for St Helens. When Liverpool expanded 150, 100 years ago it expanded in to neighbouring towns. I am not saying the city should expand again but their is a 'greater Liverpool' area that passes the city council's existing boundaries.Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting seems to me to be a view that the Liverpool Urban Area is poorly defined, in that it includes some places which are not well linked culturally with Liverpool, and excludes some that are. Three points on that. Firstly, that is your opinion, and we haven't seen any evidence that it is a shared view (though it may very well be). Secondly, my understanding is that the ONS definition (rightly or wrongly) doesn't take cultural factors (like accents) into account - it's mainly based on the physical coalescence of built-up areas, possibly (it's a long time since I worked on it so I can't remember) also on travel to work statistics. Thirdly, even if your view is shown to be a shared view, and even if the criteria for deciding the extent of "greater Liverpool" or whatever term you wish to use are "wrong", it still doesn't justify the existence of a new article, rather a case for amending an existing one. And, having reconsidered this a bit, it does seem to me that "Greater Liverpool" could well be a clearer title for an article encompassing all these considerations than "Liverpool Urban Area" - but it does need to contain all the info now in the "Liverpool Urban Area" article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled the term. It seems to be in unofficial use here and there, and this contains some interesting comments (one man includes Winsford and Wrexham!); but this map from ~~Macclesfield Council~~the Borough of Macclesfield website is intriguing. Unfortunately it only goes as far north as Huyton (approx), but the term is being used in respect of a specified area. I can't investigate further now as lunchtime is over, but I thought it may be useful to throw it into the mix and see if any similar, more definitive sources can be found. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from this search, I found this which shows that the term 'Greater Liverpool' is used to refer to a 'Broad Rental Market Areas (BRMA)', which is what the Macclesfield map is referring to. Paypwip (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found a map showing further north than Hassocks5489's map. I can't link directly, but have a look here, select 'Liverpool' as the Local Authority and hit LA Search - then hit the 'Map' button at the bottom to give you a pdf map. Paypwip (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The definition of a BRMA is here, and if you do a search for the Wirral one it includes Neston but excludes Ellesmere Port. Not too sure what it proves, as different bodies will use a variety of different definitions for different purposes, though it's certainly worth mentioning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching with interest. I agree a lot with the reply from Ghmyrtle, you may be right to anchor things under the Liverpool Urban Area but i'd still dispute the ONS version and I have already asked them about that. I will add some references that I have found for perusal. A map example from Merseytravel Saveaway [[1]] see map. Knowsley is half connected to St Helens for which they too have links (ie.St Helens & Knowsley NHS Trust) and Sefton is split into north and south (the south being Liverpool end). Wirral remains seperate. Other sources include Port of Liverpool map which puts Bootle and Seaforth under their banner (PoL) although this map includes Birkenhead docks. While similarly National Museums Liverpool changed their name from N.M.Merseyside. Aintree Racecourse (in Sefton) call themselves Liverpool while the Grand National is either called Aintree or Liverpool take your pick. A Mayor for Liverpool website holds view of other people such as myself (although I am not talking about an elected mayor here) Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is about those links you've provided: none of them make any reference to a "Greater Liverpool". --RFBailey (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A map showing the ONS definition of the "urban area" is here. The way the ONS justify their approach to definition, from this, is as follows - "...the definition of an urban area is an extent of at least 20 hectares and at least 1,500 residents at the time of the 2001 Census. The starting point is the identification by OS (Ordnance Survey) of areas with land use which is irreversibly urban in character. This comprises permanent structures and the land on which they are situated, including land enclosed by or closely associated with such structures; transportation corridors such as roads, railways and canals which have built up land on one or both sides, or which link built-up sites which are less than 200 metres apart; transportation features such as airports and operational airfields, railway yards, motorway service areas and car parks; mine buildings, excluding mineral workings and quarries; and any area completely surrounded by builtup sites. Areas such as playing fields and golf courses are excluded unless completely surrounded by builtup sites. The prerequisite for the recognition of an urban area is that the area of urban land should extend for 20 hectares or more. Separate areas of urban land are linked if less than 200 metres apart. Land between built-up areas is not regarded as urban unless it satisfies one of the conditions listed above." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, it might be useful to look at this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've quickly checked the top 15 or so in this list to see what articles exist for each of the urban areas. The titles for the main articles on each of the conurbations (not the administrative areas) are: West Midlands conurbation, Greater Manchester Urban Area, West Yorkshire Urban Area, Greater Glasgow, Tyneside, Liverpool Urban Area and Greater Liverpool, Nottingham Urban Area, Sheffield Urban Area, Greater Bristol, Greater Belfast, Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton, Portsmouth Urban Area, Leicester Urban Area, etc. So, there is no consistency at all, except that all except Liverpool have only one article on what is meant by "Greater X"/"X urban area", even when different definitions exist. That gives even more weight to the argument that the two Liverpool articles should be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links I have added are not all to do with 'Greater Liverpool'. It is to say that not everyone thinks in the way some of you Wikipedians about this. That you can be brought under the Liverpool banner even if you are not in the city. The Port of Liverpool one example, the National Museums Merseyside was rebranded to Liverpool even though it contains locations in the Wirral. Even the existing ONS include St Helens under the Liverpool banner. Not that I agree with that one. But where I am coming from is that the modern Liverpool area includes Knowsley and South Sefton although there is no current arrangement to show this. The pdf map above is bang onDmcm2008 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why are you telling us about them? If you want there to be a page entitled "Greater Liverpool", you need to demonstrate that it's a term that is actually in use. The link to the Housing Benefit areas is a suitable example. The other stuff (Port of Liverpool, museums, Merseytravel, etc.) does not demonstrate anything to do with some "Greater Liverpool" construct. --RFBailey (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional talk can be found here from the Liverpool Echo and here from the Liverpool Daily Post (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger between Greater Liverpool and Liverpool Urban Area

Following this discussion, I have drafted a possible text of a merged article, here. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Good article but it should be the other way around, merge this article into Liverpool Urban Area and redirect. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Joshii. A good draft has been put together but agree that the official term should take the article title. --Jza84 | Talk 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that both "Liverpool urban area" and "Greater Liverpool" are "official terms" - one is used by ONS, and one by the Rent Service, and I don't see why ONS should necessarily be given priority. As I've said here, there is no consistency in how such article names are dealt with - e.g. Greater Manchester Urban Area, Nottingham Urban Area, Greater Bristol. Two issues clinch it for me. One is that the proposed Liverpool article - unlike the Greater Manchester and Nottingham articles, for example - is now not only about the urban area as defined by ONS, it covers a wider discussion. In that sense it is much more like the Greater Bristol article. Secondly, "Greater Liverpool" (198,000 results on Google) is much more likely to be used as a search term by the interested outsider than "Liverpool urban area" (2,920 on Google), which I think is only likely to be used by those with a knowledge of ONS terminology. OK, we can redirect either way, but I still prefer "Greater Liverpool". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bristol is not a good article and is mostly opinion as is Greater Liverpool. There are only three official "Greater X" places, Greater Manchester, Greater London and Greater Glasgow. All the others are fakes, wannabes etc. A term used by some rent service is not an official term like the one given by the ONS. Greater Liverpool is largely a POV area with little if any official recognition. The whole article is written on what a user thinks Greater Liverpool should be and Wikipedia is not a place for people's imagination. Liverpool Urban Area is an official term and that is where this article should be merged to with the unreferenced bits cut off. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I realise this, but still stand by my preference. As LUA is used by ONS (the executive statistics authority for the UK, one which reports to parliament, EU and UN), I think it is the more official of the two, and a term that I'd expect any other encyclopedia to use. --Jza84 | Talk 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As things stand, as the person who wrote the page Greater Liverpool, I do not object to User Ghmyrtle revamped version. The Sefton borough is quite unique as it can be split in to north and south and it is south Sefton that contains the wider Liverpool districts. It is not a made up split either, for example, South Sefton Magistrates Court. Regarding Prescot, in my opinion for what ever that is worth, Prescot can be in or out of the greater Liverpool / urban area including Whiston and Rainhill. I think for what it's worth I would argue the Liverpool postal code L1 to L36 is what would define this area... Regarding ONS, they have sent me this link Definition of Urban area Definition of Urban area see page 7 which makes interesting reading. It still does not explain the reason for St Helens & Haydock which are less linked to Liverpool ie accent, sport, postcode & dialing code. When the existing urban area does not contain Kirkby and Maghull. Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that the ONS have used a different criteria to create their Liverpool Urban Area compared to my ideals, these pages offer different definitions. All that I am saying is the modern city of Liverpool consists of a larger area than that cemented by the present city council boundaries.Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideals have no place on Wikipedia. Many of us agree that city and county boundries in this country are outdated but we can't start making up new regions on Wikipedia to share our opinions, try a blog or discussion board. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to Joshi - WP:BITE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biting anybody, or do you also think that Wikipedia is now a place to blog your personal opinions? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, eh, eh, calm down, calm down..... [2] :-) --RFBailey (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Joshi and Jza84 - If the term 'Greater Liverpool' is not to be deleted then it should redirect to Liverpool Urban Area, not the other way around. I grew up in Whiston, Prescot and had never heard the term 'Greater Liverpool' until I read this article. When I did a google, the only references I found were the rent service definition I have already linked to above and on forums where it is used by those seeking an expansion agenda. Regarding drawing lines on a map, several places lie in 'overlap' areas. Rainhill has an L35 postcode, comes under Prescot Post town, has an 0151 dialling code, yet is part of St.Helens MBC. I agree with the ONS definition to include St.Helens within the Liverpool UA as on the other side of St.Helens lies Wigan which is then part of Greater Manchester. Using accent to define areas is a non-starter as it is relative to where you live - people in Whiston, Prescot and Rainhill consider Huyton residents to have a scouse accent and those in St.Helens to have a broad accent, while St.Helens residents consider anyone to the west to have scouse accents and regard Wiganers as having broad accents. Paypwip (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Joshii this is not about my 'ideals', I have learnt my lesson over that. It is if you read my text about saying how the ""official"" Liverpool Urban Area provided by ONS is using different criteria which I learnt from User:Ghmyrtle compared to what I would describe as the wider/greater Liverpool. Hence disputing why ONS include St Helens and exclude Maghull and Kirkby. I think also the point needs to be made that I originally said greater Liverpool is an unofficial term - but a term - because so many places outside the city boundary count themselves as Liverpool yet on Wikipedia it is overlooked because there is little to prove this when there's a fair bit to prove they DO NOT belong to Liverpool. It would be folly of me to have entitled this page 'Liverpool' which is another term can be used. What term is included in this discussion. I think User:Paypwip misses my point completely over accents (and postcode and many other things). With respect to St Helens folk, they are not identified as Scousers. Prescot is an obvious overlap but the other areas you would be hard pressed to distinguish between a Scouser and a person from Bootle, as an example.Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, this page should be redirected to Liverpool Urban Area. The Liverpool Urban Area is the physical built-up area of which Liverpool is the largest component. It is the official term in use by the ONS from the 2001 census data. As an aside, Wigan is not part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, it's part of the Wigan Urban Area along with Skelmersdale. Greater Liverpool is not a term in regular use by central government, just as "Greater Birmingham" or "Greater Leeds" are not. Discussing accents is a red herring - most people other than residents could probably not tell Leeds from Bradford or Sheffield, Glasgow from Edinburgh, Derby from Nottingham, Southampton from Portsmouth and so on. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion - I have gone ahead and merged the articles. Seeing the way the discussion is going I have merged the two articles into "Liverpool Urban Area". Doesn't mean I agree with it personally but, hey, let's move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was done the wrong way! Keep Great Liverpool and remove Liverpool Urban Area. I'll add caps abuse: Liverpool urban area please. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Liverpool Urban Area is correct, as it is a proper noun, as used by ONS. Unlike Greater Liverpool, which was made up by the original author of this page, although subsequently turned out to be used by the Housing Benefit people. --RFBailey (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original author of this page and although I do agree with User RFBailey sentiments, I have to agree the Liverpool Urban Area is best place. Having said that ONS for information purposes only compile the statistics, the actual make up of the Liverpool UA is down to Department for Communities and Local Government which I have emailed to ask questions on the Liverpool UA. Discussions should be moved to the talk page on Liverpool Urban Area Dmcm2008 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be getting confused between Urban Areas and Primary Urban Areas, which are a statistical agglomeration of local authorities (or wards in some statistics) based upon the Urban Areas created solely for the purposes of the State of the English Cities and are not meant for use outside that Report. Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]