Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Merseyside This page is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside

WikiProject Merseyside Talk Page Welcome to the Talk Page of WikiProject Merseyside. Please remember to remain civil and to treat all users with respect. Please only use this page to discuss the project, to learn more visit the Main Project Page

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Please can someone have another look at the Goodison Park article? TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered if we could get some more views on the new lead image that has been added to the Liverpool article by User:Stevvvv4444. Personally, I think the image is not good enough to be the primary one of such an important article because it is so grainy and personally prefer the previous one. I have no opposition to the lead image being changed to a broader panorama, so long as it is of a high enough quality. Thoughts? --Daviessimo (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Daviessimo. The older image is arresting and draws the eye into the article; the new one is distant and at first glance could be any skyline. The lead image cannot represent the whole of the city, even the whole of the skyline; let it show clearly an iconic arresting view. The place for a fuller skyline image would be lower in the article where a good-quality panorama would be appropriate. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've been bold and split the listed buildings article up because at 130k it was one of the 1000 biggest articles on Wikipedia and that was without even being referenced etc. At the moment the split articles simply contain a generic intro plus the relevant part of the list, but I am hoping that over the next few weeks/months to develop them into properly referenced articles with more information and pictures. The main article (linked above) will remain as an anchor and again I am hoping to expand this with more information from the city council regarding their partnership programmes with English Heritage and also some information on the Echo's 'Stop the Rot' campaign, which has been attempting to highlight the plight of some of those building in a really bad state. Anyway I am currently playing about with the table formatting in my sandbox for the layout of the sub articles so any thoughts would be welcome. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a major problem - and a lot of work! The trouble is, there are so many listed buildings in Liverpool. So you will have to split any complete list, as you have found. How to do it? I'm not sure that your splitting by alphabetical address has any merit (ah! I see you've blanked your sandbox since I looked last night). There are two logical ways; by grade or by geographical area/district. A list of Grade I would be manageable; Grade II* large; Grade II certainly too large. When I did the listed buildings for the Borough of Halton I split it geographically; even then I split Runcorn into two, urban and rural - the others were Widnes and Hale village. IMO the only logical way to split would be geographically; or you could have one list for Grade I and geographical splits for the others. It also rather depends on how much info you are going to give (and how far you want to take the lists). You are certainly going to need coordinates, some photos, and maybe descriptions. Have a look at WP:FL for some of the best lists of listed buildings. And good luck. Please contact me if you want to bounce off any ideas. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't mind using a geographic system or an alphabetical system because either way it's still likely to involve a lot of work. My idea had been to develop the articles along the pattern of Listed Buildings in Liverpool-A, whereby I have attempted to make the interface more user friendly by splitting the list up into chunks and adding pictures throughout. Personally I see the value of this group of articles (in whatever form they take) being that they link together all articles on notable buildings in Liverpool. At the moment there are a large number of orphaned articles on buildings in Liverpool. I'll carry on working on the A article as is for now, but if you feel a switch the geographical organisation would be better I am happy with that. Out of interest how would you envision that being done. Would we follow the defined districts of Liverpool (i.e. Listed buildings in Woolton) or be more flexible? My only concern would be that probably somewhere in the region of a third of all the listed buildings in Liverpool are in the city centre --Daviessimo (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only other option I can think of, which kind of incorporates what I am doing now with the geographical system would be listed subdivided by postcode... --Daviessimo (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion has ground to a halt I'll try and reboot it. Having worked on Listed Buildings in Liverpool-A for a couple of weeks it is now clear that in moving forward the listed buildings article needed to be split up for the simple reason that adding refs and pics vastly increases the article size. Anyway, as the current system of sorting the information alphabetically (as was taken from Liverpool City Council) doesn't work, I would like other peoples opinions on how the information should be sorted. If we worked on the basis that the Grade I and II* buildings went into their own articles, what is the best way to organise the remaining Grade II buildings? Geographically would be the most logical system, but do we use postcodes, districts or some others attributes?

The other thing that I wanted opinions on, are what information should be included in the table? Obviously the year of building, the year of listing and the coordinates should be there, but what about the architect (if one is known) or building style? I would be inclined to get rid of the notes section, as I don't feel it adds anything and if the information is important enough it could be included as a footnote. Any thought?? --Daviessimo (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Sorry, but I've been away for 12 days in France and will be away again soon for a week with the family (all good things come in runs!). I'm impressed by the work you've done, but as you suggest, we need to get things pretty well OK at this stage before finding we're stuck in a mire. First of all, are we going to have a discrete Grade I list and a discrete Grade II* list? Fine if they're not too big. Then, as you say, Grade II will have to be split. Personally, I'm very unhappy with an alphabetical list - difficult for the reader to negotiate - and would be much happier with a geographical list; maybe postcodes is the simplest option.

As for content: name, date of building, grade (and refs) essential. But what is the point of the date of listing; IMO it adds no useful info, was probably arbitrary anyway, and uses up a column that could be put to better use. Also IMO, if we are going to take the lists anywhere (ie. FL), notes are essential - what is the nature of the building, who was the architect (if known), what is the architectural style, what is its present use, etc. Coordinates are also IMO essential; they are surprisingly easy to obtain via EarthTools. In addition to refs to Images of England, it would also be useful to have references to the Buildings of England series of books (Pevsner and the modern updates).

Hope this is not making it more complex for you, but I've found it works for me in the FLs I've produced.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to add my thoughts to this for ages; sorry for coming in late! I am posing myself the same questions in respect of Brighton and Hove's listed buildings. I have chosen a split by grade at first, as there are only 24 and 69 Grade I and II*s respectively; but I am now trying to work out what to do with the ~1,120 Grade IIs. Now, Liverpool is a bit different from B&H because it is larger and the postcode areas are more clearly defined and more relevant to particular areas. As Peter says, Grade II lists by postcode area, from L1 onwards, may work because of that. The disadvantage is that there is likely to be clustering of large numbers of buildings in certain postcode areas, and hardly any in others. In B&H, the whole city is covered by just 4 postcode districts (!), so I can't use that approach. Also, the clustering effect applies to a great extent: there are many listed buildings on the seafront, in the centres of Brighton and Hove and in the old villages (now suburbs). I can't really do lists by district/suburb/area because they are not very clearly defined: where does Kemptown end and Hanover begin? – er... (WP:OR alert!). If you go for a named district-based approach for the Liverpool lists, you will have to be careful not to attribute buildings to particular districts in a non-verifiable way, if that makes sense. I tried "alphabetically by street name", partly because the city council's own list is in that order; see here for abortive progress. It is clearly unsatisfactory, though, and Peter's points are relevant. I am left, reluctantly, with "alphabetically by building name", which in the case of things like "1–5 Atlingworth Street" means, in practice, "by street name" unless one of the sub-lists I do is for numbered buildings (a possibility which has just occurred to me). One thing I've found is that for fully referenced lists with coordinate templates, sorting templates etc., the maximum practical limit for a single list is about 200 entries, otherwise you hit the "template limit" (not to mention making the page incredibly long and unwieldy). I am hoping to split the B&H lists into about 100 entries each. Hope that helps a bit (sorry it's so long!), even if more questions than answers are raised. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I've been away myself, which is why I haven't replied sooner. I'm happy with using a postcode split as it is certainly more accurate than using wards, as the boundaries are clearly defined. I'll have a look through what we've got to get an idea of which postcodes may be problematic. Out of interest is there anyone who is good with the table formatting? On the 'A' article I deliberately made the table smaller so it would appear correctly on both widescreen and narrower monitors, but I'm sure there is a way that you can format the table to do that itself. Anyone know? --Daviessimo (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Would anyone be interested in a Wikipedia:Meetup in Liverpool? The idea would be to generally chat about anything Wikipedia-related. I'd also like to discuss the potential of doing a 'Wiki Takes' event in Liverpool - see wmuk:Initiatives/Proposals/Wiki Takes Liverpool. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you look at the Clarence Dock wiki. In 2004 it was widely reported in the Liverpool Echo and Daily post as well as numerous Everton FC websites and fanzines, that there was a proposal for a shared stadium for EFC/LFC at Clarence Docks. This was proposed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and was backed by the NWDA who pushed hard for it at the time. World renowned stadium architects KPMG (currently advising Liverpool FC on their ground move) were commisioned to draw up masterplan pitcures, showing how the stadium would be sited.

I have added this proposal, as a historical proposal for the Clarence Dock site of interest to many people. I have added links to the KPMG masterplan pictures and have added a link to a story relating to this by Bill Gleeson Editor of the Liverpool Daily Post.

An individual called John who is banned from multiple local websites and forums (from KEIOC to skyscrapercity Liverpool to the Echo website forums) has deleted this work and continues to threaten to delete it.

I have added links and even the architects drawings and would appreciate some help in ensureing that my work, which is a historical proposal for the site of great interest to many people, is not deleted in future by this known site vandal and nuisance.

Thank you 86.137.75.132 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I'm not banned from any of those sites. Secondly the "work" of this indvdual I have deleted related to his additions to the Wapping Tunnel and Victoria Tunnel articles which he claims where due for reuse to provide access to the stadium, however the picture he shows a station on the Northern Line. My last edit to the Clarence Dock article was 3 August 2009. I advise you to be watch this user very carefully.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person has deleted my work in the clarence dock wiki signing out of his KitchenKnife username and/or possibly using a proxy. My work has been deleted despite me linking architects drawings and linking directly to a Liverpool Daily Post editor's story on the proposal. This individual is determined that my work will not be allowed on wikipedia. He will start a revert war, without shadow of a doubt. 86.137.75.132 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not me as someone with checkuser rights will be able to show. If you keep on accusing of editting under a false ID then that will get you banned.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19

33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

KitchenKnife uses a proxy and multiple usernames on a number of sites. He is a well known nuisance on Merseyside fourms and websites having been banned from many. As for my knowledge of Merseyside, I am from Walton and I live in Wallasey. My father was a docker for 25 years. I have always lived here....unlike some (How's Milton Keynes treating you John?). Without shadow of a doubt some moderation/administration is going to be required soon as this WILL slip into a revert war. I promise you John/KitchenKnife will delete my work until he is banned or reigned in somehow. Even then he will use a proxy and a different username to come back. Just watch how this descends into a revert war! 86.137.75.132 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.132 (talk)

Stange the that your IP address give a geolocate in Wigan. What you not aware of is checkuser can check when people are using proxies. You'd almost think that this person had an agenda.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Babydoll9799 repeatedly reverts the Crosby, Merseyside page removing Seaforth from the list, while the intro explaining the merger of Great Crosby and Waterloo with Seaforth remains. Apart from the rights or wrongs of this user's actions, the article is now inconsistent. Can someone arbitrate on the issue? Which boundaries is the article Crosby, Merseyside intended to reflect? RodCrosby (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the Crosby page. It should be pointed out that this inclusion of Seaforth in list form is relatively new (on the Crosby page), as i do not use Wp much these days and recently spotted this change. The user Gr8opinionater appears to have made these changes, and added this 'list form' in June. I am certain the text that suggests Crosby was "formed" by merging old boroughs is confusing the user.

It should be noted that the other user has repeatedly reverted my changes too. Hopefully there can be some compromise. Although Seaforth in Crosby? I disagree totally. I also disagree about Hightown. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have provided no citations for your reverts. Just your 'opinion.' Your latest edit implies Crosby consists of just one electoral ward! Can someone have a look at Babydoll9799's edits. What is this article intended to reflect? RodCrosby (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other electoral wards are not in Crosby they are in Blundellsands and Waterloo and Seaforth. You do seem to want to bring this to a difficult conclusion. Why are you not prepared to discuss? I point to my earlier response to you this morningBabydoll9799 (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way re Hightown and Seaforth, it is not just "my opinion". It was someone else's "opinion" (Gr8opinionator) to completely rewrite the Crosby page in June and it had many flaws. You have not looked at these flaws and questioned them, which i have. How many times does it need to be said that all the changes were based on "boroughs" which did not relate to Crosby itself. For arguments sake the modern Sefton and Knowsley boroughs contain an ensemble of towns and villages but they are not as one. This is what happened to the older boroughs that Gr8opinionator has assumed to be "Crosby" Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mere repetition does not add weight to your aguments. Nor does characterizing other edits as "flaws", or falsely claiming I don't wish to discuss. That is why we are here... Both Waterloo (formerly Crosby Seabank) and Blundellsands were "carved out" of Crosby in the 19th Century and were originally almost entirely unpopulated. No-one in either locality would claim they don't live in Crosby as well as in Blundellsands or Waterloo[Crosby Library, Police Station and Civic Centre are in Waterloo. Crosby Coastguard Station is in Blundellsands, Crosby Radar Station is in Seaforth] I have lived in Crosby all my life and am a local historian, so I might know a thing or two about my own town. Aside from that, I have also posted a newspaper link from another local historian entitled "Seaforth is part of Crosby too." You have not provided any evidence to the contrary, yet continue to force your opinion on the article. Just so we know where you are coming from, can you answer two straight questions? i) What do you mean by "Crosby itself"? ii) What in your opinion is the Crosby, Merseyside page intended to reflect? RodCrosby (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As both Seaforth and Crosby are both recognised districts within Sefton, I don't see how it is possible to say that one is inside the other. I would suggest there are similarities here with say Roby and Huyton in Knowsley, but by my understanding of WP:UKCITIES the article should deal with the the 'Crosby' as defined by the local authority. Ultimately the question is, does Sefton Borough council consider Seaforth part of Crosby? --Daviessimo (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the ealier text aimed at me, i dont know much about the historical Crosby, so i hold my hands up at that. But i am disappointed the user is not acknowledging my POV.

I would also add none of this was an issue before June 2010 when Gr8opinionater made numerous and some incorrect changes. Upon correction of this by me has RodCrosby started to tackle me. Seaforth was never in Crosby and i have tried to justify this. I might also question where is the proof to say that everyone in Blundellsands and Waterloo would also think they were in Crosby? Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Everton F. C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheshire portal has been nominated for Featured Portal status. To join the discussion, visit Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Merseyside articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of films and television shows set in Liverpool deals with both films/tv set in Liverpool and also those which have been wholly or partly shot in Liverpool. This effectively means that the title of the article is incorrect and should really be changed. Any thoughts on what the title should be? List of films and television shows set or shot in Liverpool would be the obvious choice but it's quite long. --Daviessimo (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the title for lists does not matter, as long as it is accurate. (Try List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England for example!) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll go ahead and move the article. Thanks --Daviessimo (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kirkby Branch Line has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the PROD tag and am working on expanding and referencing this now. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Knife (talk · contribs) has suggested a partial split of Merseyrail. See Talk:Merseyrail#Future. Simply south...... 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the discussion at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Liverpool F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion about whether a serction in the above article should be split into its own article. The section is called "Liverpool-Manchester as one region". Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think we may be going to have some trouble with User talk:Scouserrr re Litherland. He seems to think that saying somewhere is a suburb of somewhere else means that it is part of the later. Claims to work for LCC but as they cannot use the shift key, I doubt it's in any relevant role, possibly child.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, Stop the Rot, has been nominated for deletion on notability grounds. Project participants may want to contribute to the AfD discussion. Sionk (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the second Liverpool Wikimeet will be taking place at 1pm on 28 January in the Richard John Blackler (Wetherspoon's) pub, near Lime Street Station. See [1] for more details. Hope to see you there! Bazonka (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, just thought I'd introduce myself. I've been making edits to Liverpool related articles (amongst others) for a while now, and as I've recently created Bradbury Fields and Royal School for the Blind (Liverpool) pages it made sense to get involved with the Wikiproject ;-)

The Royal School page was quickly put together so I know there's a lot to do there, but if anyone has any particular guidance on next steps with the Bradbury Fields page it'd be much appreciated.

Jonathandeamer (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool#Split of Psygnosis. -- Trevj (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Interested parties may also wish to familiarise themselves with discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Psygnosis/SCE Studio Liverpool. -- Trevj (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool#Targeted redirect from Psygnosis to 'Psygnosis (1984-1993)' section. -- Trevj (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Interested parties may also wish to familiarise themselves with discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Psygnosis/SCE Studio Liverpool. -- Trevj (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in an RfC on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help in determining current community consensus. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria#Historic Lancashire and categorisation about how to categorise articles relating to pre-1974 events within the Greater Manchester and Merseyside areas. Please contribute there. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a substantive history of the Bank. However, the little box at the top still says "Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)"

How do I get rid of it or does it need an administrator?

Bebington (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the Cheshire portal for featured portal status. Please join the discussion here. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am editing and, I hope, enhancing the article on Hugh Boyd M‘Neile, with a special emphasis on his interactions in 1842 with James Braid (surgeon).

At the moment, all that I can offer the readers is this rather unsatisfactory representation of the statue of M‘Neile in St George's Hall.

As Liverpool is a very long distance from Sydney, I was wondering if there was any possibility of one of the Merseyside Wikipedians to take at least one good view of this magnificent statue, and mount it, through Wikimedia Commons, and replace this representation on the page? Thank you, in anticipation.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of this article is listed with Wikiproject Merseyside, among others.  Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#Incubator discussion regarding William "Billy" Smith, closeout date of July 30.  This article could use someone in St. Helens with access to a local newspaper from the early 1930s.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this my first ever contact with Wikipedia. I live in Warbreck Avenue, Liverpool 9. While researching my local history, a Google search brought me to the Wikipedia "Warbreck" page. This says that "Warbreck is purely the name of the council ward and has never been used as a district name." But Warbreck Park appears on maps of my local area such as Street Map UK which, I believe, is based on the O/S map. Here is a link showing this (make sure that you zoom to the 1:25000 image showing district names):- http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=336217&y=396999&z=0&sv=L9+8Dj&st=2&pc=L9+8Dj&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf

So Warbreck Park is an area of Liverpool like the nearby Orrell Park and Alexandra Park which are also shown on the same map. Hoping this is relevant and helpful - keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive Forder (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The 12th Liverpool wikimeet is taking place on the 21st June - see meta:Meetup/Liverpool/12 for more info. If you're in the area, please come along and have a chat! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance that one of the Merseyside Wikipedians could take at least one good photograph view of the magnificent statue of Hugh Boyd M‘Neile in St George's Hall and mount it, through Wikimedia Commons, and replace this representation on the page? Thank you, in anticipation.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what we can do. Bazonka (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there was a wedding being held in the hall yesterday, so we weren't able to get in to take the picture. Next time, hopefully - 23 August. Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort om my behalf.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've recently invested in a DSLR and am planning to use it to get some better images of Liverpool to upload to Commons. Does anyone have any requests? Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As of Sunday night, over five thousand new maps have been identified, with 26.5% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/England - North West

which currently shows pink templated links for 172 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on Merseyside and the North West.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of Stanley Park is under discussion, see Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) ツStacey (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Pugh to be moved to John Pugh (Liberal Democrat politician). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to an editathon in Widnes on Saturday 8 August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Dame Tina Lavender I find she went to Roby Comprehensive School: no mention of this anywhere though it looks as if the 6th form unit of Knowsley Community College occupies its former site. Could anyone with access to sources give a bit of history so that the Roby school can become a blue link redirecting to its successor (or even predecessor) school, or even have an article of its own? Thanks.

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can any users help improve Portal:Merseyside?--Darrelljon (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the category and the "birthplace" for a quantity of people from Liverpool were marked as the district they were from (not always correct, either). I proceeded to correct this so if someone was from Toxteth, and it said "People from Toxteth"; as this is not the city I proceeded to change this to Liverpool / Toxteth, Liverpool. It was objected to by another user and subsequently painted myself in a bad light, on the noticeboard. I now feel that the point I was making was brushed aside, and that the person cannot come from IE Toxteth as the city birthplace is Liverpool. In addition as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool would be the predominant locality not an inner city district. Finally, It was questioned a persons occupation v place they are from and I assumed in good faith you they are categorised. So from "People from Liverpool" can be recategorised to "Footballers from Liverpool". This is how most (people pages) are categorised. Such as actors, comedians, politicians, and so on. I would happily have both from Liverpool and occupation if desired. However the place of birth and People from category is surely Liverpool (and not in this example Toxteth)?. This does not clash with places like Aintree or Bootle as they are outside the city boundary. Any opinions welcome. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a simple example, Nancy Flanagan. From Liverpool. But because (like numerous pages) a user (Rathfelder 9th March 2020) has created the district where the person is from category, rather than the city, so this person page is "People from Vauxhall, Liverpool". I changed this to "People from Liverpool". Which is correct. But because someone objected (GiantSnowman) and played a number of Wiki cards against me, my edits were reversed. However as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_city_or_town_in_England I was correct in what I was editing. I wasn't just randomly vandalising pages. I made clear my arguments as above but not one person reacted to this. Instead chose to say I was being "disruptive". I do challenge this and ask people from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Merseyside community if they are in agreement. Apparantly this is called "canvassing". When you ask for help. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also as in Category:People from Fazakerley page Tye Morgan is not from Liverpool nor Fazakerley. She is from London. Yet this edit was reversed Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am being warned (see my talk page) for so called "canvassing". How can you correct information when people are preventing you from doing so and also wiping out your edits and wiping out my point of view?Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. There are 2 missing parishes in Merseyside, all exist but only as a redirect but should have separate articles, they are:

• Billinge Chapel End
• Seneley Green

A total of 2, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2)#Merseyside. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clear this WP is inactive, so lets work on making it more active. If any editors would like to join in on reviving this, watchlist this page and sign your name on this thread and add an idea or two for how we can improve activity or improve this wiki-project in general. My suggestion would be: Modernise the main project page (which I most likely will start straight away) making it easier for people to know where and how they can help or ask for help. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 22:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Merseyrail#Split proposal on proposing whether it should be split into Merseyrail (brand) akin to ScotRail (brand), due to constant debates on the City Line (Merseyrail)'s status. Any interested editors are welcome. Thanks DankJae 21:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following this school article being listed at AfD, I have reworked the history section. Would be grateful if any local history experts have time to have a look to make sure I haven't got anything wrong - it has a bit of a complex history, more than one site, several names etc, some involvement in local politics. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liverpolitan identity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpolitan identity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:City of Liverpool College#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manpool § Requested move 2 May 2024. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 United Kingdom riots#Requested move 7 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]