Talk:Liverpool

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

• The Pain Relief Foundation: 3 March 2010.

Please add website link to the Pain Relief Foundation https://painrelieffoundation.org.uk/ 85.255.237.220 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Lightoil (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

In the section headed 'Religion' the top photograph of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral has a caption with the word 'Cathedrals'. "Please change Cathedral's to Cathedrals" since it's not possessive. 82.71.17.250 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

@Liverpolitan1980, rather than WP:EDITWAR, it's better we discuss on here first and try to come to a consensus with others. I can see you feel passionately about it and I've nothing against a line that Liverpool has a metropolitan area of over 2 million. But we really do need a better source than an independent report from well over a decade ago. Especially given that the report was to recommend the creation of the Liverpool City Region LEP which has ended up with a population of 1.5 million. Formerly, the claim was based on the ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom of Liverpool-Birkenhead. But that data is from 2001 and the UK doesn't seem to use this category since we left the European Union. I think probably the nearest thing now is the travel to work areas. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also just noticed you've added the line and reference twice in two separate parts of the lead. Surely once will suffice? Dgp4004 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming your position. I agree that there is no controversy over Liverpool's metropolitan area. That is the reason that this fact has stood the test of time through the consensus of other contributors. A better source has now been added from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority which makes it clear that Liverpool's metropolitan area extends in to northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire. Indeed, the Liverpool city region shares its boundaries with neighbouring areas including Cheshire West and Chester, Lancashire, Warrington, and Wigan. It is virtually one contigous urban sprawl. If you would like further proof of this, I can show you a night time satellite view from the international space station? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing it. It doesn't matter what I think - only that we can find decent sources to back it up. This second source is more recent which is good. But it still doesn't say that there's a Liverpool metropolitan area with a population of 2 million. What I can find is:

"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. It shares its boundaries geographically with neighbouring areas including Cheshire West and Chester, Lancashire, Warrington, and Wigan."

But if that's the best we have, leave it in until something better comes up I suppose. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I am sure it's out there. The metropolitan area isn't going anywhere in that time. The counties haven't moved since 2011 and neither has the population shrunk. I agree that we should leave it as it is now and add more sources if they can be found. Thanks for that, all the best! Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also just a note to say that the second comma here makes it read that Liverpool has a population of 1.5 million, not Liverpool City Region. Without the comma, the LCR has a pop of 1.5 million:

'It is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK, with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021.'

We could either do away with the second comma or perhaps rephrase it. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I agree come to think of it, youre right. Happy for the second comma to go. Thanks a lot! (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC))

This source doesn't support the Met area without OR and SYNTH. Page 19 references an "economic" region, but this is specifically not a metropolitan area (which has a very specific methodology for calculation) and is instead a mishmash of travel to work zones. Even it's claim of an "urban area" does not align with the definition of an urban area. This is fine when talking in a general sense (such as in the Demography section) to talk about the different ways the region may be defined in different situations - but a stretch to assert that the definition is common or current.

This Article only tangentally refers to the metropolitan area, but it's specifically only in reference to the LCR (so excludes those other areas mentioned).

Reliance on an independent report from 2011 and a document about Rights of Way to support several of the new additions is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in the current way it is structured.

Regarding ESPON, as the last formal measure of the Met Areas it is the one retained at the moment on wikipedia. There is a broader discussion (or multiple thereof) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography trying to resolve the issue between BUA, BUASD, Met Urban Area and myriad other measurements that have come and gone without ever being formally updated.

Echoing DGP comment, the sentence around "It is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK, with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021" isn't well worded and is conflating a number of things and combined with the Built Up Area, and so on, it means we're referring to 3 different ways of measuring largely the same area and its population based on different ONS or similar metrics and criteria. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is nothing incorrect about the fact that Liverpool is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021. It is fact and there is nothing wrong with the wording either. 3 different ways of measuring largely the same area is not wrong either. This is wikipedia - it is an encycolpedia where different measurements are displayed. Liverpool is a large city within a wider built up area within a metropolitan area. It's the same with all big cities around the world. Move on, nothing to see here. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also be careful to apply the precise same logic to every single city on wikipedia - paying particular attention to the core UK cities of Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. Not that there is a separate logic for UK geography. Whatever you discuss here applies to every city on Wikipedia so you might as well start a very large discussion about all those cities. As far as I can see on first glance, pay attention to Glasgow, Belfast, Bristol and Nottingham who make reference to their built up areas and/or metropolitan areas. Perhaps remove them and make a talk conversation there. Or maybe we could just leave things as they have been for years where absolutely no big issue has been made about the fact that Liverpool happens to be in the middle of a large urban area. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to: you cannot both claim something was "abolished" at a census (it wasn't, the data just wasn't updated) while referencing the Liverpool Built-up Area in the third sentence of this article and also claiming other, older, data remains valid. The actual methodology has changed as they have functionally not created an updated version of the broader BUA concept, and instead simplified the BUASD as the BUA, but can find the relevant 2021 article here at the ONS and the dataset is here.

A battleground attitude isn't going to work with me, I suggest you re-read my words. Koncorde (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Greater Manchester Built Up Area - yes that was abolished at the 2021 Census. It is now the Manchester built up area - DGP above updated the statistics accordingly and correctly. The Liverpool Built-up Area still exists. Check your facts. The other, older, data remains valid - it is not coming from outdated ONS methodologies. On the other hand - any double standard applies to you. If you wish to keep outdated ONS methodologies then you must keep information which you claim to be outdated. You can't have it both ways. A battleground won't work me either - I don't do rubbish arguments that are biased to one area. I see you haven't started a discussion on every single city page on wikipedia?

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't "abolish" things in the ONS, they change methodology or change definitions which makes historic measurements less relevant (or easier to compare with). This: Liverpool Built-up Area and this Greater Manchester Built-up Area use the same methodology that was only updated in 2011 and not 2021. In 2021 they defined the BUASD (previously the areas known as Liverpool, St Helens, Huyton and so on) as BUA. The "Liverpool Built-up Area" is now solely E63001374, just as "Manchester Built-up Area" is E63001295 for the purposes of arguing that one or the other has been abolished. Again, if can you please read my words (and yes, I have engaged repeatedly at wikiproject geography about the correct definitions used). Koncorde (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I will clarify. 'Abolish' to mean that the methodology is no longer used. Abolish means to formally put an end to a system, practice, or institution. Which the ONS has done because they no longer calculate the Greater Manchester built up area. But that is rather splitting hairs. You are welcome to re-instate the figure if you wish so long as you apply the same logic to other older sources from the exact same year - 2011. I don't see what your problem is here. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You picked a fight because you failed to read my original message, and instead have gone off onto other stuff. If you actually read my comments I have not demanded any changes, I have pointed out issues with sourcing, I pointed out the reason the ESPON figures have been used on wikipedia and directed conversation / question to the main wikiproject talk board for more information, and I agreed with DGP's criticism of that sentence - and expanded on the conflation of subject. These were entirely neutral comments on the topic with absolutely 0 personal animus and yet the response was clearly not AGF. I "have no problem", I am contributing to an article I have contributed to for over a decade. Koncorde (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why cities can't be measured in 3 different ways. That is the whole point that we measure built up areas and metropolitan areas in the first place. I am afraid you have no argument there. And there is nothing wrong with the sources.

The RT Hon Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy refer to 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 some 2.3m in October 2011.

The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority refers to the city region having "a much bigger economic hinterland extending into northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire." That source is from 2018. I am happy to find more sources that refer to this exact same area because I am certain that they are out there. And the concept of Liverpool's metropolitan area has been on the article for quite some time - without any controversy.

It is precisely the same geographic area in both sources whatever way you try to twist it.

So I will ask you again. What is it that you have a problem with. Is it the population? Shall we calculate that here by adding up all the various local authorities in this area? I have no issue with the population being "over 2 million". It is merely a guide.

Could it be that Liverpool is recognised as being part of larger area with a 2 million strong population perhaps?

Or is it wikipedia experience that you have a problem with, I am not sure why you brought that up.

I have contributed over 97,000 bytes to this article. Also from an old username that I retired some time ago. By far and way the single biggest contributor to it. But I am sure neither of us wish to claim ownership. No-one has caused any controversy over the subject of Liverpool having a metropolitan area before, however, I have come across your username before over the years though and I seem to remember you being focussed on Liverpool's population for some time. Particularly within the context of it being in a larger area. I am not sure why you find that strange.

I am glad to see that you are not demanding any changes here. Perhaps we should let this rest. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't read what I said and are instead assuming a battleground mentality. I have no issue with their being a "Metropolitan area". Your sources do not support it however, and are a form of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have a reliable source (ESPON) that is out of date (but "over 2 million" would be acceptable), or some other specific measurable of a metropolitan area if you can source it - but claims such as "which includes urban areas in the neighbouring counties of northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire" is incorrect and unsupported without OR and SYNTH.

With regards to three different measurements: I am explaining that they are conflating meanings. That's it. Particularly when choosing between different variations of the city, the borough, the district, the built up area, urban area, met area to conflate in any given sentence. I have no issue with Liverpool being part of, or within, or a member, or principal of a larger whole. But what is claimed must be supported.

And I mention my background because you are alleging, and again here, something. I have WP:AGF'd your contributions. You are not extending the same to me.

I'll "let this rest" when you actually understand the issue with the sourcing and phrasing and engage in consensus building. Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As regards my phraseology "which includes urban areas in the neighbouring counties of northeast Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire". This is explicitly supported by The RT Hon Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy. They literally refer to 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 some 2.3m in October 2011. How much more support do you want?

I would be happy to reinstate the ESPON source and state "over 2 million". It was not me that removed it.

There is also no reasoning behind the lead 'conflating meanings'. It is very clear as to which population refers to which specific geography. Any conflation would be through a lack of comprehension and I credit wiki readers with more intelligence than that. As I say, no big controversy there.

I will have to leave it there for tonight.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

An urban region is not a metropolitan and so on and so forth. Your interpretation is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR of a paper that is specifically not stating what such a met area is. It's really simple. The paper discusses the Liverpool City Region, it then discusses the idea of an economic region around the LCR. If you wanted to use the paper correctly the sentence would read: "The city forms part of a larger urban area that stretches from North-East Wales to Lancashire and Greater Manchester, with a population over 2.3 million people." This then neither conflicts with the ESPON, which remains the only authoritative study of Metropolitan areas in Europe, or the discussion of the Megalopolis when referred to later in Demography or economic areas and so on.

To break down some of the conflation: "The city is part of the third largest contiguous built-up area in England and Wales (excluding London)." The "Built-up Area" links to the Liverpool Built Up Area page which is indeed a "contiguous built-up area", population 864,000. This reflects List of urban areas in the United Kingdom this list, which would make Liverpool 4th or 5th depending on inclusion or exclusion of London (and Glasgow). Pointless to "exclude" London, "outside London" would be better phrasing. However the source that has been added is the 2021 ONS figures of the BUA of Liverpool only (previously the BUASD of Liverpool within the Liverpool Built-up Area) of 506k. This is not the same "contiguous built-up area" methodology of 2011. So which population figure is intended, because the infobox then lists this same ONS BUA figure as the Urban population total.

Subsequently we use the term "District". It's clunky when just as easy to say the city or borough. The sentence is easily parsed as meaning the District (unmentioned until now) as having the population of 1.5m "It is the largest district in the Liverpool City Region, the fourth largest combined authority in the UK with a population of 1,551,722 in 2021.". It is instead clearer to write "Liverpool is the largest borough in the Liverpool City Region. The LCR is a combined authority with a population of 1.5m, the fourth largest in the UK". or "Liverpool is the largest borough in the Liverpool City Region combined authority. The LCR has a population of 1.5m, the fourth largest in the UK". Koncorde (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If it is just a matter of phrasing I am sure that is simple. I will work on it, however, some of that phrasing hasn't come from me and has been amended in time. We agree that Liverpool sits in a larger urban region so without overcomplicating any more this can be settled quite easily I am sure. (Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with district in my view. I know some people dislike the term thinking of it as an Americanism. But it is the term used by the ONS and that's good enough for me. We certainly can't say 'largest city' as it's the only city in LCR. 'Borough' is alright if you can't abide 'district'. But it's not as clear as district. Strictly speaking, you'd have to know that every district in LCR is a borough first. But I'm nitpicking there.

On the BUA, personally I'd oppose going back to 2011 statistics which are now well over a decade out of date and are no longer used by the ONS. But I also don't see the point of including the new 2021 BUA figure personally. In one of the sections perhaps but not the lead or the infobox. The article is primarily about the district (there are separate articles about the built up area). And given that the BUA is now only a little larger than the district population, it doesn't lend itself to showing how Liverpool is part of something bigger, if that's the aim.

And I'd oppose even stronger quoting a statistic (ESPON) from 2001, going on for 25 years old. If it was the year 2000, we wouldn't countenance including statistics from the 1970s.

To me, the obvious next level up for Liverpool is the Liverpool City Region. Just as wider region for Manchester is the Greater Manchester city region. There's no need to be quoting ancient statistics when we have figures for 2021 for the city regions. And they'll be updated for 2022 in spring 2024. And for every year from now.

My own preference would be to quote the population of the district and perhaps the population of the LCR. But drop the 2011 and 2001 figures. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have amended the lead taking on board thecomments. I don't think it's helpful to get in to debates as to whether the built up area should or should not be included – so long as sources are reliable and verifiable there is no reason to discount them. I think we have all agreed on that already and we should put personal preferences aside. The surrounding urban region is better clarified by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority whom share close political and economic links with surrounding local authorities. There is every reason to include this since this is the situation that Liverpool finds itself in and it fairly common for major cities to inlclude information on their wider metropolitan context. I am fairly happy that there is no more need to overcomplicate things.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Liverpolitan identity for deletion

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) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

Add Lita Roza to prominent Liverpool musicians list: “Other musicians from Liverpool include…”

Liverpool, Culture, Music

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lita_Roza 72.89.149.209 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrowssapSMM 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Demonyms

The term Liverpolitan now directs to this page after its article was removed, and as you can see from the [[1]] 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. during a period when Liverpool was one of the world's most important ports at the height of Britain's global economic and imperial significance. It derived from the city's status as an important trading, mercantile and commercial centre.

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)