Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Woollyback[edit]

The above article is at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woollyback), I thought projects members might be interested in commenting on whether or not the article should exist. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this article should be on Wikipedia because its a slang and demeaning word to certain people. Maybe in the wictionary not as a article. User:tsange 23/01/2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

So you don't think encyclopaedia should document slang or things that are demeaning? So I assume sexism should go?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the AfD was that the article was deleted and replaced by a soft redirect to wictionary. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Cullen (artist)[edit]

I've proposed the deletion of the above article by adding a PROD template to it because I think the subject fails notability. But I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of him and knows whether he's notable? Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest I've never heard of him and being as the person who created the page is also pushing the personal website I suspect it may be a conflict of interest. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gateacre[edit]

Just been adding a bit of info to the Gateacre and noticed that the history section is an exact match of that given on the Gateacre Society website [1]. My inclination would be that rather than the GS mirroring the wikipaedia article someone has just copied and pasted it from the GS website. Anyway I don't mind re-writing and referencing but wondered if others had any opinions. --Daviessimo (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


De La Salle School (Liverpool)[edit]

Should this article be moved to new page called De La Salle Humanities College?Tsange (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RESOVLED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsange (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire vs Merseyside[edit]

I have been adding references to the List of people from Merseyside. Liverpool was part of Lancashire until 1974 so does this mean that people born in Liverpool before 1974 should be under list of people from lancashire? Tsange (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the Local Government Act 1972 which created Merseyside came into force on 1 January 1974, so people born before that date should be described as born in Lancashire (or Cheshire if over the river); "people from..." is wide enough, I think, to include those who spent their early lives in either, and I think it depends on whether their ties are closer to one or the other. Rodhullandemu 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is avoided if we break the list(s) down by borough/city. Take a look at List of people from Greater Manchester (my fav), List of people from London and List of people from South Yorkshire. As stated in WP:UCC, using modern units is the approach least likely to confuse our readers. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject awards?[edit]

I noticed that wikiproject merseyside doesn't seem to have any awards that they can give out so I made one that can be used by the group to give to deserving members. what does anyone think? Tsange (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Award of Merit
{{{1}}}

{{subst:Wikiproject Merseyside Medal|message ~~~~}}

Nice work and a good idea. The only comment I have is that it would be nice if the design on the medal could be a bit darker so it's easier to see at a low resolution. Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Group[edit]

There are a few articles which might possibly be better off by merging content with Peel Group and creating redirects to that article. I've had this on a 'to do' list for a while and have time to look at this now. I wondered what people thought of the following:

There might be other, associated, articles which would also benefit from treatment. Any views on this? ColdmachineTalk 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wirral and Liverpool Waters being merged, after all they are, as of yet, only proposals. Personally I'd say MDHC needs its own article, because it covers over 200 years of port history in Liverpool and there is plenty of potential for expansion. Don't know enough about the other two to comment really --Daviessimo (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that again I agree with you that MDHC warrants a separate article, along with the Manchester Ship Canal. Have amended the above! ColdmachineTalk 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to change gear?[edit]

This project was started on 5 September 2008, a little over 8 months ago, for the purpose of improving Merseyside-related articles. In that time 1,588 articles have been tagged (about 3/4 have been assessed) for the project and amongst those are 8 pieces of Featured content and 11 Good Articles. Those kinds of figures put the project compare favourably to other county WikiProjects. There are 30 members and a number of them are experienced. Certainly something the project can be proud of.

The number of GAs and FAs is slightly deceiving as most are football or Beatles related and haven't been produced by this project. So perhaps it's time to change that. It would be nice for the project to have its own Good or Featured article (perhaps even Liverpool or Merseyside!), but how can this be achieved? I think the best way is to identify which articles are already of a high standard or close to GA and develop them further. I've not edited an awful lot in Merseyside topics, so at this point input from project members is very important. Have you noticed any stand out articles or is there a pet project you'd be interested in seeing improved?

Or if we're feeling particularly ambitious we could choose one of our top importance articles. Once a handful of articles has been selected, we could then discuss how to improve them, relevant sources etc, either here or on the article's talk page. Hopefully with 30 members there should be some subjects that we can get multiple editors interested in!

Any comments or suggestions? Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree that we could do with getting some articles to GA or even FA class. In my opinion some possible 'flagship' articles that could be considered are University of Liverpool, Merseyrail or River Mersey. Whilst they would all require a fair bit of work, they are all top importance, with an abundance of potential to be developed into high quality articles. Alternatively if you wanted a true, i.e. solely WP:Mersey related article, something like Wirral Peninsula or Liverpool One may be an option. However as with all of the above I'm not really sure how close they are to being GA class
As an aside, I feel that the biggest barriers to development more generally are the really poor links throughout most of the Merseyside articles. For example, unlike the Manchester article, which is linked to a series of related sub articles, which are in turn linked to a series of indivual articles, the Liverpool page seems to contain large amounts of patchy, poorly organised information. I think bettering the organisation of Merseyside related articles is an absolute must --Daviessimo (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I myself have been trying to assess Unassessed articles and have came across Grand National I have submitted it for a GA review. Some other articles i think that are close to becoming good are

Tsange (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of those (besides Hillsborough Disaster) aren't really anywhere near GA quality so unless we're looking for a challenging drive for obtaining GA status then it may be best sticking to more suitable contenders. Chambré Hardman is completely unreferenced (worryingly so - I've tagged it accordingly), and the others are lacking in the "broad coverage" required for GA status. I'd go with Hillsborough Disaster being a good contender, though. University of Liverpool needs a lot of cleanup, especially in the 'notable alumni' section. University of Manchester has a good tactic with that by hiving off content into a separate article. Liverpool One could be expanded and that might also be a good contender. Merseyrail is also a good choice but could do with some significant section restructuring. It's worth bearing in mind the GA stipulations:
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose)
    b (MoS)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references)
    b (citations to reliable sources)
    c (OR)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects)
    b (focused)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  5. It is stable (No edit wars etc.)
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions)

I'd think the following would be good choices with this in mind:

ColdmachineTalk 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses everyone, it's good to the project's still going well :-) I only got round to asking two editors for input because I didn't want to put people of by forcing the idea, but don't feel left out we need all the opinions we can get!
First of all, the Grand National article doesn't have enough references as it is at the moment. From the Good Article criteria: "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". At the moment, the entire history section is unreferenced, but for something as well known as the Grand National there should be sources online. There's a big backlog in the sports section over at WP:GAN, so there is time to improve the article if we feel we can manage it. At the very least, the GA review will provide some useful suggestions.
I think the Hillsborough Disaster would be a good choice to target. The content is mostly there and a lot will be online because of the 20th anniversary. Ensuring a neutral tone will be important, but I think is achievable. I also agree that Liverpool One would be another one worth trying to get to GA. Some of the articles suggested lack references (not Hillsborough and L1) such as the Grand National. It's important to think about where references can be found. If it's online it should be easy for everyone to get hold of, but if a book is the most important source for an article the effort will probably rest with one person. For instance, while Hardman sounds like an interesting topic, but a biography of someone born in 1898 might be hard to find sources for.
I like the idea of getting the River Mersey to a decent standard and it could be done in collaboration with the Cheshire and Greater Manchester WikiProjects. I was concerned by the recent edit warring on the Merseyrail; it's an article we'll have to keep an eye on and well referenced and structured articles are easier to maintain.
To sum up, I think the best bet would be the article on the Hillsborough Disaster, closely followed by Liverpool One. The disaster's not too large a topic, the references should be easy to get hold of, and most of the content (at a quick glance) appears to be in place. I doubt it will be a walk in the park as it's a controversial subject, but I think we can make a good job of it so it's probably as good a place to start as any. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have liked to do a lot more on this project but have been waylaid by subjects for the WikiProject Cheshire, which is currently short of active editors. Some time ago I did some work on St. George's Hall, Liverpool and Bluecoat Chambers. Both of these I think have potential as GAs but need some more work first. Is anyone interested in further improving them? For example the former needs a plan and the latter a public domain photograph, for a start. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we say that Hillsborough and Liverpool One are the initial focus, how should we look to move forward from here. From my perspective, as my interests lie in the buildings, architecture and more generally the urban environment, I feel I will be able to contribute more to the development of the Liverpool One article, but am willing to chip in on Hillsborough where necessary. To be honest, I'm not that experienced on Wikipedia so I'm not sure how things normally go from here. --Daviessimo (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we could get some images for the Hillsborough Disaster of the Freedom of the City scroll any of these would be good. Dunno about the copyright though.

1

2

3

4 Tsange (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that the Albert Dock article now has GA status --Daviessimo (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! Ive been looking at all the Merseyside B class articles and i think University of Liverpool could get a GA rating if it had more citions it certianly is long enough. Tsange (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image on Liverpool article[edit]

I was wondering what people's thoughts were on creating a lead image on the Liverpool page a la those on the likes of New York, London or Barcelona. --Daviessimo (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! But which which landmarks. Maybye some of these.

Tsange (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we stick to one, rationale being that those places have the montage style images on the basis that they are global cities, and a single image wasn't avaliable to be selected by consensus to represent their metropolitan area. One image is much more consistent with the rest of England and the UK. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should create an image that has on it maybe the three graces, the River Mersey and at least one of the cathedrals... -- Bobyllib (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean exactly like the image we have now! It was only a thought, and personally I do like the one we have now. In fact it was actually the Vilnius article that first prompted the idea, because I liked the way they had mixed the modern developments with the more historic features of the town. In the case of Liverpool I think there is more weight to promote the idea than other big cities because there are so many iconic images that can be associated with the city: The Liver Building, the Mersey Ferry, the Cavern, Anfield and Goodison --Daviessimo (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, that was rather a facetious comment. I like the one we have now too. -- Bobyllib (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your fault. Until someone invents a way to easily portray sarcasm or a humourous tone in text, the human race will never evolve any further --Daviessimo (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool One[edit]

I really think that the Liverpool One article is very close becoming a Good article, it possibly is a B now. One of the main problems is that under the "The Six Districts" is there a better way of listing the shops on the street? thanks! Tsange (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, and I think that the best way to improve this article and the Hillsborough Disaster would be to list them at peer review. I would like to comment on both articles, but cannot guarantee being able to look in as much detail as I would like in the near future. A peer review would provide useful feedback on issues such as copy editing, sourcing, and perhaps structure.
One comment I have about Liverpool One that I would like to see addressed before taking it to peer review would be using a consistent format in the references. Each reference needs a minimum of title, publisher, author where known, date published where known and the date the page was looked at in the case of web references. At the moment, some don't have accessdates, and some such as 20–23 are just urls with titles. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the cite web reference format on all of the references and added the information were possible so the Liverpool One article should now be ready for a peer review, although some pieces of text may need references too. Tsange (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where the information on Peter's Lane and New Manesty's Lane came from? thanks! Tsange (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, Just found this article One Park West says its part of Liverpool One. I think that maybe a new heading in the Liverpool One article should have some information about it and a link to the articles' page. what do you think? Tsange (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the potential for expansion in the Liverpool One article is immense, what with the archeological digs, the planning background, the whole process of development, the layout and features etc etc. Subsequently I wouldn't be suprised if at some point in the future (probably a long way in the future, given how slowly Merseyside articles develop) more sub-articles will need to be created. Anyway to cut a long story short I do think a link should be made and probably through a section that deals with all of the residential developments in Liverpool One --Daviessimo (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post towns[edit]

Someone with local knowledge may need to verify Special:Contributions/HazManianDevil on 22 June 2009. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im pretty sure most of this users edits are correct, A good way to find a areas Post town is to find a business in that area and see what their address is such as for Halewood. I think some may have two as for Halewood some say its Knowsley while other sources say its Liverpool.

Tsange (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlise and Lancaster[edit]

In the absence of specific county projects for these two articles, I thought I'd let NW England know that there's been something of an improvement drive for the City of Carlisle to bring it more inline with the GA City of Salford. City of Lancaster has also had a minor facelist. Any info that can help with further improvements for the city districts would be much appreciated. (NB: the specific county towns of Carlisle, Cumbria and Lancaster, Lancashire are covered seperately like Salford, Greater Manchester). Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist[edit]

Hi everybody, I thought project members might be interested in this link. It's the project's new watchlist which I've created. Hopefully, it should help us stay on top of vandalism and track new users who might be interested in joining the project. Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a link to it should be put on the wikiproject Merseyside homepage. Great work Nev1! Tsange (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral[edit]

Hi, I have been working alot on the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral and would like some feedback on what else can be added to it to make it Good Article worthy, thanks Tsange (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article tomorrow and post my comments both here and the article talk page. Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead as it is now is a bit brief, it needs to summarise the whole article. For instance, for a structure with such a complex construction history, no mention is made in the lead of when building started or the main phases.
  • If available, it would be good to include the expected and actual costs of each phase of construction. That way, when it's stated that Scott's 1953 design cost £4M the reader can compare it to earlier figures.
  • It's mentioned that Scott's design was criticised and abandoned, but it's not really explained what about it was criticised.
  • The Sir Edwin Lutyens Crypt section feels out of sequence and a bit repetitious. I think it should be integrated into the Lutyens' design section so that chronological order is restored and the article doesn't repeat itself.
  • What happened to the Lady Chapel while Lutyen's cathedral was in use? Is the cathedral now the parish church?
  • Lutyen's design is pretty unusual, has it won any awards?
  • It should be mentioned in the article that the cathedral is a Grade II* listed building.
  • Finally, I can't put my finger on what's missing and nothing particularly stands out, but the article feels a little "light".

I've made these edits, mostly copyediting. Some of the references were used more than once. When this happens, there's no need to use the same wikicode; what can be done instead is give one reference (usually the first occurrence but it doesn't particularly matter) a name, ie: <ref name="any name at all">{{cite web...}}</ref><nowiki>. Then when the same source need to be reered to later, you can just use the name, like this: <nowiki><ref name="any name at all"/>. Putting the / at the end is important to end the reference, otherwise it messes up the formatting of the page. I think the article is in decent shape, and oince the points I've raised are addressed it may as well be taken to WP:GAN to see what happens. Nev1 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's good as far as it goes and is well referenced. But as Nev1 says, it's rather light. All you really have is a History section - and that's got some major gaps. How about the trouble with the leaks and the concrete; and the additions made since its opening - the flight of steps, the associated buildings, like the Piazza; the intention to make the crypt accessible from the main building (not sure if that's complete yet). Then you need an "Architecture" section , with a detailed description of the structure, including the chapels, the stained glass, the furniture, the organ, any memorials, etc. Then I would suggest a "Present day" section - what goes on now; services, the choir, concerts, exhibitions, etc. And it might be an idea to include some of the historical events - the visit of the Pope, any royal visits, etc. It's a good idea to compare the article with other GAs. The nearest geographically is Chester Cathedral. This has a much more complicated history and architecture than the Liverpool Met, but it might give an idea of the sort of level to aim at. It's rather daunting, but GA assessors can be demanding (and it may be less painful to get comments here than at the GAC level - which I have experienced). Good luck, and I guess you may need some help from other editors. I'll try to do a bit but I'm rather distracted by some Cheshire projects at present. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for the responeses! Ive got alot to work on now to help boost the article to a GA. Thanks! Tsange (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney GAR notification[edit]

Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool article subsections[edit]

I just been looking over some of the other city articles in the UK and noticed that they generally have multiple subpages from the main article dealing with different topics in detail (e.g. history/architecture/governance etc). In the case of Liverpool these seem to be lacking (although a history one has been started) and to be honest I think this is actually hurting the development of Liverpool and Merseyside articles. As it is, I personally think the article is too big and disorganised, which makes navigating and finding information near impossible. Anyway I was wondering if a move could be made to trim down the Liverpool articles by moving some of the 'less important' information out.

I'm not sure how this was done with other cities but I was thinking of doing it by copying a section (say for example landmarks) verbatim into a new article (say Architecture of Liverpool). Then the landmarks section in the Liverpool article can be trimmed down and properly formatted, with any removed information safe in another article to be worked on at a later date. Any thoughts? --Daviessimo (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Most FAs under WP:UKGEO adopt WP:UKCITIES as a layout. I think Liverpool broadly uses this, but its subsections are sprawling out of control. I'd support you fully if you sought to move some content out to daughter articles - I think it would be best practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still sprawling as we speak... --Jza84 |  Talk  23:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've transferred the landmarks information across to Architecture of Liverpool. Obviously this needs some formatting to get it to a standardised 'architecture article' form, which I'll look to get to this week. This means we can start trimming down the info in the main article. --Daviessimo (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southport move suggestion[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Southport#disambiguation requesting to move Southport and replace it with Southport (disambiguation). Comments welcome! Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Liverpool firsts"[edit]

A list with this title has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool firsts. I think the article as it stands is doomed, but it includes material which IMO could be developed for this project. The following is transcluded from the discussion and I am sure that other editors will have their opinions. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Having given an opinion above (which I do not change) I have given more thought to the idea of this list. Liverpool is a city in which much innovation has taken place, and it is reasonable that it should receive credit for what its people have achieved. I find the idea of "Liverpool firsts" seductive. But this is not the way to do it; and indeed I wonder if there is a realistic way. Looking at the current list, the first question is "Who says?" - the fundamental principle of Wikipedia that everything has to be verifiable, which means all the claims must be cited (Wikipedia:Verifiability). The next question is "What precisely does that mean?", which means there has to be some sort of explanation/definition/clarification. Then "What qualifies?". The list includes three world premieres of pieces of classical music - only three? There must be hundreds, if not thousands - only last year there were two world premieres of what could well become classics in the choral repertoire. And then "What are the limits of Liverpool?" - "Liverpool and its environs" is too vague. Does this include Birkenhead, etc.? A list like the present one is probably uncontrollable; and would be subject to all sorts of challenge, reversions and the like. So we may have to re-think the idea. Certainly Merseyside offers the opportunity of many more stubs (preferably articles) containing information about the "firsts". I just wonder if there could be a category into which they could be collected, say "Category:Liverpool achievements", or something like that. Does anyone know how (or if) this sort of thing has been done elsewhere? Has anyone produced a suitable title for such a category? And how could its boundaries be maintained? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I have added the most significant (imho) to the main Liverpool article, grouped into broad fields, all with citations, taken mostly from outside of the Liverpool city council propaganda department! Perhaps a subsidiary article similar to the Birmingham one can be linked, with citations of course. [part of the reason we are here is because I was not really given the chance to add citations.] As for environs, etc, a broad degree of flexibility must be allowed - for instance I'm sure there would be no "Birkenhead" or "Wallasey" tunnels if Liverpool had remained an obscure fishing village... I guess if the event either happened in Liverpool or was due to activities within Liverpool, even if physically located (slightly) outside the current geographical boundary it may be worthy of inclusion. I'm not at all interested in the origins of the personalities involved [scousers' hall of fame, etc] but innovations and inventions that can be reliably traced to the city and its influence. Incidentally, I wonder why wiki calls this category "inventions, etc" - it's not a term scientists really go with. They prefer "development" I think. RodCrosby (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or "innovations" maybe - which might include inventions and such matters as social development (the first medical officer of health, for example). "Developments" might cause confusion with Category:Development which does not really include what we want. I think this should be further discussed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside, so I have copied part of this into its talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
To be honest I'm not a really a fan of the term invention because it is too narrowly defined. Innovation is, for me, a much more inclusive term.
Regarding an article, the Brum article is a good base, but I think it would be better if the information was grouped by topic, rather than date. This way it can be developed into more coherent formatted prose and will generally become more useful than a chronological list.--Daviessimo (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I'm not keen on the Brum version - it's headings are arbitary and its unsourced, unclear, badly titled etc - I would however consider making this idea of a "Liverpool firsts" something this project can really get behind and set a new standard. I would explore the possibility of either a Timeline of Liverpool (or a more restrictive Timeline of invention in Liverpool or something akin), or else (my preference) if it is to be in list format, have a List of inventions and innovation from Liverpool, in which case I'd put it in tabluar format, with a column for date of innovation, its creator(s), its nature, its place of conception, notes about its impact/other claimants and references. For the "look" or layout, I'm thinking something not far divorced from Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Merseyside[edit]

How are band names listed? e.g would The Coral be listed under T or C. Also does the band names need to have information about them next to their name as shown below?

  • The La's: late 1980s to early 1990s pop group.

thanks! Tsange (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Coral would be (and, in fact are) under C. I think putting information is optional -- Bobyllib (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artiles relating to Wikiproject Merseyside[edit]

On Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles alot of the Good articles relate to this Merseyside project. Can any of them be added to are page? Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Good_articles Tsange (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Scottish GA Review[edit]

Just to let everyone know, the Liverpool Scottish article is being reviewed for GA status and assistance in dealing with article issues is more than welcome! Information on this can be found here: Talk:Liverpool Scottish. thanks! Tsange (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Scottish is now a GA Tsange ►talk 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same Information pages[edit]

We currently have this page: List of schools in Merseyside.

On my tour around Wikipedia I found these pages:

Should the pages be deleted and given redirects to the List of schools in Merseyside article or just kept? Thanks. Tsange ►talk 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England at GAC![edit]

Alerting all WikiProject Merseyside members that England is undergoing a reveiw for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can... England expects that every man will do his duty.... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool One[edit]

Just wanted to get people's views on moving Liverpool One to Liverpool ONE, as it appears that this is the correct way of writing its name [2] --Daviessimo (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll leave the article where it is and alter the style in the lead sentence to match the official use instead. I'll also create a redirect from Liverpool ONE. --Daviessimo (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool infobox image[edit]

Just wanted to get peoples thoughts on the lead image for the Liverpool article. I'd prefer to keep the Pier Head image as it is a more recognisable image of Liverpool, but another user has changed it to a nightime skyline image of the business district. Anyway I didn't want to start an edit war so I thought a quick poll here is the best way to get views and thus decide which image to use. All input is welcome. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think the image is suitable as its shot at night and you can't really recognise any of Liverpool's famous waterfront buildings. I much preferred the File:Liverpool Pier Head.jpg image. Just my opinion. Tsange ►talk 17:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Merseyside/Archive_2&oldid=1088735798"