Talk:Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City

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

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per discussion below Tiggerjay (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City → Liverpool - Maritime Mercantile City –

  • Proper punctuation used by UNESCO to list Liverpool as World Heritage Site Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Gerbis (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:UCN, looks to me like "Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City" is the most common name. Also, it would need to be a dash, not a hyphen, if it were moved (see MOS:DASH). Definitely needs a full discussion IMO. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now opposing. I still believe the current title is the common name and no evidence has been provided to the contrary. Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the spaced hyphen, which is never correct in any context. If we want to get closer to the official than the common, UNESCO uses spaced en dash, which makes a bit of sense, but is still not ideal. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2004 vs 2021[edit]

A side-by-side comparison would be nice. The reason for delisting is a bit abstract as it is now.

I couldn't find any appropriate images on Commons. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE concern deletions[edit]

DeFacto has deleted mentions (Guardian, Sky News) of groups siding with the UNESCO deletion, claiming that they were undue (or, in the Guardian's case, that they were fringe). It is understandable that Liverpool is frustrated by the loss (and nobody seemed to be rejoiced by the decision - who would be?), but the text without the deletion would make it appear as if condemnation were unanimous. It was not. The sources mention 3 organisations (Historic England (an executive non-departmental public body of the British Government, reaction to Everton stadium), The Victorian Society (reaction) and Save Britain's Heritage, see The Guardian). Could you please outline the problem with the sentence? Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki, I removed one sentence - this one: "Some heritage and historical groups, on the other hand, have stated their embarassment of the decision, siding with UNESCO[35][40] and blamed the UK government for not making sufficient actions to prevent delisting of Liverpool.[35]".
Ref [35] was the The Guardian source one you mention and [40] was the Sky News one.
WRT the first part, I cannot see where "stated their embarassment of the decision" or "siding with UNESCO" are supported. [35] only seems to substantiate "heritage groups" with one example - Save Britain’s Heritage, so only one heritage group then, and they didn't say they were embarrassed - they said it was a "national embarrassment", and they don't say or imply anything about siding with UNESCO. [40] doesn't mention heritage groups or embarrassment or siding with UNESCO.
WRT the second part, I cannot see where "blamed the UK government for not making sufficient actions to prevent delisting of Liverpool" is supported in [35], [35] mentions one heritage group, Save Britain's Heritage saying that 'Liverpool had been failed by the government’s "devolve and forget" approach to protecting cultural assets' - nothing about not taking sufficient actions themselves.
Can you provide the quotes from [35] and [40] that you think support these generalisations please? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second part was supported by this quote:
Heritage groups described the move as a moment of shame for the UK and accused the government of not doing enough to protect its historic sites or intervene on Liverpool’s behalf when Unesco threatened to delist it.
Henrietta Billings, the director of Save Britain’s Heritage, said being stripped of world heritage status was a “national embarrassment” and that Liverpool had been failed by the government’s “devolve and forget” approach to protecting cultural assets.
While they provided one example, I assume that since the coverage is from a RS, and they said "heritage groups" (in plural), I'd assume more than one were consulted.
The first part additionally listed the two other agencies in this context: Plans for Everton's new £500m stadium were approved earlier this year despite objections from the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), acting on behalf of the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Victorian Society and Historic England.
In fact, the Victorian Society's response is provided here in the talk.
Historic England's response to that particular incident was that the objects were in better shape than they had been at the time of nomination (2004), but they did not directly address the issue of developments which was the reason UNESCO struck out the object from its list. Their position was rather middle-of-the-road: they said that Liverpool does just fine with conservation (2016) but still opposed the stadium.
I will add more responses on the way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've stumbled across the critical Merseyside Civil Society's reaction. Could we maybe have a separate sentence for the reaction of conservation groups (Victorian Society and Save Britain's Heritage agreeing with the decision, and the Merseyside Civil Society/Historic England against? That should resolve DUE concerns, as we'll not mix the govt officials with the rest, and that will seem to be more of a discussion between these groups Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see if the rewrite as proposed is any better. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool_Maritime_Mercantile_City&oldid=1208532531"