Talk:Bootle

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

Liverpool2[edit]

Liverpool2 has now been completed. Could someone please update the section on the regeneration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disintegration1989 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Does anyone know about the religious history and can add a section? Sweetie candykim (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

The population figure quoted here seems to be the (2001 census) population of Bootle (UK Parliament constituency), which is not necessarily the same thing as the town of Bootle. Sefton Council's website gives the same figure, but looking at the article history I think they copied from WP. Is there a figure out there that is definitively the town population? 109.154.88.186 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bootle. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bootle. 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) 13:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bootle. 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) 04:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population revisited;[edit]

So I can see there a longstanding dispute over the population figure, and what appears to be a piece of Original Research underpinning the current population figure listed as 98,449 for which I can find no independent source that doesn't itself refer back to wikipedia. Any ONS or Nomis lists Bootle population as 51,394, but that again is not the town itself but some contiguous "Built Up area". As such I am seriously questioning the population total given here which appears to correlate to the Constituency profile. Anyone actually got any sources we can use? Koncorde (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bootle. 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) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bootles lede[edit]

So regarding the changes made to the lede; when describing the location of towns or cities, the standard format of articles is to define the location based upon the town itself such as state / county / borough etc and not its proximity to other towns or cities. This is both because the article is about the town (and so it should speak and reference directly it's own notability and significance) and also because the definition of "near" is utterly subjective, providing neither context nor any measurable significance, or proximity, distance, duration etc. For instance: Liverpool is near Manchester. St Helens is near Warrington. Runcorn is near Widnes. England is near Wales. Bootle itself is near many places. Why is Liverpool significant to convey Bootles location over, say, Southport or Crosby? It can also confuse matters when two places are given a general proximity, but then the two locations themselves are not in proximity to each other (for instance Speke and Bootle are in proximity to Liverpool, but not each other). This then requires references to orientation, cardinal directions etc. While this can help to provide some context, this is typically left to the second paragraph. I made this change in my edit to provide more clarity regarding the location of Bootle. However, in short, we don't do this. The only instances of referencing a location by another location is when the subject is a subdistrict and / or a suburb in some fashion, and at this point the reference is usually to specifically the largest political entity (so a suburb references it's town, or borough, while a town references it's met borough / county). It may also, in some instances, reference the urban area, although as this is based around ONS definitions of density of population and distance between built up areas it can result in instances of towns or areas closer to major cities not being included in th definition. It is therefore less useful as a mechanism to identify a places location. The second paragraph can, and should, provide plenty of opportunity to define and provide context for the location of Bootle to be clarified and enhanced without confusing matters in the initial sentence and introducing unnecessarily complex location by association descriptions. Koncorde (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're going to settle this here. Arbitration time! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You win. Congrations! You've bullied yet another person off Wikipedia! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how explaining thoroughly the norms of location type articles on Wikipedia counts as bullying, nor have I ever "bullied" someone off Wikipedia.
As a collaboration you made a bold change. As my contribution I took your change on board, and strengthened the second paragraph to better provide the context I believe you were trying to give without confusing the first sentence.
You reverted all edits (not merely reintroducing your own contribution), did not use the talk page at all, and asked me to explain myself and I did so. That cannot be bullying in my part. You then threatened arbitration, then quit? Koncorde (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now I see you did actually create an arbitration case rather than discussing with me what your pov or ideas would be to improve the article. Why? Regarding your arbitration comments: the use of a major city or larger connurbation to orient a user to a region would be perhaps useful in a very limited number of instances. For instance I could see a satellite town such as Rainford referencing a proximity, but it is still done with an actual definition of the distance. In Rainford case it is done to show that, although part of the Met Borough, it is actually distinct from the town. Something similar could have been done with Bootle. However, as a contextual example, the articles of Maidenhead and Reading are a bit overkill for providing location context which is what we would be seeking to avoid. The geography section can cover that in more detail as required. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bootle&oldid=1206375308"