From what I remember of my phonetics classes that should be '''/mæntʃestə/''' with no /r/ on the end. I've not posted on wikipedia before so wasn't sure if I should just change it or not. Andy. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.69.143.54|79.69.143.54]] ([[User talk:79.69.143.54|talk]]) 13:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
From what I remember of my phonetics classes that should be '''/mæntʃestə/''' with no /r/ on the end. I've not posted on wikipedia before so wasn't sure if I should just change it or not. Andy. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.69.143.54|79.69.143.54]] ([[User talk:79.69.143.54|talk]]) 13:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Now got an account. The above post was by me. I note that the account is currently locked. Would it be possible for someone to remove the /r/ from /mæntʃestər/ asthis is not technically correct and should be /mæntʃestə/. Thanks. --[[User:Jetsetradio|Jetsetradio]] ([[User talk:Jetsetradio|talk]]) 10:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Now got an account. The above post was by me. I note that the account is currently locked. Would it be possible for someone to remove the /r/ from /mæntʃestər/? This is not technically correct and it should be /mæntʃestə/. Thanks. --[[User:Jetsetradio|Jetsetradio]] ([[User talk:Jetsetradio|talk]]) 10:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
With regards to the claim made in the lead section that Manchester was the world's first industrial city. I don't believe this is historically accurate. Manchester was certainly among the first industrial cities which emerged during the early industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, along with Birmingham and Sheffield and even Derby. If you read History of Birmingham or History of Sheffield you will see that they have histories of industry dating back centuries and industrialised at about the same time. I can't see that Manchester has any special claims to having beaten any of these.
I have therefore altered this claim from 'the first' to 'one of the first' several times but it keeps being added back. G-Man*01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a number of sources (one of which I added) which explicitly states the "first industrialised city". I've no real objections to "one of the first", though I'm conscious of not misappropriating the citation. I'd be interested to know what the criteria is used for "first industrialised city"; perhaps it means in terms of its architectural landscape, or economy, or "first fully industrialised city" (as opposed to partly industrialised which of course all settlements would have had some form or industry). A curious problem Jza8412:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naah, Manchester really is regarded as the first industrial city. Go to google scholar and enter "first industrial city" and see what you get. Cotton & Ancoats seem to be the criteria, but I'm happy to be corrected. Mr Stephen20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I have a printed source, and Google scholar also seems to back the claim. I think G-Man's intentions were admirable and perfectly understandable, but I think we should rephrase the statement how it was. Of course every settlement would have had industry as soon as trade was invented, but I think Manchester was the first fully/truly industrialised city, in economy, landscape, demographics, and spirit. Jza8423:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touchet! Hmmmm. An interesting counter claim, and quite a verifiable source - perhaps then we ought to use the phrase (as used for every other it seems) that it is often/sometimes decribed/credited/quoted as the first industrialised city? Objections? Jza8423:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Meeting here, by appointment, Mr. Bakewell, who being related to some gentlemen in the manufactory no time was lost; they had the goodness to shew me every thing I wished. The circumstance in the fabric which most excited my surprise was the small, or rather no use, that is made o water; in the town there are no mills; and the number in the vicinity, for the direct operations of the fabric, are inconsiderable; the number of little and distinct forges for works performed by a single hand, surprised me; I had conceived that machinery was carried much further in this fabric; they have some tools of beautiful invention, but which, to an inquisitive and reflecting mind, excites some degree of wonder that so many operations yet remain performed by the reiterated strokes of hand, given by a man in executing works that might apparently be abridged with the same case as others, seemingly more complex. I saw no machines comparable to a cotton mill or a stocking engine. The capital improvement wrought since I was here before is the canal to Oxford, Coventry, Wolverhampton, &.; the port, as it may be called. or double canal head in the town crouded with coal barges is a noble spectacle, with that prodigious animation, which the immense trade of this place could alone give. I looked around me with amazement at the change effected in twelve years; so great that this place may now probably be reckoned, with justice, the first manufacturing town in the world. From this port and these quays you may now go by water to Hull, Liverpool, Bristol, Oxford (130 miles), and London."
Leaving aside, for now, WP:UNDUE, do we interpret "first" as "earliest" or "foremost"? But I repeat, there are lots of references that Manchester was the first (earliest) industrial town. The difficulty I have always had is finding a suitably succinct, unambiguous, and accessible reference. For now, Hartwell (see the bibliography in the article) p13 should lay the general matter to rest with "SE Lancashire and Manchester became the first industrial econoomy and society in the world, but the precise reason [is unclear]" Mr Stephen18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the information in that section be placed into a table and that more information be added in terms of areas with high populations of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc. etc. - Erebus55516:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It think it might be a good reference tool for the BNP, but I can't really see it being of any great value to anyone else. The 2001 Census has been online years so anyone can look up for themselves. The information Manchester City Council is tabulated by ward and despite notions that Manchester has ghettos with the exception of Newton Heath 85% Christian and Rusholme 45% Muslim, the distribution is very healthy. Mike3305:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adds more weight to adding such infomation. It's also a requirement of WP:UKCITIES that religious composition is reported upon. Cheetham Hill and other such areas are cosmopolitan districts of Manchester which, should suitable citation be found, would surely dispell myths of Manchester's Ghettoism. Jza8422:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, just for reference you can check out my spreadsheet (in html so spacing is a bit weird but based on 2001 ward boundaries) and city council religion 2001 census breakup (based on new ward boundaries) mine is OR and theirs is crown copyright so neither can be used as source.
I've tried to get some input from the Greater Manchester WikiProject too - I have set up blank tables at this talk page section. They need some input of figures there before we paste them into articles. I'll try to input the material you [Mike33] have gathered here! Jza8422:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some trafford, stockport, bury, salford - but i've saved them all in html. they are numbers (people) and percentages per ward - most of the boundries have changed too. think I've got the official census returns on religion per borough but apart from manchester they are pre 2004. Mike3319:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comparison table to this article using your data (thanks). For the metropolitan boroughs, we can swap the Manchester data there, and compare against Greater Manchester and England. For places like Moss Side we can do the same, putting Moss Side's demography in the first column, Manchester in the second, and England in the third. If you're happy with this approach we can roll it out on a few articles? Jza8423:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced
I've placed Unreferenced and Refimprove section boxes. The top half of the article is well covered with citations, further down large parts is Unreferenced or poorly references. JJC-IE03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many now consider Manchester to be the country’s second city
I have included a reference to an article in the Times , which includes the phrase "Many now consider Manchester to be the country’s second city:". I have done that to try and stop, or at least pause, the back-and-forth edits (varying between "some", "often", "many" etc) that were trying to quantify the opinion. We don't need a long list of examples. Can I ask anyone visiting the article to consider adding a comment, even if it's on just one section, at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Manchester and suggest how to improve the article? Mr Stephen08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia DVD 0.5
The latest version of the DVD is now available, 4000+ child friendly good articles. The Manchester article is on there Schools DVD Manchester, and the editors haven't cut that much of it and included some bizarre sentences that I thought would have been weeded out - eg "See also The Salvation Army in Manchester". There take on the second city debate is "some citizens consider it to be the second city", which I don't recall ever forming part of the opening. It also includes the old section listing nightclubs and the gay village. Schools in Africa are going to love that! Mike33 - t@lk08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This item highlights a classic example of an error [indeed many in this case] being reported as fact. Manchester has never been the second city of the UK, unlike Birmingham, Glasgow or Liverpool. However, over the last decade or two many putative journalists [particularly those based in Manchester] have confused the [new and jerrymandered] county of Greater Manchester with the erstwhile city.
Other examples of pro-Manchester media bias include the low level coverage regarding its horrendous crime rates - its high sex crime rates, its high counterfeiting rates and [to a lesser extent] its high gun crime rates. Indeed, on the subject of gun crime witness one of its [other] nicknames that was [surprisingly] omitted in this article ie 'Gunchester' and indeed its place as the first city in the UK to report a driveby shooting.
Its obvious that people are proud of their city (and in the case of Manchester quite rightly so) but, the numerous errors in this article not only illustrate the depths to which pro-Manchester [business?] types will stoop to advance their cause but said approach tarnishes the image not just of the city in question but Wikipedia too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.17.4 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, the phrase "numerous errors in this article" is quite an assertion. Care to elaborate? Mr Stephen17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links
The links section contains a link to the web page of the local Conservative Party - does this maintain neutrality? Surely it should either be removed or supplemented with links for the pages of at least the other two major parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.58.40 (talk) 12:46, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
That section is starting to put on a bit of weight. WP:EL and WP:NOT tell us what sort of links we should have here, and some of them could do with weeding out. I propose a cull along the following lines, to avoid a WP:SPAMHOLE.
The Climate of the British Isles including Manchester is known as a Maritime climate. It is a variety of temperate climate which is a category which encompasses several other climate types, for example Continental. Please read both articles on temperate and Maritime in full to establish this is fact. Summers are relatively cool as compared to most other climate types and winters are mild as can be seen from the temperature stats and on the Köppen climate classification description of a Temperate Maritime climate
Beetham Tower & the warehouse offices, Deansgate
The frontage in the foreground (onto Deansgate) is the longest Victorian frontage in the country, see Parkinson-Bailey, Manchester: An architectural history, pp 265, 325. A shot with more sunlight on the frontage and more pixels would be nice. Mr Stephen15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA Review in Progress
Hello,
I'm now reviewing this article for possible promotion to Good Article status. This is a lengthy article so it will take a little bit of time for me to compile the full critique of the article, compare it against the checklist, make suggestions, and make an decision as to whether this article should be promoted. I'll also be looking over your Peer Review. Cheers! PurseyTalk | Contribs12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA Review Completed
Hello,
I've now completed my good article review of Manchester. Please
find below my assessment of this article, and details of the criteria
I assessed it against. A checklist has been provided for quick
reference, and comments have been provided for a more in depth
analysis.
I've also provided additional suggestions to further improve this article.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
There are few articles I've seen on Wikipedia which such a dedicated set of editors, who work continuously to calmly and openly discuss issues and rectify them in relation to the content in Manchester.
When I came up to the Stable criteria, I took into account everything listed on the talk page and the articles edit histories. I've made the judgement that the editors always come to a reasonable decision on changes and there is no real evidence of any edit warring, which is somewhat rare considering the semi-controversial nature of some of the content of this article, as well as an article on a subject such as a major city. You should be proud.
The use of images in this article is fantastic. All the images contain ALT Text, are captioned when possible, and follow the Images Guidelines to the letter. Thank you to those who assisted in making this possible.
Following your peer review, and clearly some heavy consulting of the Manual of Style, the article layout, lead, and overall readability is excellent. It appears weasel words were avoided and cleaned up following your peer review. The editors of this article don't seem to be opposed to taking onboard advice - a mark of a great contributor!
The editors on this article have worked incredibly hard to make sure this article was written from a Neutral Point of View. This is evident from the content of the article and the discussion on the talk page.
You have also worked hard to ensure a massive range of reliable and external references were provided to verify the content of this article. 89 references of that quality for an article like this is excellent.
I can find no evidence of any original research within this article.
I found a minor spelling error in the article. Just one, in the entire article. This was corrected by myself.
The article covers just about every conceivable topic about Manchester without containing any useless or unnecessary details.
As a result of my assessment of this article, I am promoting this
article to Good Article status.
A massive congratulations to the editors of this article. The only
other thing I feel I could suggest from here is that you check out
thefeatured article criteria and work towards promotion to
Featured Article status. Good luck, and I sincerely hope everyone
involved in editing this article can also apply there excellent
collaborative efforts on other articles on Wikipedia.
If I can assist in any other way, provide further information, answer
any questions for you, drop me a line at my talk page. If you disagree
with my review of this article, please feel free to take it to a
good article review. Once again, congratulations. PurseyTalk | Contribs15:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pursey! I was just thinking (coming back from a small break) that this article has massively improved in the last few weeks. Well done everyone who has contributed! - FA next! Jza8415:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Indeed, I looked over a large chunks of previous versions, and it's just had so much attention and hard work put into it, I'm stunned. I have no doubt if everyone continues to work on this as they have, it'll eventually make FA Status. PurseyTalk | Contribs15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The next step for this article is to bring it up to WP:FA standards now that my nomination for WP:GA status was accepted. I think that the article is currently laid out fine and has all the sections it needs so the main objective is to expand on the smaller sections and a bit of re-wording of the current article. I also think the article would benefit from an overhaul of all the citations to ensure they are all written the same way with the same citation templates. I also think we should ask for another peer review and hopefully this time will get one which is more specific to this article rather than the broad automated one we had before. I hope that lots of people will come to help improve this article further and more photographs would be very useful especially if they are more professional and could become featured pictures which would greatly help a future FA nomination. If anybody new wants to help improve this article go straight to WP:UKCITIES as it has lots of useful tips for what to include and what to avoid.
Also take a look at:
I think that asking for a review is a good next step, but I think I'd opt for specifically asking for a copyedit instead/as well. As it stands, I think this article will most definitely fail on the usual 1a) objection, and that it needs more than a "bit of re-wording" to get through an FA review. --Malleus Fatuarum21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just while I'm still keeping an eye on this article... another peer review is probably a good idea. The reference overhaul is a great idea - bring it up to some uniform standard across the article. PurseyTalk | Contribs21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done all round, I think. As an editor, I must hold up my hands and admit to some poorly formatted refs. My excuse is that I put them in to get agreement on their suitability first and tidy them up later. I find that each cite template takes me about ten to fifteen minutes to complete (I don't know where the time goes either) so I don't want to knock hell out of the tendons on the back of my wrist if they are going to be removed. So, are we agreed that the refs that are in now should be kept and formatted, and that they should be formatted using the cite templates (mostly template:cite web and template:cite book I guess)? And what format do we want for multiple references to a single book? I'm happy with the notes/bibliography style at Johannes Kepler, where the numbered footnote contains (eg) Kidd, Manchester, p 1 (or do we prefer Kidd, p 1 ?) and the full reference - Kidd, Alan J. (1993). Manchester (Town and city histories). Manchester: Ryburn. ISBN1-85331-016-6. - appears in a bibliography (we currently have it marked up as 'further reading'). Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 00:14, September 7, 2007 (UTC) oops! Mr Stephen
I prefer the approach taken for Dundee - that way you can click on the digit/number and it takes you to the reference with the full list of info, and also halts the problem of "reference or further reading" as you've discovered - but I could live with the Kepler style. I think consistency is the key regardless. Jza8423:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer the Dundee style as well, but consistency is the thing I suppose, not my personal preference.
As an aside, I think it's extraordinary that even a cursory glance at that Dundee article shows up several breaches of WP:MOS, most obviously in the use of dashes. Breaches that might prevent it from being promoted to an FA, but don't cause it to be demoted from an FA. C'est la vie, nobody ever claimed that life was fair. --Malleus Fatuarum00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being slow here, but what part of the style used in the Dundee article would be applicable? We have (about) a dozen references to Kidd, a problem that Dundee doesn't have. Mr Stephen16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't mind, and God knows how long it took you, but there's quite a lot still to do. In no particular order, with no claims to completeness, and absolutely not simply as 'knocking'
"Hartwell et al" was Hartwell, Clare (2004). Lancashire: Manchester and the South-East. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10583-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); "Hartwell" was Hartwell, Clare (2001). Pevsner Architectural Guides: Manchester. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-071131-7.; you seem to have assumed both were the second.
"Kidd" referred to the 1993 edition. I have no idea if the page numbers match up in the 2006 edition.
ISBNs have spaces or dashes in them. Check out User talk:SmackBot/archive. I know the New York article doesn't have them.
URLs in book cites are for links to online editions of the book, not adverts at the publishers.
News and web sites have both a "work" field (The Guardian, BBC Online, etc) and a "publisher" field (Guardian News and Media Limited, BBC). Yes, sometimes they are very similar; sometimes they are not, but both should be given. As far as possible, the full date of publication should be also given (ie 27 October2000, not just 2000). It's dull stuff.
Strictly personally: I remain unconvinced that multiple full cites to one work looks good; also, you removed a number of quotes, especially from second city stuff - they went in to provide firm foundations to claims and a firm bulwark against mischief, and I hope against expectation that they won't be needed again.
I will sort all those things out as soon as I get chance, thanks for pointing them all out. Glad to see some people taking an active interest in the article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new peer review request has been made here to help us get started on improving the article to WP:FA standard. I had to move the old peer review to here to make way for the new one. Anybody can add to the peer review request with anything they think would be constructive for the article. Thanks. └and-rew┘┌talk┐13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Manchester article currently states that Manchester is the 3rd best place to do business in the UK, based on one source. There are other sources that suggest that Manchester is the best city e.g [1].Is one source more definitive than another or is it reasonable to refer to both? I would appreciate some views before altering the article.GRB197217:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are both valid. I would put the 1st place one in the lead section, not because it is first place, because it is only focused on the UK rather than a Europe-wide one. The Europe one should be mentioned with the UK one in the Economy section with something like "In a survey focused on business in European cities Manchester was ranked 21st in Europe and 3rd in the UK". The UK one is probably more reliable as it had fewer cities to look at so could have more criteria to measure. The lead part could go something like "In a business location research project Manchester was ranked the best city in the UK to do business. Or maybe that is too much of a mouthful. └and-rew┘┌talk┐18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the foundation date down as being the 13th century? Manchester's origins are Roman (1st century) and there has been an English settlement there since before the Normans (11th century). The town charter of 1301 is 14th century. So where does the 13th century date come from? I think it should be changed. David17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, but I'm curious as to what extent this approach of using town charters for founding dates is taken elsewhere on Wikipedia and the UK. Indeed, Liverpool celebrates its 800th birthday this year, which is based upon its town charter. Jza8414:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there conclusive proof of the 1st century?? And does it constitute a "founding"?... Regardless I think the town charter is significant enough to be included in the infobox, but we should make it clearer that it this is the town charter date (and then also include the city status date). I'm just concerned that this is something that should be consistent for the rest of the UK. Jza8418:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Population
I note that the population given is 441 000 and that Manchester is ranked 6th in the UK based on the mid-2005 estimates and that 2005 estimates are used for all of the populations of British cities. As the 2006 mid year estimates are now available[2] is it reasonable to change the Manchester figures or would I need to alter all the UK cities? The change in figures is significant as Manchester overtakes Liverpool as the most populous city in the North-west
Thanks GRB197220:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is for the prose in the Demography section (rather than the infobox data), I'd word it as you have just done so here! Jza8423:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation suggestions
In our effort to achieve WP:FA, can I make the following suggestions about where I believe we need radically to "up" our level of citation:
The "Transport" section is almost entirely unsourced.
The "Nightlife" section is almost entirely unsourced.
The first, third and forth paragraphs of the "Music and theatre" section are unsourced.
The "Literature" section requires a citation template for two sources.
The first paragraph of the "Sports" section is entirely unsourced.
The bulk of the middle section of the "Media" section is unsourced.
The "Twin cities and consulates" is entirely unsourced.
On another note, the use of conurbation in the statement "Manchester and its conurbation are home to a number of foreign consulates and commissions" seems to be un-necessary as they all appear to be within the City of Manchester. Also, that section's contents may benefit from being in a table rather than a list (and... the Manchester post town should be fully capatalised as MANCHESTER, officially!). Hope these help a little! Jza8417:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'horses mouth' for twin cities is probably here. "Manchester has six Friendship Agreements with cities across the globe: Wuhan (China), St Petersburg (Russia), Chemnitz (Germany), Cordoba (Spain), Rehovot (Israel) and Bilwi (Nicaragua)." of which only Wuhan, St Petersburg and Chemnitz are active. Mr Stephen18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post script: a book recently appeared on Waterstones' shelves, by a local consul and called something like "Consular Manchester". It wasn't there last week, and I can't find it on Amazon. Leafing through it, apparently Manchester has a lot of consulates due to its size, history and distance from London. Anyway, if anyone can track that book down it would probably do for the ref. Mr Stephen18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book is called Manchester Consuls, written by David Fox, ISBN 9781859361559, and looks to be a good history. But so far as verifying the current consulates in Manchester I'd have thought that the Manchester Consular Association's Web site would be authorative enough? I've added a reference for that anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link online [3] which gives details of all foreign consulates outside London. I am not sure if it is in date but the link has 050707 in which I think may refer to 5th July 2007 which is not too long ago. Some of the ones on this article are not on that pdf and there are lots which are not on here. Some addresses are different too. └and-rew┘┌talk┐21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list sems to be pretty consistent with the list given on the Manchester Consular Association's web site. The discrepancies are due to two things I think: some of the entries listed in the Manchester article aren't consulates – I'm thinking of trade commissions and honorary consuls; the second is that I think if it would be pushing things a bit far to include consulates that are in Stockport, or Wilmslow in a list of Manchester consulates, as the pdf does? --Malleus Fatuarum22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus:, yes, that's the one, here at Amazon. If anyone can get five minutes with a copy we should be able to generate 30-50 words on the subject; after all Wikipeida is not a mere list or directory. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be at he libraries yet :( Mr Stephen11:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To-do
To-do I just added the to-do list at the top of the talk page and I think it would be a great idea if people would add their suggestions to it Talk:Manchester/to do. Also try and be specific e.g. rather than just put "add citations", list the sections which need sources so we can strikeout when completed. I think the article is really coming along well now! └and-rew┘┌talk┐19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History section
In order to minimise the table of contents does anybody else agree that the WWII and '96 IRA sections could be merged and expanded to become an "Industrial Decline" section. Then the history section would be ordered: Early History, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Decline then Urban Redevelopment. I think that might be better than it is currently as the IRA and WWII sections are both short paragraphs which are discouraged. Any thoughts on this? └and-rew┘┌talk┐17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct, didn't British industry grow during WWII and decline afterwards due to greatly reduced need and investment (including Manchester)? In which case shoving the stuff about WWII into a section called "Industrial Decline" would be incorrect. Nev117:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest a 1945-1995 section, but I guess it could all come under '1939-present' or similar. Perhaps carefully placed images would serve as section markers? I see sentences on housing (Hulme, Ardwick, Beswick flattened. Hulme Crescents, Fort ardwick, Fort Beswick all disasters, flattened. Council housing at Wythenshawe, Plymouth Grove, Hattersley, Gamesly, Langley, escape for Lymm). Old industry dying (cotton going, hitting the outer towns of GM hardest, Royal Exchange closing, engineering going, mines going, port/canal closing - carve the sentence out from above). New industries like the Manchester Baby -> ICL, insurance (CIS tower), shopping (Arndale), media (BBC/Granada expansion). Decay. GMC, 'loony left', GMC being scrapped. Attempts at regeneration (GMEX, Bridgewater Hall, Metrolink, olympic bid, Marketing Manchester) starting to work. Will that fit into a couple of kilobytes? Mr Stephen17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it says somewhere that in history sections you should not use dates for section headings and should name each period instead. └and-rew┘┌talk┐18:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Industrial Decline beggining with prior to and during WWII Manchester's economy continued to grow from the idustrial rev... stuff about how Manchester was bombed in WWII.. this led to much of the city being destroyed and thus industry declined... some new stuff about the high-rise council building boom during the 60s and 70s, new stuff about how Manchester was affected by Thatcher's 80s, early 90s recession, 96 bomb which in turn spurred on regeneration which leads to the next section? └and-rew┘┌talk┐18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I think about the proposed new structure. I certainly don't like the idea of having sections named with a range of years, like 1945-95. I agree with Nev1's point that British industry thrived during WW2; the rot set in during the post-war years. So I think on balance I quite like the present WW2 subsection, but I'd be considering introducing a new "Industrial Decline" after it, and expanding and renaming the present Redevelopment section to cover the wider topic of Regeneration. There's no reason why the history section has to be laid out in strictly chronological order, so I'd probably also keep the present '96 Bombing section, but I'd move it to after the expanded Regeneration section. I think both the '96 Bombing and WW2 sections are big enough not to cause a problem at FAR, and they're both important events that obviously need to be covered.
Mention of the Manchester Baby (above) has also reminded me that perhaps we ought to consider having an "Invention and discovery" section/subsection. --Malleus Fatuarum23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Malleus too. I don't think a tightly dated chronological structure would adequately cover the dynamics of the History of Manchester. I do however think it's a little bit weak, and the History of Manchester article itself needs a good seeing to as well.... I have some literature about the Industrial history of (Greater) Manchester (which I've just applied to Oldham#Industrial_Revolution_and_cotton) which may help that aspect along a little.
I'd not looked at that History of Manchester article before. It needs more than a good seeing to, it needs a ****** good seeing to. :) But we surely need to be careful about the content of each article, as I can already see one largely duplicating the other. --Malleus Fatuarum21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other things - are there any better images for the history section other than the low res "cottonopolis" one? And have we considered a "Visual arts" subsection under Culture? Manchester is, afterall, "a centre for the arts", and I'm sure there are quotes that Manchester's art scene is one of the most vibrant in Europe. It would enable us to sneak in L. S. Lowry, Chris Ofili, Peter Saville, Manchester Art Gallery amongst others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jza84 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anybody who does not have it yet, buy Alan Kidd's - Manchester: A history (2006 edition)! I highly recommend the book as it covers pretty much everything and has a whole chapter on Industrial Decline and what was done to combat it. I bought it today at Waterstones for £12.99 (£11.69 with 10% student discount) and it is well worth it. I will be adding quite a bit from it soon as it covers so much and in great depth. I know this is not a book review site but if any regular editors need inspiration for writing, get this! └and-rew┘┌talk┐16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be more explicit coverage of Manchester's representation in Parliament - after all, the fact that Manchester had no MP in the early 19th c was a oft cited argument for the Great Reform Act. Such a section should include a reference to the first time that Manchester was granted a seat, in the Commonwealth of England. Maj Gen Charles Worsley, one of Cromwell's lieutenants and later Maj Gen (effectively military governor) for Lancashire and Cheshire, served as Manchester's first MP.
(Francis Hoar, 4.12.2007 at 16:35) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new image and placed it in the infobox to the right. If you have any enquiries or want to remove it then please let me know. Thanks. Onnaghartalk ! ctrb16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should try and have a nice discussion about the infobox image with maybe some proposals and some suggestions of locations? I think this image looks pretty good and wouldn't have thought about using it until I saw it is similar to the front cover of Kidd's book. The town hall is obviously a very famous landmark of Manchester though maybe we need something a bit more modern? Any suggestions would be great! └and-rew┘┌talk┐23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine. But, I think we should have an image that is taken in the city centre, because then we'll have an image that's more...(I can't think of the word). As, Bill Bryson said in his book "Notes from a Small Island", there is no one defining image of Manchester. So it's going to be hard for sure. Onnaghartalk ! ctrb12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the word you were looking for is "iconic?" An image which I keep on seeing around that is seen as an iconic Manchester landmark is the Urbis museum. I can't remember where it was but I saw Manchester had an image of the Urbis and London had a pic of Tower Bridge which the wiki article already does. In many ways it is as it was one of the first big projects to be planned after the bomb and the main exhibit is about city life so maybe we could get a great image of it? It would have to be on a sunny day though as the glass would look better if it was gleaming. The current infobox pic has too much of a dramatic sky and looks like it is about to rain which it did, hard! Look how great the sky looks here [4] that image has probably been photoshopped into next week and I think the pic would look better taken from the Cathedral Gardens infront of Chetham's. The pics already on the Urbis article are not great, the first one is ok but doesn't give much impact and the second has the Arndale Tower sticking out like a sore thumb. Maybe a pic from higher up would be better? Thoughts..... └and-rew┘┌talk┐00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first image, photoshopped to death or not. And I prefer the current infobox image to any suggested replacement by Urbis, which I wouldn't agree is an iconic image of anything other than Urbis. --Malleus Fatuarum00:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really like the pictures already listed but some other good pictures out there e.g[5]& [6]. There are also some great photos of Manchester buildings such as G-Mex here [7].GRB197217:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
District Population
The lead states the population as 452,000 with a reference provided, whilst the infobox states the old 441,200 and ranked 6th whilst the link it provides ranks Manchester as 5th and the population seems to have been updated. Is the infobox population deliberately like this? - I just wanted to know before I edited it and got into a content dispute. Thanks. Onnaghartalk ! ctrb ! er15:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The data comes from a mix of years. I think the long-term solution (well, until the next estimates come out) is to update the data in the templates at Category:Templates for UK subdivision lookups. The relevant ones here (Template:English district density, Template:English district population, Template:English district rank, Template:English statistics year) all seem to have been created by Keith Edkins (talk·contribs) in 2006. He is still active—why not drop him a line? Mr Stephen17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per a question raised at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Manchester, I have removed a section about an increase in ethnic minorities post-2001 (added here). The data that I can find at eg the Manchester City Council website give smaller figures, and besides, it's not clear if the methodology is the same as that used in the census. If anyone can find a reliable source, feel free to add it back (see eg this first). Mr Stephen22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I have modified the caption to the bomb damage (not very well, I'm afraid). This may be as good a place as any to raise the issue of the image: it's fair use, and I don't think the justification here is adequate (the FA folk are hot on this kind of thing). I think we need to (1) check that the criteria at WP:FU#Policy are met (looks OK to me) (2) provide a coyright notice like this (3) provide fair-use criteria based on this - much like this. The area was well cordoned off at the time, I doubt if there are any free images. Mr Stephen23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right to be concerned about that image. No convincing fair use rationale would be an automatic fail, as it ought also to have been for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester... or Greater Manchester?
I could live with it, but is the sentence "It is also the second largest urban zone in the UK and the fourteenth most populated in Europe" from the lead more appropriate here, or Greater Manchester, or the Greater Manchester Urban Area?
I'm conscious of striking a proper balance between Manchester and its connurbation in the lead, i.e. that particular sentence doesn't strictly pertain to the "City proper" of Manchester, and indeed, any of the "Greater Manchester Urban Zone" constituent settlements could also have a claim to including it it their lead.
Do we think it is best placed there in the lead? Do we have citation? Would it not be more suitable in the Geography or Demography section??? Again, I could live with it if there's consensus. Jza8423:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take both your points. I added the link to the LUZs because the opening paragraph already refers to the the GM Urban area and states that Manchester is the UK's 3rd largest conurbation -neither strictly about the City of Manchester as defined by its current boundaries. One of the great difficulties in Manchester is that whilst the city strictly only accounts for 452,000 people we all know that a great many more people consider themselves Mancunians. Many towns within the Manchester postcode and phone number area consider themselves as being part of Manchester - people who come under the jurisdiction of Tameside, Bury, Salford, Stockport, Trafford and Oldham. It's partly because of this that many of us believe that Manchester is the second city. So whilst this article is about the city of Manchester, I think that there is some relevance in placing it within a wider context. But like the JzA84 & Malleus Fatuarum, I'm happy to go with the consensus. GRB197216:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - you're right of course - Manchester is of major significance because of it's central position within the connurbation, and it's role as a regional central business district/capital. It is obvious that Manchester would not be the same city without its contiguous towns. Perhaps what is needed is a forth (WP:LEAD permits a maxium of 4) paragraph explaining this phenomenon? Though Los Angeles, California approaches this topic nicely too. Is there any source material about Manchester as a regional capital/major city that might be suitable for inclusion regardless? - just ideas of course. Jza8416:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the article is quite clearly about the city, the opening paragraph (as was) talks about the city and its relationship with the wider conurbation and county - something that clearly needs to be mentioned as the equivalents are in, say, Birmingham or Newcastle.
On the other hand, LUZs are a strange beast (and aren't even UK statistics), just like Primary Urban Areas - they don't relate to cities per se, but approximations to Urban Areas based around available statistics and are named after the largest settlements within. If mention of them within the article is to be made, it doesn't need to be in the lead. Fingerpuppet18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you make not support it, we are a member of the European Union and the statistics are still relevant to Manchester. The statistics provided are what the EU defines as their version of the UK's "urban area". As the EU likes to make things look better they use a large amount of land. These statistics are official and I think it should be changed from "It is also the second largest urban zone in the UK and the fourteenth most populated in Europe." to "It also lies at the heart of the second most populated urban zone in the UK and the fourteenth largest in Europe." The LUZ is called Manchester LUZ and the EU do not recognise Greater Manchester as our counties system is not used throughout the EU. └and-rew┘┌talk┐19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also raise a point that these LUZ statistics are relevant to Manchester. They are, of course, but are they more relevant to Greater Manchester or a subsection of this article is the crux here. Although I raised the question, I'm happy to stay neutral, but I can see that without working this out as a team, we may see reverts and constant rejigging of the lead.
In addition to the LUZs, and PUAs, what other (major) definitions exist out there? Isn't there a Manchester "Metropolitan Zone"? I do think these definitions should go within the article at least somewhere, but can we find any other city articles that are good "happy medium" examples to work from? Jza8421:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing at all to do with EU support or otherwise - the primary UK statistical body is the ONS, and they don't (as far as I know) use LUZs at all. LUZs are simply named after the largest settlement within - exactly as the State of the Cities Report uses PUAs named after the largest settlement within. It doesn't mean the same thing as an individual settlement such as Manchester. I would suggest that they are more closely related to the GMUA than Manchester itself. However, none of that means that it should not be mentioned in the Manchester article itself, simply that it doesn't need to be in the lead section. The ONS do not publish any metropolitan area statistics per se, but there is the Manchester Travel to Work Area. Care needs to be taken with TTWAs, though, as some measurements are based around the city, but those in the State of the Cities Report are based around the PUA (which is the MBCs of Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Oldham all stuck together and called "Manchester PUA"). PUAs (and LUZs) contain areas that in my experience no-one would consider to be Manchester, such as Hazel Grove or Denton; but obviously they do contain "Manchester outside the borough" areas such as Prestwich. Fingerpuppet22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how old you are as maybe this is a generation thing but all people my age consider themselves from Manchester even though most live in Greater Manchester, even in Denton. I know that we have to be factual on here with official boundaries but most younger people in GMR now say they live in Manchester. I live in the Northern reaches of Rochdale but I always consider myself as a Mancunian, not only because I was born there but because GMR doesn't mean much to me. I think the gov't should get rid of GMR and make the whole lot Manchester borough, a more global city but I know that is never going to happen anytime soon! Anyway I still believe that the Manchester LUZ is about Manchester and is not the Greater Manchester Urban Area Larger Urban Zone. Just because it covers GMR doesn't mean it is another definition of GMR and it covers a much larger area than GMUA. └and-rew┘┌talk┐00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going slightly off topic, you raise an interesting point. Just this week in the Oldham Advertiser there were (in addition to calls to rename the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to something non-Oldham-centric) indepth quotes and debates about geographic identification in the borough. Saddleworth sometimes thinks of itself as Yorksharian, whilst Failsworth thinks of itself as Mancunian. I constantly hear Stretford, or rather Stretfordians, refering to themselves as Mancunian also, despite, like Failsworth, having never lain within the boundaries of the City of Manchester.
Going forwards, I think it should be given that the Manchester article deals with the city proper, and not an informal defintion. Though Manchester (as one of the lesser populous cities of the UK) is (historically and contemporaeously) prominant because of its location within the conurbation. Coming back to the issue in hand, what's the best way forwards for including these wider definitions of Manchester? - Lead, Geography, Demography, Greater Manchester or Greater Manchester Urban Area? I do think the Lead section was strong as it was (hense why I raised the debate), but I don't believe the article as whole did the dynamics of Manchester's regional "capital" status justice at all. Jza8400:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters whether the residents of Stretford, say, consider themselves Mancunians or not. (BTW, I've lived in in Stretford for the last 15 years, and I've never heard anyone call themselves a "Stretfordian" :) ) Isn't all that's needed some kind of disambiguation statment at the top of the article, distinguishing between these various definitions of Manchester? Surely this article is already schizoid enough in its attempt to cover the city of Manchester and the City of Manchester? --Malleus Fatuarum01:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a real problem - and I can't think of any UK city (except for possibly Belfast) where this happens to such an extent. The real issue is that we all know that formal Manchester (the borough, or the Urban Sub-division) is quite a bit smaller than what I like to call "informal Manchester" where individuals from Prestwich or Stretford and so on would generally think of themselves as Mancunians. I have always pushed for this article to contain anything within the Borough, the Urban Sub-division, or any thing that clearly self-identifies as belonging to Manchester in some way. Otherwise you end up with PoV arguments - we may all hold the same PoV on this, but it doesn't really matter as far as the article is concerned. As I mentioned before, LUZs and PUAs are more related to the wider Urban Area, though that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned. I would suggest that the Geography section would be the place to put mention of the PUA and LUZ information, along with a sentence that goes along the lines of "Informally, inhabitants of some areas surrounding the city tend to think of themselves as Mancunians, although the area in which that is the case depends on several factors" - if those Oldham Advertiser articles could be cited, that would be excellent. Can anyone find anything else citable that describes the phenomenon? Fingerpuppet06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuarum: that's twice you've raised the issue, once with "too much scope creep" and now "this article is already schizoid enough". A quick glance shows brief and in-context mentions of Manchester United, the Manchester Ship Canal, the Port of Manchester, and Trafford Park—all strongly related to the history of the City of Manchester—but I don't see anything else. There's no mention of Salford Quays, The Lowry, The War Museum in the North, or the Trafford Centre for instance (ah, I do see Media City, but then that section needs fixing anyway). So, what examples of "scope creep" and "schizoid" do you have in mind? Mr Stephen09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the article is already "schizoid", insofar as it is about two (albeit closely related) subjects: the city of Manchester and the City of Manchester. You mentioned Media City, and there's also a reference to finds at Manchester Airport being evidence of Bronze Age occupation of the city. But I guess mostly I was thinking of some of the material recently removed, the paragraphs about Manchester United's Old Trafford ground for instance. And perhaps the recent suggestion that The Lowry could be included, even though it's clearly in Salford. But mainly I'm saying that I've got no objection to population figures for the larger area being included, to give some context for the second city claim perhaps, so long as they aren't included in such a way as to encourage the scope of the article to creep from just being about the city of Manchester and the City of Manchester. That's all. --Malleus Fatuarum14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are mostly as one, then. Ringway contains most of the airport, and is inside the metropolitan borough known as the City of Manchester, the subject of this article. The boundary between Ringway and Cheshire is the River Bollin. I will freely admit that the exact location of the finds is unknown to me. I took it from Hartwell et al, p13, "The most important evidence for early Bronze Age settlement in the area has come from Manchester Airport's second runway, where archaeologists in 1999 recorded evidence for a long-lived occupation site on a sand and gravel terrace overlooking a ford across the Bollin." Regards, Mr Stephen16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a slight tangent - does the Lowry Centre still self-describe its location as being "Salford, Manchester"? If it does, then there's no reason why it can't be mentioned here. Fingerpuppet11:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of good points have been raised and this has been avery well argued discussion. Fingerpuppet raised some legitimate concerns about the credibility of LUZs given that they are from Eurostats, the EU's own statistical providers. And-rew equally argues that they are official data from the EU, which we are part of - indeed there is an entire section on Wikipedia devoted to them - therefore they should stay. We all know, as has been mentioned several times above that Manchester & the city of Manchester are not the same. Equally, to say that Leeds and Sheffield are bigger cities than Manchester as population data suggests, when they are five and a half and three and a half times greater in area respectively, doesn't paint the full picture. Therefore, placing the city of Manchester within a wider context in the lead section seems appropriate to me. I also agree with Mr Stephen that this article isn't 'overly' loaded with GM information. That's because there is such a solid, well informed team constantly trying to make the Manchester article better and the debate over one sentence over the past 24 hours is testament to that. GRB197210:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too desperately about the population data - Manchester will always seem smaller in pure population terms than cities like Sheffield and Leeds as unlike those two, it is at the centre of the conurbation and so is unable to grow in population terms as much as the others (whose local authorities also contain rural areas and other separate towns) because it is surrounded by other towns. It also should be remembered that in the 1974 local government reoganisations, MBCs all had "target populations" of more than 250,000 - which is why all the towns in Trafford and Tameside ended up being lumped together, and Prestwich ended up in Bury MBC. Manchester MBC was never going to be enlarged much over the previous County Borough for this reason - contrast with the likes of the Yorkshire MBCs, all of which grew massively.
Manchester is an economic powerhouse compared with other large UK cities - look at data regarding the cost of office space, shopping statistics or other economic indicators. Perhaps not enough is made of these factors.
And LUZs are credible, it's just that people need to remember that they are based around entire urban areas and are just named after the largest settlement within, just like the PUAs. Fingerpuppet11:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the subject of the people of Greater Manchester thinking of themseleves as Mancunians, I don't know if anybody else has seen the adverts for IKEA? They call both Ashton-under-Lyne's and Warrington's stores "Manchester stores" even though Warrington is in Cheshire and not Greater Manchester. The Warrington store was the first of the IKEAs here and for as long as I can remember has always identified itself as the Manchester store until Ashton got one now Manchester has two. I know Ikea is a business and businesses have to market themselves to gain maximum custom but I just thought I would bring up the point about Warrington to show the Manchester identity is even bigger than Greater Manchester. I think I read somewhere that Warrington was going to be part of Greater Manchester, probably on here, but it never was. Also I read that thing about Oldham MBC renaming in the Manchester Evening News a few days ago. └and-rew┘┌talk┐15:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned that we may end-up with a POV article, or at least some POV statements, if we intend to persue writing about an informal "Manchester" - particularlly in the lead. That's a question of identity rather than verifiable geography proper. I do believe that what's needed to adequately cover an informal city of Manchester is citation. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Manchester's long, thin shape is due to ancient local authorities to the east and west objecting to Manchester encrotching upon places like Droylsden - who believed themselves to be too important to be incorporated - does this ring famillier with anyone? I'm sure it's online somewhere.
I think this phenomenon of "informal" (and even statistically formal) Manchester could be nicely covered in a "Definitions" sub-section of Geography. I have a very helpful book about the evolution of Greater Manchester, which includes a chapter on different historical definitions of the term. Indeed we have nothing on why the name "Greater MANCHESTER" was chosen. It is convention to discuss how cities work with their "administrative" boundaries, but it is also ultimate policy to assume official boundaries are that of local government districts. Coming back also to a point made earlier - there has never been a "Salford, Manchester", but there has been a "Manchester, Salford". Jza8417:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the expansion of Manchester was resisted, but the provision of water and the disposal of sewage forced some hands. Places like Reddish and Heaton Norris had a choice (they both went to Stockport). A Gorton residnet likened the expansion to something like "the fangs of an octopus, reaching out for juicy bits". I have seen it written (I forget where) that if Manchester had bought the Trafford Park estates when it had the chance, then Stretford would have been incorporated into Manchester. Finally, Pevsner wrote (Buildings of England: South Lancashire, 1969) "That Stretford and Salford are not administratively one with Manchester is one of the most curious anomolies of England". Mr Stephen18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really great quote for the article, particularly if we really intend to write up something about Manchester's broader scope. I have also read somewhere too that for the most part of recorded history, it was always Salford that was the more important of these two settlements (obtaining and keeping its charter since 1230). Perhaps that would work well in the Governance section? Jza8400:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't true for the others. The two other LUZs illustrated in the document make this clear: the London LUZ includes a large amount of commuter belt, whilst the Birmingham LUZ does not contain Coventry or Wolverhampton, but does contain the rest of the West Midlands county, plus Lichfield, Tamworth, Bromsgrove and North Warwickshire districts from the surrounding shire counties. I think the reason that the Manchester LUZ contains all the other GM districts is due to the fact that LUZs (like PUAs) are agglomerations of districts - simply because that's the level that the majority of statistics are compiled for. It's true that there is a lot of commuting from the other GM districts into Manchester (so the LUZ data is definately relevant to this article), but it's also incorrect to claim that data as being solely related to the city - so it shouldn't be given excessive prominence. Fingerpuppet05:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concurr. Well done on finding this material User:Fingerpuppet. If someone has not already done so, I believe our findings from this discussion should be inserted into the Geography section of the article. Jza8402:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester definitions (arbitrary section break)
Just a quick note that I've found some stuff about Salford and Manchester not being one single unit (from the "Evolution of the Greater Manchester County" book already cited in the article). It seems to stem from Norman times when (quote) "a stroke of a Norman baron's pen divorced Manchester and Salford", it continues "it was not Salford that became seperated from Manchester, it was Manchester, humbler in its line of lords, that became seperated from Salford". It was this that resulted in Salford being the judicial seat of Salfordshire (a shire of course being a district attributed to a principal settlement).
I intend to add this to the Governance section, preceded with "That Stretford and Salford are not administratively one with Manchester is one of the most curious anomolies of England" (Buildings of England: South Lancashire, 1969). I hope there are no objections??
This is all pure POV I'm afraid, and, as has been admitted above, is all bound up with the "Manchester-as-second-city" claim. The fact is that Manchester is quite small for a major British city. One can easily cite reasons, as has been done, for why this should be. Primarily, I would suggest, it is because its expansion was constrained by the existence of other towns in the way. Well tough. That's what happened. Was Manchester unlucky in this respect? Quite possibly, but we are not here to talk about the "what ifs" of history. To say that other places outside the city boundary are "really" part of Manchester would be just like stating that Solihull is "really" part of Birmingham, because in my experience people from there have no problem describing themselves as Brummies. And nor does the proposition, mentioned abouve, that Manchester was not significantly expanded in 1974 because it had already exceeded its target figure for a Metropolitan Borough hold any water, because Birmingham, which had massively exceeded said figure, had Sutton Coldfield added to it. In fact, 1974 would have been a perfect opportunity to redress the "wrongs" of the past, and give Manchester its "proper" boundaries - had there been any justification in doing so. But even if one were to merge the current Metropolitan Boroughs of Manchester, Salford, and Trafford, and call the new entity Manchester, it would still be smaller than Birmingham. Sometimes, you know, some cities just really are bigger than others. TharkunColl16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And Sutton Coldfield was added to Birmingham in 1974 because Sutton couldn't reach 250,000, so it had to be amalgamated with another borough. Fingerpuppet16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A glance at a map will show that Sutton is obviously a suburb of Birmingham. They could have merged it with Walsall or even Solihull, or kept it in Warwickshire, if they were just concerned about numbers. And in answer to the previous point, any attempts by Manchester POV pushers to increase the size of their city beyond its actual boundaries very much concern Birmingham, because such attempts are closely related to Manchester's spurious claim to be second city. TharkunColl19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about Sutton and Birmingham are probably better served at their respective pages or WikiProjects, as there is little scope for their inclusion on the article here. With regards to POV pushers of Manchester - I totally agree, and this is demonstrated by my constant calls for citation and engagement with the editting community to work from local government boundaries; any broader definitions must be backed up with verifiable source material and placed into proper context, of course. What was actually being discussed here ThurkunColl is the verifiable historical evolution of the boundaries, Norman manorial estates, and Manchester's ancient relationship with parish and judicial divisions of land.
You evidently have a strong view on Birmingham and the 2nd city debate. But it is only that - a point of view. The problem is at Wikipedia, we shouldn't write according to our views, we should write according to source material. I believe your approach to describing points of view is holding you back as an editor - as attested by your comments about Sutton "obviously" being a suburb of Birmingham (though some sources "obviously" say otherwise). Others have also explained that city size does not equal socio-cultural importance, i.e. the City of London is one of the smallest cities in Europe, whilst the City of Carlisle is one of the largest. I'm sure it is not your intention, but your approach comes across as very one-sided and negative. Would you be so kind as to change your approach in future? If you have anything positive about the medieval boundaries of Manchester, I for one would welcome your input from hereon. Jza8419:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, Jza84. As can be seen across this talk page, anyone can see that I have the same opinion regarding citation of any definition of Manchester larger than Manchester CC's area - see the LUZ debate above. Fingerpuppet10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the section called Second City should really be removed. It was only really added to keep people happy on the Birmingham article and it is just unnecessary clutter on here now. I propose the section is removed from the Birmingham article too. I think the current wording in the lead is fine and doesn't give either article any "advantage" and does not show bias. The sections on both articles are just copies of what is already stated on the Second city of the United Kingdom article. The activity on this article has slowed down somewhat and I want to push it to WP:FA status and that will require adding more text to the shorter sections of the article and we need to weed out stuff that is already repeated or else the article is going to be pushed over 100,000 bytes which is going to cause very slow load up times for users with narrowband. I hope people can agree with this and instead of having content to keep people happy it can be replaced with more relevant, unique facts rather than copied text on both Birmingham and Manchester's articles as they are both well developed article not far short of featured article status. └and-rew┘┌talk┐13:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge that we keep this material. I think it aids in providing context for the cultural status of Manchester. It is also, verifiable. -- Jza84· (talk)17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutly ridiculous debate. Being from Essex I can give a completly impartial view-point on this and Birmingham is unequivically the Second City of the United Kingdom. Why are you debating this? For people to write on Wikipedia that Manchester is/is considered to be the secon city of the UK is deeply misleadin and denegrates Wikipedia and all that it should be about. Manchester is ranked 8th in the UK on population. This is a fact. Where does it say this in the article? Why does it not say this I wonder? The argument that the surrounding areas consider themselves Manchester is total pig-swill. Knowing people from places like Stockport, they don't seem t share this view. Birmingham could say that Solihul, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry, etc are part of Birmingham but they don't. Let's stick to the facts and be truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Wolf Cub (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being from Essex less than qualifies you to dictate the opinion of the general public of the United Kingdom as to what is the second city. Sourced and generally accepted facts are not degenerative to the quality article Manchester has become and I think you need to open your mind and realise things change and things move on. └and-rew┘┌talk┐20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly cracked it!
Just a note really that I think once we've sorted out the final "media" section, we're pretty much in a position to nominate for WP:FA. There are no citation requests, the prose is strong, the article stable, and we've got some fantastic images in place.
If we worked on the media section, perhaps by creating more closely-related paragraphs (i.e. one on TV, one on Radio, one on Films, one on Newspapers?) I think we're ready to go for it! What do others think? -- Jza84· (talk)20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you're right to draw attention to that rather fragmentary Media section (I think the FA word is "choppy" :)). If that can be pulled together in some way then I think we've got a good chance with an FA nomination. As things stand, I'm sure we'll get pulled up for some of the prose, but when we think that the article's ready, then a final buff up and polish ought to be all that's needed before it's nominated. --Malleus Fatuarum21:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The media section is already organised into sections and I have added hidden comments to show which sections are which, I do believe this section needs at least one other image, I would recommend either the new MEN building in Spinningfields or the Key 103/Piccadilly Magic 1152 building in Castlefield. └and-rew┘┌talk┐18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK building on the excellent work by Mr Stephen and others, I've added some additional references to this section and I think there are now four statements requiring citation.
I know I have a habit of doing these (well.... I think this will be my third at least!), but I've identified the following six points as "to-dos" prior to FAC:
The Industrial Revolution section is a little "choppy". The paragraphs would do with some re-organisation so that it better establishes context and ties topic like "cotton", "engineering" and "social history" together in their own paragraphs.
I think there should be a sentence in Governance that Manchester has a Lord Mayor. Does it also have a town crier or any other ceremonial positions? - I wouldn't know from the article!
The Geography section is very good, but doesn't mention anything about the geology of the area/city.
I think the Demography section should have a population change table, like, well.... Oldham. I'm surprised this hasn't been actioned before now.
The Nightlife section is wholly unsourced.
The second paragraph of Arts is still unsourced, sadly.
Is there anything else people can identify as to-dos? More to the point, can anybody help resolve these issues? I'll work on producing a population change table. -- Jza84· (talk)17:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's another to-do list at the top of this page, and we ought to review the, er, review. I think I'm going to be bold and rewrite the nightlife section with stuff that I can reference. I'll put it here this evening for comments. I could do with a better ref than BBC Sport for the value of the night-time economy (£100 million) if anyone has one, and it would be good to know the number of jobs it supports. Yes, put in stuff about the Lord Mayor (he lives in the town hall IIRC). Mr Stephen12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who added that source I agree. I did it at a time when there were many {{fact}} tags all over the article and that was one which was hard to find and I admit I used a pretty crap source. └and-rew┘┌talk┐17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think that ref is the best one out there TBH. The claim was added by Dancake (talk·contribs) and immediately had a {{fact}} template slapped on it. I think that if none of us can find a top-notch ref after all this time, then it should go, so I have removed it - it can always go back in. My diff.
Question
Does anybody know why Manchester's population has almost halfed from 766,378 in less than 70 years? I think would be an interesting bite of infomation to add, -- Jza84· (talk)12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine (though I can't prove it) that it's all to do with both slum clearance and improving communications meaning that the population density has dropped. It's not uncommon, it's just that Manchester has such closely drawn boundaries and less undeveloped land within the city that the effect is more obvious than most other cities. Fingerpuppet13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of British cities, especially those which mushroomed in size during the late 18th and 19th centuries, have shrunk in population between 1950 and 2000. The people moved out to the suburbs, which for Manchester means surrounding boroughs such as Trafford and Stockport. Since the start of this century though there has been a reversal with most starting to grow again. Leeds and Manchester are two of the fastest growing. Liverpool on the other hand continues to shrink. David13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a large student population who (as I understand) are not returned with the total resident population. There are certainly "Manchester overspill" estates in Middleton, Greater Manchester, but I just wonder if we can find a source somewhere. -- Jza84· (talk)13:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its slum clearance and (less) the flight to the suburbs. Once Wythenshawe was full Manchester had to turn to places like Hattersley, Langley in Middleton, Haughton Green and the like. Lymm told them to get lost, but IIRC Crewe caught for some. Sources include Kidd and Hylton for two. Mr Stephen14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I may have underestimated the flight aspect, apparently anyone who could afford it left. I can reference the following to Parkinson-Bailey (p191). "In between 1954 and 1976 Manchester city council built about 35,000 houses outside the city, in places such as Langley, Heywood, Hattersley and Worsley.<ref name=Park/>" If you like, you can make something of plans being turned down for 10,500 houses at Mobberley (1953), 12,000 at Lymm (1953) and 17,000 at Lymm (again 1956). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pop it in! Certainly explains (to a degree) the slump in population size. WP:MANC has suggested we expand the section anyway. I think we'd need more material for it to get past FAC too. -- Jza84· (talk)19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By cleanup, do you mean you have applied an auto-levels filter to the image? It appear a little "faux" in my browser. I think uploading a .png version would have improved clarity. -- Jza84 · (talk)13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody has a flickr account (which I do - though I'm not a contributor), we could ask for permission. I secured this for the Oldham infobox image some time ago. I could do it, but I'd need to know which one(s) we want first. -- Jza84 · (talk)22:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for permission
Per the above, I intend to ask for permission to use one of the following images for the infobox (although I quite liked the photo as it was). If people could pass comment as to which they like, possibly citing their first and second choice (by number), then I'll collate the scores and approach the photographers. I've also passed comment next to some of them too sorry!: -- Jza84 · (talk)22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved a few sentences but deleted nothing. There was a paragraph about religion which included gays. Separated the paragraph into two. Homosexuality is not a religion! Chinese isn't a religion either. The sentence fits more into the ethnic description. Archtransit (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lancashire?
I just thought I'd suggest something, without trying to rock the boat too much - but I think there should be some mention (albeit brief) of Manchester historically being in Lancashire in the opening paragraph. Obviously, the Government has nicked it from us now, but I think the comparatively recent decision to do that makes Lancashire quite an important aspect of Manchester's history (or vice versa). --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi english bad. your article is featured on the estonian wikipedia just to let you know and change you link to {{Link FA|et}} i can not for protected. bye. EstaJon (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having had another browse on the Estonian wikipedia, I think this may be a mistake or wind-up. There's no indication it is featured, and I'd be surprised if it was anyway! For those that aren't sure of how to view it, the link is et:Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk)13:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a spoken version of this article in two parts. The link above only points to the first part, but both sections can be accessed from the link under "External Links" in the article itself. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consulates
I notice that the Consulates and twin cities section has been renamed Twin cities and the list of consulates removed as being in breach of WP:NOT#DIR. I'm not sure that I agree, especially as this article passed its recent FAC with that list present.
True. I certainly don't feel strongly enough on the issue to put it back, I was just a little surprised to see the consulates disappear without discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered either way, yes it should have been discussed first but the article is pretty long so I don't think it's a huge loss. └and-rew┘┌talk┐16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that referencing other FA's is interchangable with a consensus. I think it should've stayed, or at least been moved somewhere, rather than deleted outright. -- Jza84 · (talk)18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is that the leader of the MCA tells us (in Manchester Consuls) that Manchester has a special place in the history of consulates in the UK - in his opinion anyway. This came up before, and I suggested at the time that fifty words based on the book would improve the list. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for comments. I mentioned the other FA cities as I think we need to be consistent. FAs are models for other articles of the same genre particularly if good articles are trying to be promoted to FAs. Every major city in the world would have some consulates. So my issue is it worthy of inclusion for an encyclopaedia? I don't think adding a list of consulates improves the article Michellecrisp (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we not at least have a sentence added somewhere in the article noting the large number of consulates in the city? I think it is quite notable and it sets Manchester above most other British cities in this respect. David (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I think the key is that book, Manchester Consuls by David Fox, isbn 1859361552, cat number 327.20942FOX(552) in Manchester Library, in the Local Studies Unit (not for loan). Mr Stephen (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of churches in Manchester was factored out into the List of churches in Greater Manchester. That probably ought to be linked to from somewhere in this article though. I'd probably also like to see a Religion section, and some of the information in the Demography section expanded on. It would also allow for the inclusion non-Christian places of worship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to geography section
In the Geography section of this article, a statement reads that the M60 and M65 motorways pass to the south of the city. In fact it is the M60 and M56 that are in part located in the south of the city. The M60 is the UK's only fully complete orbital motorway. The M56 originates in Cheadle, a town located in the south of Greater Manchester, before it passes along the southern edge of the City of Manchester past Manchester Airport, from where it continues on across North Cheshire towards Chester. The M65 is located to the north of Manchester in Lancashire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.196.172 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this has been raised before, but can we look at finding a suitably representative, proffessional, encyclopedic and properly licenced image that does this FA justice? I wasn't keen on the previous image, but the current one is no better in my point of view.
Sorry just saw now that you'd replied. I've just changed the image to my suggestion provisionally from:
this...
...to this!
I don't think my change is controvertial, but don't imagine it'll stay indefinately by any means. I do think, however, it is a vast improvement on both the previous versions.
I like the new Town Hall clock image as it is a very pretty and clear image. I'm worried it doesn't really show Manchester though as it is basically just an old clock but keep it as it is until a better one is found. └and-rew┘┌talk┐17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made a change to London's lead image. I'm waiting for feedback there, and then I'm considering implimenting something simillar for here. -- Jza84 · (talk)17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Run down terraced houses, late night inner city drunks?.... I'm joking incase you can't tell from the text!... I would still like a "premium" cityscape in there, but certainly Manchester Town Hall and Beetham would have to go in. The others I wouldn't really mind. -- Jza84 · (talk)17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add what is fast becoming our very own Thames? The Irwell is getting better with Spinningfields booming on the banks and the Irwell Urban Park proposals looking more likely. I just uploaded a photo I took of it to commons but it might be a bit too big to shrink down. Image:River Irwell Manchester.JPG└and-rew┘┌talk┐18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice shot! I think I might steal that for the Salford article... If we could list 6 to 8 possible photographs then maybe I can put something together accordingly. -- Jza84 · (talk)18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image has just been changed again to a pic of the skyline from the Irwell. I cropped it because most of it was sky but I'm still not convinced it's a good image. I hope we can get the series of photos like in London so more people can be pleased. Also note that the skyline image is out of date with a brown City Tower on there. └and-rew┘┌talk┐22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a possible option for the lead. I like how it's got a bit of new and old Manchester in shot. Might be worth cropping a bit off the sky though... Infact I might try it now. -- Jza84 · (talk)13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coronation Street is not the oldest soap opera in the world, but in the UK. Cf. articles on "As the World Turns" and "Guiding Light" for older soaps.
Alwop (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a matter of semantics. For many years (and possibly still) the makers of Coronation Street did not style it as a soap opera, but as a drama serial. That is why I included the quote from the reference - "Coronation Street is without doubt the most successful television programme in the world. ... what is today the world's longest running drama serial." Perhaps I should have modified the article to explain, but this article is already 'full-sized' shall we say. So yes, there are longer-running soaps, but not longer-running drama serials. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ardwick, Longsight and Levenshulme (All FM 96.9) and Wythenshawe (Wythenshawe FM 97.2).[128] Defunct radio stations include Sunset (which became) Kiss 102 (now Galaxy), and KFM which became Signal Cheshire (now Signal 1).
In the first line of the article mentions that Manchester is a "city" and "metropolitan borough". This seems fine to me, yet in the second line again mentions "The City of Manchester metropolitan borough, which has city status…". Does the lead section need to have "city" mentioned three times and "metropolitan borough" twice in the first two lines? The intro needs a rewrite. Cwb61(talk)00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering also whether "metropolitan borough" should be changed to "metropolitan district". They both link to the same article, but for local authorities with city status usually "district" is used rather than "borough" - examples City of Bradford, City of Wakefield, etc. Cwb61(talk)00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Manchester shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Manchester shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Manchester.
City status appears to be an add-on to borough status. The borough charter (which the council applies for) preserves the mayoralty and any other ceremonial functions. City status is done by the exercise of royal prerogative.
Every metropolitan district has borough status; The City of Bradford styles or brands its council as "Bradford Metropolitan District Council" however. Wakefield City Council seem to do a similar thing, though they both have borough and city status. Confusing I know. -- Jza84 · (talk)01:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the statement and the source clearly ranked us higher than Wales. With a name like User:Cardiff123098 it is clear they are Welsh and I reverted their edit. Their talk page shows they are not the greatest of editors so I will find a non-dead source. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘10:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think the source currently used is easier for the reader to use than a spreadsheet and the figures for 2005 have been released by the ONS and we have risen to £42bn. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is saying Greater Manchester's economy is bigger than those of some places "on topic", with removals swiftly reverted, but adding that it is also smaller than those of some other places is "off topic"? Surely you need both to fully convey the context of a GVA figure that means nothing to most people? Without both surely you're just bigging the place up? JimmyGuano (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is off topic as this article is about the City of Manchester so we should avoid talking about Greater Manchester too much so talking about how high/low it ranks should be minimal. This is something you should be adding to Economy of the United Kingdom as it is too much info for the Manchester article when it is actually about GMR. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of the coverage is a different issue to the balance of the coverage though. Surely giving three examples of smaller economies and no examples of bigger ones isn't reflecting a NPOV? If you feel adding more coverage would be excessive, should we delete one or two of the smallers (Northern Ireland is the least relevant as it is so much smaller) to make room for one or two biggers? And if this is all so off topic, why were you so quick to revert the deletion of Wales, apparently on the basis that "With a name like User:Cardiff123098 it is clear they are Welsh and I reverted their edit"? Are Welsh people not allowed to edit Wikipedia any more? JimmyGuano (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not bothered to read the source? Wales has a smaller GVA so why should I not revert it? It is clear they are Welsh and from their edit history it is clear he/she has an agenda to, as you so poetically put it, "big up" Wales making unsourced POV claims. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the source, and just as Wales has a smaller GVA, the West Midlands has a larger one. Presumably I should therefore revert your deletion of this for exactly the same reason that you reverted User:Cardiff123098's deletion of the Welsh one? JimmyGuano (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree with that, as I don't think that would be in anyway productive. I think it's quite reasonable to state that a certain region has a larger economy than another - it's just an anchor point, and I'd expect other sources to use just a technique.
I think it's helpful to say, for example, London has a larger economy than the Czech republic (I don't know if it actually does, it's just an example). I don't think it'd be helpful to say London has a smaller economy than, the UK, or the EU. Simillarly, I wouldn't expect "London has a larger economy than X, Y and Z, but a smaller economy than A, B and C". Cardiff123098 removed mentions of Wales for a reason that's quite stark, and that's why I questioned if it was fair. I think the matter's been resolved. --Jza84 | Talk 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at WP:NPOV - "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." Expressing the point in terms of "Look at all of the places that Greater Manchester's economy is bigger than" is doing precisely this.
I don't feel particularly strongly about whether the West Midlands (or Wales, or anywhere else) goes in the article - comparisons with other areas are only one way of making a piece of data about the size of Manchester's economy meaningful, and User:Joshii's point that all of this should probably be in the Greater Manchester article anyway is actually quite a good one. If comparisons are made with other areas they should be to give a meaningful context to the data given, though. Explaining the size of an economy is not the same as emphasising the size of an economy, and the current wording (especially in the light of the number of feel-good one-liners culled from city marketing brochures that precede it) seems to be doing more of the latter than the former. JimmyGuano (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Greater Manchester has a higher GVA than the countries of Wales and Northern Ireland is highly significant but there is nothing significant about it being marginally smaller than the West Midlands. Only highly significant facts about Greater Manchester warrant inclusion on this article. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing "highly significant facts" with "highly positive facts". Northern Ireland and North East England both have smaller populations than Greater Manchester - why is it particularly significant, or even surprising (for Greater Manchester, let alone Manchester itself) that they have smaller economies?
If only highly significant facts about Greater Manchester warrant inclusion on this article, why is the fact immediately above the GVA claim (that the North West of England (which includes Liverpool and Carlisle) has the highest number of publically-listed companies outside London) in there? JimmyGuano (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody has responded to this I've deleted the fact about the number of publically-listed companies in the NW region as not really relevant to the article, and rephrased the GVA claim to give a more balanced context while remaining on topic. I've deleted the mention of Northern Ireland whose economy - though fast-growing - is so much smaller than Greater Manchester's as to not really be a meaningful comparison. JimmyGuano (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine about the NW England point but going off your mentality about size, it is wrong to compare Greater Manchester to London as it is nearly double the size. Perhaps you should create a List of English counties by GVA or something to that effect to link to. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘11:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciation
Just a thought, but whoever did the IPA pronunciation has added an unnecessary /r/ on the end. That would be ok if it was being said by an American or someone with a strong south-west accent but is not the way it's locally pronounced.
From what I remember of my phonetics classes that should be /mæntʃestə/ with no /r/ on the end. I've not posted on wikipedia before so wasn't sure if I should just change it or not. Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.143.54 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now got an account. The above post was by me. I note that the account is currently locked. Would it be possible for someone to remove the /r/ from /mæntʃestər/? This is not technically correct and it should be /mæntʃestə/. Thanks. --Jetsetradio (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Resolved
Done - Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
this...
...to this!
...or this cropped and enhanced version.
.jpg)
![[5]](http://www.nwculture.co.uk/images/cityscape.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://photos5.flickr.com/8962293_871e4a3c22_m.jpg){kind=link}
