Talk:MediaCityUK

Name

can anyone shed any light on why its called Media CityUK, and not simply Media City? 194.176.105.132 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Its called MediaCityUK, formally MediaCity:UK as a branding excercise, there are half a dozen other MediaCitys round the world though theres no actual connection between them other than similar concept. WatcherZero (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Is there any reason why this article ought not to be merged into Salford Quays? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a major enough development and feature to have its own article. David (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Urban Explorers

Did anyone see this (http://www.mediacityblog.com/index.php/uk/article/urban_explorers_infiltrate_mediacityuk_take_amazing_photos/)? Relevant for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.109.98 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I wasn't edit warring I was merely copyediting a sprawling repetitive, overlinked article into something more readable. If you can explain why this is an improvement I would be amazed.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment was purely in relation to the repeated removal of the Granada studio image. I should add that I support the majority of your edits to the article text, which have helped to tighten things up considerably. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well would you mind undoing it? The Granada image is irrelevant to this article, it's not as though no images exist.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point, the Granda image is in my view highly relevant and I do not support its removal. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And you seem to be missing mine, it's not relevant as this article is about Media City. Should the article include an image of the school moving to the site? by your reasoning it should.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In my view it is because ITV will be a key tenant at MediaCity and the Granda Studios are historic and are being made redundant as a result of the move. I'm perfectly happy for the image to be replaced by one of the ITV building at MediaCity though, as soon as a suitable one is available.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is Media City redirecting to MediaCityUK

Media City or Media Cities is a concept. Why is Media City page redirecting to MediaCityUK? There's even conferences devoted to the concept of Media Cities.

MediaCityUK will be in Salford AND Trafford

Although MediaCityUK claims to be in Salford, if the ITV production facility is built on Trafford Wharf than the development will be in Salford and Trafford which are two recognised locations. Does anyone think the page should make it clear that the development will be located on both sides of the Ship Canal in Salford and Trafford. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, why not add this info to the Location section.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same about this issue. Once the ITV production centre is built the site will be located in Salford and Trafford. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MediaCity is in Salford, it does not and will not be on both sides of the ship canal but it will be linked to studios in Trafford. Please read the references properly.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ship Canal marks the boundary between Salford and Trafford, check Google Maps if you don't believe me. The main development will be on Salford Quays and the other ITV development will be on Trafford Wharf. If you want anymore proof, why would Trafford Council are examining ITV's planning application, not Salford City Council? Stevo1000 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I know the area, just because the studios are being built there doesn't mean it will be part of MediaCity. It is a separate development that will be linked to MediaCity, not quite the same thing. It's actually an example of how the project is acting as a catalyst and attracting development in surrounding areas. The ITV studios are on Trafford Wharf, Trafford NOT in MediaCity. If you think you're right ask the GM project.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't part of MediaCity? On the official MediaCityUK website, ITV is listed as an occupant.[1] How do you explain that? The webpage actually states quite clearly too: "ITV is moving to MediaCityUK in 2012." There is no disputing the fact here. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would that be to the Orange building in MediaCity?--J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Trafford Council quite clearly states it is part of the MediaCityUK development, "Trafford Council has today confirmed that it has received a planning application in relation to the Media City UK development at Trafford Wharf."[2] Furthermore, The Peel Group are the developers of MediaCity and own the land on Trafford Wharf. Their involvement with remediating the land suggests Trafford Wharf will become part of the MediaCity development [3]. I don't see the problem here. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just looked up the planning application and it nowhere mentions MediaCity, just the address Trafford Wharf adjacent to the Imperial War Museum. Trafford will want it's own bit of kudos not hang on the back of Salford. You'll have to wait to see what it'll be called. Just because Peel own the land (and acres of other land in the area) they might want a different name. Stop jumping to conclusions, you assume too much.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it on the [map]?--J3Mrs (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well according to MediaCityUK, from the horses mouth: "2012 will see the arrival of ITV and in 2013 Coronation Street will move to a new production base on the Trafford Wharf side of MediaCityUK."[4]. I get the feeling you're just trying to annoy me now. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You said it the Trafford Wharf side not the Media City side.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, well you're just being silly now. The statement says there are two sides (on opposing banks of the Ship Canal) to MediaCityUK - a Salford Quays side and a Trafford Wharf side. So MediaCityUK is indeed based in Salford and Trafford. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have escaped your notice that the only thing built on Trafford Wharf is a fence. (I have a photograph) Why not see what it's named when there's something built? As yet MediaCity is in Salford. Wikipedia should reflect what is, not what will be. You think I'm annoying, silly, when have I resorted to calling you names? --J3Mrs (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

MediaCityUK section framework resolution

It seems there is a difference of opinion on where this article will go and how to achieve the best layout possible. I propose:

• Location - Background to site and ongoing regeneration and explanation of Salford and Trafford issue.
• History
  • Decision and construction
  • Opening
  • Future - the development of MediaCityUK is not complete and ongoing
• Facilities
  • Buildings - BBC buildings etc.
  • Studios - With 7 HD studios MediaCityUK has a large studio facility and this has to be covered
• Tenants
  • Media companies - BBC, ITV etc. plus there are many other media companies with a smaller presence at MediaCity
  • Non-media companies - Salford University etc.
• Transport
• Content to be made at MediaCityUK - This may split into a list page

Stevo1000 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

3 times reversions to the structure of this article

I thought long and hard about the structure of this article as I copyedited the repetition etc and concluded it was muddled and led to copious repetition and overlinking as stuff is/was linked in every section. Being bold, I moved stuff about to give a simpler structure keeping associated items together. This has been reverted by two editors along with sourced information that added. I have been accused of "fiddling" and making the article worse. Well as far as I am concerned it's getting worse now as it now contains incorrect information. But the other editors don't read what I have written or read my sources, (there's too many edits to go through) they just revert but say I can re-add what they have reverted? I've now lost interest but I can't wait to see it improved.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"But the other editors don't read what I have written or read my sources" - you've only added three sources though. You say you have grand plans for this page, but all I'm seeing is someone constantly fiddling around with the word order in the text. I'm not getting into an argument with you. I'd like to see your proposal on how you would lay the page out and what content needs to be in it. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted it!!!!--J3Mrs (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Where did I say I had "grand plans"? Do you just make it up?--J3Mrs (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this merely another BBC ITV article or is it about MediacityUK?

It's difficult to distinguish all these tv articles one from another and now it seems this article is just another with the same information. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaCity is primarily a media development and the BBC and ITV are by far the most high-profile tenants, indeed their agreement to move to MediaCity is one of the principal reasons why it is taking the form which it is, and why it is so notable. It is impossible for readers to get a proper understanding of MediaCity and its significance without highlighting the BBC and ITV aspects. The facilities which are being made redundant as a result of the moves, being themselves highly notable, do in my view deserve a prominent mention.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Another clone then.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clone of what? As the development grows and matures hopefully there will be lots of other things and other tenents to discuss in this article, but at present the BBC/ITV aspect is very central. One thing which I would like to see expanded and emphasised more is the role of the developer Peel Group though.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clone of the Granada ITV/BBC articles, what else? Why don't you expand it instead of imposing your views? --J3Mrs (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I will make additions to this article when I have time, I have already spent more time on it than planned though. That is a quite separate issue to reverting edits which I feel are not an improvement. I note - again - that I have not reverted the overwhelming majority of your edits.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

But you haven't improved it. There was nothing wrong with my edits except you didn't like them and you accuse me of edit warring when you drop by. I've been to the place, a list of tv programmes and the history of tv in Manchester is not what I would expect to read. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For my own 2 pence. I'm not sure about the relevance of statements such as ITV's heritage in Manchester ("heritage" wasn't enough to save countless ITV centres around the country) nor the BBC buying its first regional studio in Manchester nor its occupancy of NBH. However, in my opinion we do need some mention (probably in history) of the relationship to the BBC's "Project North". This article seems to gloss over this at the moment. As far as I can tell, without the BBC's involvement, MediaCity would never have happened. However, Project North started much earlier than this article lets on. Much work was apparently done in the Dyke-era and involved Manchester City Council (The original intention was that it would by in the city of Manchester. However, reading the history section one might be left with the impression that the BBC cooked up the move north after seeing the proposals for MediaCity. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, so BBC interested in moving north, can't decide -> Peel decide to develop the site -> BBC decides to move in -> development takes off. Or something like that. I'll have a think. But not tonight, you could do it as you obviously know what you're talking about.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick-ish look around. The earliest reference I could find to the BBC's move north was in 2003. The first reference I can find about MediaCity (or Quay Point as Pier/Dock 9 appears to have been branded at that point) being used for media was around 2005. Certainly in 2003 and 2004, Quay Point is being reported by the MEN as having outline planning permission for a mixed use Office, Residential and Retail development. Checking Salford's planning site it appears this dates back to 1997. A planning application to build studios, etc wasn't submitted until July 2006 (which is roughly in line with the date of the following document which we currently use as a reference.

From the usable references that I have found, I have tried to write a brief start to the history section. I guess the rest of the section would follow this, with the exception of Paragraph 2 which is probably duplicated. I'll put it here for now so people comment: Pit-yacker (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In 2003 reports emerged that, as part of the its plans for the renewal of its Royal Charter, the BBC was considering moving whole channels or strands of production from London to Manchester. Proposals to relocate 1800 jobs to Manchester were unveiled in December 2004. The BBC justified the move as its spending per head was low in Manchester, it had low approval ratings in the north and its facilities at New Broadcasting House needed replacing.

An initial list of 18 sites was narrowed to a short-list of four during 2005, two in Manchester - one at Quay Street, close to Granada Studios, and one on Whitworth Street and two in Salford - one close to the MEN Arena and one at Pier 9 on Salford Quays. The site at Salford Quays was chosen in June 2006 and the move north was conditional on a satisfactory licence fee settlement from the government.

I copyedited it but I think its an improvement. Have you got the url for the first ref?--J3Mrs (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems a better. Unfortunately, I don't have the url (at least nothing on a freely accessible site) . I found the article on the Manchester Libraries online newspaper archive. I was blocked by the paywall when I tried to access it on The Times own site.Pit-yacker (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Online Libraries site is fine MF and & used them in Bradford Colliery.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't think it would be any good as it is a subscription service. This should be link Pit-yacker (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Got there, eventually after I logged in. That should be OK but I'm not sure how to format it as a ref. I think I might need MF to assist. Thanks for finding it. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You did it, I was thinking about the little template that says it could be accessed via the library, I've found it now. That is an improvement and gives a much better timeline to the thinking behind it.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Location map

Any good?--Harkey (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put that image in the location section, and move the 1924 map into the History section. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Either map would be ok but two is one too many.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Content to be produced at MediaCityUK

I have concerns about this section. Putting aside that it is unreferenced and probably unencyclopaedic (what's the length of this section going to look like in 5-10 years), the phrase "This list assumes all ITV Studio productions currently made at Granada Studios will relocate to MediaCityUK" suggests that a large degree of this section is speculation in the list as it stands at the moment. I would suggest that a number of the shows made at Granada may be cancelled before they move to MediaCity. Equally, it is possible that some may move elsewhere (such as London). Pit-yacker (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic and no doubt of interest to many. I agree it needs citations. I will see what I can find, and perhaps the author of the section can too?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Pityacker it is not encyclopedic, detracts from what the article should be about, hasn't happened yet and should be removed whether it has citations or not.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bulleted lists like that are completely inappropriate, and this one is also inappropriate for the reasons that Pit-yacker has explained. Therefore I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

'Bulleted lists like that are completely inappropriate' - that is almost as inane as your comment on the Talk page of Atlantic Gateway (North West England) that ""With" is never a good linking word". The list should not be removed until some efforts have been made to cite it. You have clearly made no such efforts.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If I were you I'd be embarrassed to be continually displaying my ignorance so blatantly. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There were multiple problems with the list, but I'd be interested in where the source for it was. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nothing against the list being removed if it cannot be cited, but I do feel that some opportunity should be given for cites to be provided.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The list has been in the article since July, which is ample time to provide references. It's not the end of the world if the list isn't present as it's still in the article history, but it is policy to remove unsourced material. Wikipedia really shouldn't be presenting information without providing proof. As soon as sources are provided editors can consider whether the previous format was appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the section in a few months back, but was not too sure on its layout either. I'm fine with removing it to be honest. The MediaCityUK productions can be then mentioned on the List of television programmes set, produced or filmed in Manchester page anyway. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Buildings and facilities section

The above section is now an unreadable mess, at least the prior version - which, I should add, I did not write - was structured in a way which was logical. Separate sub-sections for buildings and studios does in my view make sense for this section. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion, not mine, there are a lot of figures giving undue weight to the studios that should be removed they are too detailed for a general article about the development. It is similarly structured, I'm just avoiding constant repetition. By the way do you know that the Lead is a summary of the rest of the article, not a place to introduce stuff that hasn't yet happened? Because by reverting my edit that is what you have done. There is nothing "stable" about your preferred version. I repeat you are not improving this article and I will remove from the lead anything not discussed in the body of the article.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are repeatedly attempting to impose changes to the stable version of the article without gaining consensus on this page when those changes have been reverted for good reasons.

The net effect of a number of your edits is to make the article worse. The Buidings and facilities section is a good example, and is now an unreadable mess.

There have now been repeated efforts to delete long standing content from this article without consenus. I note also with great disappointment the comments made by you in a discussion of this article on your Talk page - User talk:J3Mrs#MediaCityUK, which I find unacceptable and, combined with your slow edit warring here, make me strongly doubt your abilty to collaborate. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rangoon. The section is now a incoherent mess and a sorry sight. I can only hope, as the page is in a 'transitional period', it is improved in the next days. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. Until then, patience grasshopper. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw into the mix the idea that bulleted lists aren't necessarily always proscribed by the MoS, they can be useful sometimes, perhaps here. For an example of what I'm talking about take a look at Salford_Quays#Residential. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember who removed the bolding in this section, I know I removed the list but whatever. I do object to that list of studio sizes though and the largest studio is credited with two slightly different different sizes.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I removed the bolding, but it would be OK in a bulleted list: the MoS even has an example of it being used in that way. You're right about the various studio sizes, that's got to be pruned back to the main points; there's far too much emphasis on one building. Once Rangoon11 gets sent to bed I may try a bit of formatting along these lines and see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the extraneous detail about the sizes of each studio; let's hope that for once toys can be kept safely in the pram. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated bad faith editing and attempts to impose changes to the stable version of this article

Malleus Fatuorum and J3Mrs are blatantly attempting to force changes to the long standing text of this article without gaining consensus on this Talk page. Their behaviour on this article today shows Wikipedia at its very worst.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The "long-standing text of this article" was crap, and is now much improved despite your own efforts. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Get some respect, you seem to have the immaturity of a five year old. A consensus on where this article is going needs to be a established. It is obvious the other editor has ideas on how to improve the article and I'd like to hear them on the talk page before further editing is made. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So this is a "polite" request?--J3Mrs (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest just stepping back here. Both Malleus and J3Mrs have a proven record of producing excellent articles. At the moment, this article is in a transitional stage. I'd recommend giving Malleus and J3Mrs some time to have a go at the article, then come back and discuss the changes. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stevo1000 has reverted perfectly good content three times. Is this acceptable?--J3Mrs (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is if an editor who is making large changes to a page is refusing to signal his intentions for the page. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should editors be allowed to impose edits on an article through aggressive behaviour? My dealings with both Malleus and J3Mrs - here and, with Malleus, at Atlantic Gateway (North West England) - have revealed editors who seek to avoid constructive discussion and impose their views. This may not be a reflection of their usual behaviour, and I may have found them at their worst, but I don't see why this sort of aggressive attitude should be rewarded.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I can only speak of similar experiences. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My experience is of two editors who put articles before egos. Convention does not require that editors ask for permission, in fact quite the opposite. If edit warring persists, I am prepared to lock the article. I think it would be helpful to outline some of the changes. So far the most significant changes have been to remove the list and trim the lead. J3Mrs has already explained with reference to policy that the lead should not contain material not already mentioned elsewhere in the article and several editors have expressed concern about the list. Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The article really did need cleaning up, at all sorts of levels. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That certainly has not been the case here. Changes to the article are clearly and blatantly being imposed, despite have been reverted for good reasons. The lead is a good example, where changes have been reverted on separate days, and yet keep getting made.

A lot of the edits of J3Mrs to the article have been positive, and I support them (and have not reverted the great majority). However a number have made the article worse and I have reverted them for very good reasons. The Buildings and facilities section is a good example, it is now an unstructured mess whereas before, whilst far from perfect, it did have a sensible and logical structure. The incivility and aggressiveness of Malleus makes it clear that, on this article at least, this is not an editor seeking to collaborate, merely to impose.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that, so far as I am aware, everything of significance in the lead was also in the body of the article, until the latter started being butchered.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Whereas you on the other hand are not trying to impose your own wishes on this article, and are discussing potential changes calmly, rationally and politely? Get real! I would be in favour of this article being protected for a week or so to allow feelings to cool down. Hyperbole like "butchered" is not conducive to anything really, other than prolonging this disagreement. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps then the lead provides a microcosm of what is going on here. J3Mrs and Malleus have a great deal of experience writing articles and could do it in their sleep. "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" so that is why material was being moved elsewhere. It is standard practise and probably should not have been reverted. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd comment on Stevo and Rangoon's proposals for improvement if I could find them amongst the name calling. All they reiterate is that Malleus and I have edited and made changes without permission to the "stable version" whatever that is.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stevo actually made a proposal on 5 August above which was completely ignored. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is more or less what it is minus the sub headings.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with having a 'Studios' sub heading in the Buildings and facilities section, and a bit structure there? I didn't write the original section so have no axe to grind, but the new text is a mess.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC0

It gives undue weight to one aspect.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it gives the studios - which are a key aspect of the development - due weight, and also provides a structure and logic to what is otherwise a very confused and confusing section.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The studio sizes could be removed, that would improve it. To much detail on one aspect, Undue weight.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

e/c The changes to the lead are nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with editors attempting to impose their - subjective - views without discussion. The existing version of the lead does define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. That is, of course, a subjective viewpoint however. Policy will not write an article and there an infinite number of possible articles which could be written in full accordance with policy. The behaviour of J3Mrs and Malleus has been highly aggressive. Period. To be honest I haven't been particularly wowed by the editing or writing skills of J3Mrs on this article, but even if they were the next Dickens I don't see how that excuses their approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• My 2p - I know both editors making the changes here, and I simply don't believe there's any bad faith involved. It was hardly a masterpiece of an article, was it? I encountered a similar problem when I started work on The Dark Side of the Moon, and had some pretty heated arguments there, but when I'd finished the bulk of my improvements one of those editors actually recanted his views and complimented me. Maybe, just maybe, if you give Malleus and J3Mrs a few days, you'll see that actually, they've made significant improvements here. Parrot of Doom 18:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was a work in progress and still is. I don't think anyone has denied that. OK fine lets say give them a week. But then if I don't like *some* of the changes and revert, what will be the result? Based on what's happened today and with the best will in the world I really struggle to believe that the revert would be left to stand until a discussion had then concluded on this Talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

All articles here are a work in progress, but I've never seen anything Malleus or J3Mrs have done that's resulted in one becoming worse. Parrot of Doom 18:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You said it all, "What if I don't like *some* of the changes." It's not about what anybody *likes*, it's about improving the article not wittering on endlessly here.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You don't need to revert before discussing, that's how edit wars start. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

J3Mrs you seem to fail to appreciate that editing is a largely subjective process and that an infinite number of articles could be produced which satisfy policy. There is no scientific process by which a machine or person can produce the 'perfect' article. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The aim is not to produce a "perfect" article, it is to address the imperfections in this one. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

All this bickering is a very sorry affair. The page was not a masterpiece - but neither is it a complete mess either. I stated in August that we should discuss how to improve this article and reach a consensus as he seemed J3Mrs some ideas. Some of J3Mrs edits do fluster me. This includes editing a section which was, in a coherent sense, fine, but then changing it to a completely illogical structure. I've heard nothing back from him or anyone else. Also, I feel some editors on here have a total lack of respect for other editors which makes improving articles difficult. I've been on Wikpedia for 5 or 6 years now and definitely there is a 'me vs them' mentality that some editors seem to have. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But naturally you do not consider yourself to be in that camp, despite all the evidence here and elsewhere to the contrary. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should I? I'm the one calling for a general consensus on how to improve the article to be reached. Instead I just get pathetic comments chucked at me. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you just chuck "pathetic comments", like that one you just chucked. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Copenhagen and Singapore

I have undone this edit as it is incorrect. The source is cited at the end of the paragraph and on page 31 of the PDF you will find the following:

This Guidance relates to the intention to establish mediacity:uk (mc:uk) on approximately 220 ha of land in and around Salford Quays and Trafford Wharfside, with the 14.8 ha Quays Point site at its core (Figure 1.1). The Vision is to create a globally significant new media city capable of competing with similar emerging locations in places such as Copenhagen, Seoul and Singapore.

Nev1 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although it is bizarre - domestic UK TV programmes are not going to be made in Copenhagen, Seoul and Singapore, and none of those are even regarded as big media centres (unlike, say, London, New York, LA etc).Rangoon11 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we must allow that the developers will have a better view on that than you or I. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing bizarre about it, people will travel across the world for good studio facilities. If you're shooting for 6 months on a drama series, you won't care if its the UK or US, so long as your needs are catered for. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually you're quite right, Coronation Street, BBC Breakfast, Newsround, Blue Peter, Countdown, Match of the Day, University Challenge, Songs of Praise et al are all highly likely to be produced outside of the UK, with Seoul and Singapore being likely options. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I could explain at length about how these things work, but I'll make it simple. I've worked in television for about 17 years. You, I'm guessing, do not. Perhaps you should defer to someone who knows how these things work. Mediacity is not the only studio in Greater Manchester, and I'm not counting Oxford Road or Quay St in that. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Does Oasis Academy MediaCityUK have anything to do with MediaCityUK?

... apart from the name of course. Sure, the new building (which hasn't yet been completed despite what the article says) is in Salford Quays, but is it actually in MediaCityUK? Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The new building is being built on Trafford Road. Is that in MediaCityUK?--J3Mrs (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. The answer seems to be that the school isn't part of the 36-acre phase 1 development (and neither is anything across the water on Trafford Wharf), but Salford and Trafford councils have allocated a total of about 200 acres for further phases of development over the coming years, bounded by Trafford Road to the east. So on that basis I suppose we have to consider the new school building as being in MediaCityUK, or at least in its development area. I get no sense of any of this from the article though. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so, see here. In 2012 the new Academy will be built as part of the Media City. The Academy has a strong partnership with MediaCityUK providing numerous opputunities for our students. To see an update on MediaCityUK project please click on the Link provided. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article to try and make the relationship between MediaCityUK overall and the initial 36-acre phase 1 development clearer, to put the new school in context. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wonder of Yoo

The article make a brief note about the developer Yoo holdings. The note is referenced by a 2007 Telegraph article about a development called "ManYoo". Would I be correct in thinking that this developer collapsed in 2010? My understanding is that the collapse happened in quite acrimonious circumstances and that no development ever started. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised, quite a few things in this article seem to be dubious at best. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it, google "KW Linfoot" ManYoo and follow the links. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed any mention of Yoo. But looking through that section again there's an evident confusion between The Quays and Salford Quays. There's absolutely no way that Manchester United's Old Trafford ground is in Salford Quays. Heck, it's not even in Manchester, never mind Salford. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the "ManYoo" site was on the Salford side of the canal. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It was; I was just observing that article confuses The Quays, pretty much a Trafford branding exercise, with Salford Quays. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The reference to the sovereign state is being continually removed from the lead, despite being long-standing and the change having been reverted. Exactly the same high-handed attitude is being displayed by Malleus Fatuorum and J3Mrs today as it was yesterday - aggressive, bullying, unprofessional and trying to force changes which have nothing to do with improvements and are purely a reflection of subjective opinions or preferences.

This is a devlopment of national importance and profile - the identity of the nation being the United Kingdom (the clue is in the name of the development) and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish licence fee payers looking at this article in its current form (which is not the stable version, and does NOT have consensus) will have good cause for offence. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to [this]. If it were in any other part of the UK then war really would break out. It's in England. Just because it's been in the lead for ages doesn't make it right. It was reverted because it was wrong, silly.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way you've reverted good sense three times now, it's about time you stopped.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Project guidelines have absolutely no force or weight as policy or otherwise, you should know that. It is established by weight of accumulated consensus that sovereign states are used for identification in infoboxes etc, particularly in the case of companies, organisations or places which are of national importance. This clearly is, and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish licence fee payers are contributing a considerable amount towards the £1 billion cost of the BBC's move.

'It's in England' is a crass and meaningless argument, it is also in Europe and the EU. Changing United Kingdom to England is pushing a POV, just as changing the UK to European Union would be, despite being geographically correct.

It is your opinion that the wording United Kingdom should be removed despite having been long-standing. That change having been reverted, you should show the basic courtesy of discussing the change here rather than seeking to impose it.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting more than a little fed up with your continual tantrums here and elsewhere Mr. Angry. That the article has been crap for such a long time is no justification for it to remain crap. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one editor here who is continually using swear words. And making absolutely no attempt at constructive discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you believe crap to be a swear word then I suggest that you need to get out more. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you purchase a dictionary. Is this how you speak to people face to face? With complete contempt and aggression.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed the rather aggressive tone of your own edits?--J3Mrs (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike you Rangoon11 I have actually opened my dictionary. But are you suggesting that what you perceive to be my poor behaviour gives you carte blanche to do the same? Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

e/c Actually no. I have actually shown the courtesy and patience to try to discuss with you. You show no flexibility and no willingness to compromise. On anything. On not a single point regarding this article have you compromised as yet.

In good faith I will suggest the formulation 'England, United Kingdom'. I know before posting what the response will be though. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be to travel from the sublime to the ridiculous. Absolutely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We obviously inhabit a world where "courtesy and patience" don't have the same meaning as in yours. You will find that if you act in a grown up way like Pit-yacker and Malleus, take the rough with the smooth and accept that you don't know everything then you might be taken seriously and learn something about collaboration. Dummy and pram keep popping into my head. Most of the remarks I've made in your direction were actually made to be helpful, and would have been understood as such by someone assuming good faith.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No attempt to generate a consensus or agreement. Just petty comments once again. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, no attempt at discussion, just personal abuse. There is one thing I am fairly sure of though, and that is that you would be a lot more civil and respectful face to face than hiding anonymously behind a computer.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanna bet? Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would put money on it. Bullies are almost always cowards.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Then your inexperience with life and misunderstanding of words like "bully" and "coward" would cost you money. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You will find that if you act in a grown up way like Pit-yacker and Malleus: [5] I've heard it all now. And, "take the rough with the smooth and accept that you don't know everything then you might be taken seriously and learn something about collaboration." Simply put: "I don't like you, I don't think you should contribute because Wikipedia is mine, so **** off". I'm sorry if that is not your attitude, but your edits consistently suggest this poor, uncivil attitude far too often. Poor form. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

When is your bedtime Stevo? Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of United Kingdom from the lead. --John (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:MediaCityUK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is good, article complies sufficiently with the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources are RS, no OR, cites support statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I note that the water taxis do not appear to be running yet, the company website[6] has not been updated this year. Is this still happening?

   Apparently not, I think this was speculative and as it's not supported by the pta I will remove it.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

   Generally, I think updates throughout are needed as most of the references are a year or more old.

   I'm not sure which refs you are referring to so could you provide more examples.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

   I was thiking of things like BBC employees started transferring to the development in May 2011, a process that will take 36 weeks - The 36 weeks is nearly up now;

   Also: Quay House is the BBC's 135,000-square-foot (12,500 m2) main building from where BBC Breakfast, Match of the Day, North West Tonight and BBC Radio 5 Live will be broadcast.

   Bridge House will be where Blue Peter, Mastermind, Dragons Den and BBC Bitesize are produced.

   Dock House will contain the BBC's Research and Religion and Ethics departments.

   I think all of these moves have happened now? I think I would like one more check for updates. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images suitably licensed and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for any necessary updates to be completed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I am happy that as Mr Stephen says, "Information seems to be coming in dribs and drabs." Likely the artcile will look somewhat different in a year's time and I guess continual updates will be required. As far as I can see the artcile meets the GA criteria now and so I am happy to list it. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. There's really nothing else can be said about the water taxi service. It was proposed in 2009 and it was hoped that the service would go live last summer if the necessary funds could be raised, but obviously it didn't. That something didn't happen rarely makes the news. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed it as it seemed to be one of those speculative things that get publicity and never happen, it can be added again if it ever happens.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine by me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it may still be active, see Twitter (I don't know how to link to individual Twitter posts). There don't seem to be any recent articles in the traditional media. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • • • I would agree with removal as the best course of action. The passage was added by User:Stevo1000. A good deal of it (although sourced) is somewhat speculative in nature (i.e. what the operator would like to do eventually). The original planning application dating to about 2007, was a service between MediaCity and the Trafford Centre. Expansion to Manchester City Centre was discussed as a later option (dependent on Planning Consent, possible freezing over of hell, etc). To enable the initial plan, Peel started work on a branch off the Ship Canal at the Trafford Centre in 2008/2009 ( see for sat photo of what they did [7]). However, work stopped on this pretty much as soon as it started. At best, it appears to have been on pretty much indefinite hold over since. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I didn't see anything on twitter to indicate it is going to happen soon.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Me neither. As regards the article, I think it's either worth a mention or it's not. If it is important, then what was there before will have to do, and should stay. TBH I think it's neither here nor there and I would have ripped it out some time ago. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Updates. I've spent a bit of time looking for some updates but as far as I can make out the BBC move isn't yet quite complete, I'm sure there will be some sort of indication when it is. The BBC's website [8] says, "is now or shortly will be" home to..... so I'm not sure what else I can find. It will be easy to update it when there is something to add.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Information seems to be coming in dribs and drabs. For example, Match of the Day moved on 5 November, see here and previously, Blue Peter in early October, see here and here. I'm sure there will be a big song and dance when all the moves are finished. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Structure

A lot of thought went into the structure of this article before it achieved GA status. A list stucture in the background section is a backward step and I reverted it. Sorry about the IP I didn't know I had been logged out.J3Mrs (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)