Talk:Manchester/Archive 2

message: I'm sure i was told Manchester has the biggest student population in europe. Anyone know of any bigger ones? Plugwash 23:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only find anecdotal evidence for this - even though I've often heard it myself. It's also been going around for a while as evidenced by Ian Brown in 1998 . I reckon if we include this it should be prefaced by a "reputedly" or "allegedly", as I've seen newspapers do  (even though the Times didn't ). But to answer your question, other cities with large student populations include Rome, Barcelona, Paris, London, Milan, Naples and Cologne - no definitive stats yet but this page is useful. Cormaggio @ 10:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One of the biggest

message: Users have been warring over this page so it has been temporarily protected. Please discuss where the redirect should go on Talk:City of Manchester and leave me a message when that is resolved. Thank you. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not to mention someone needs to clean up the copypaste move of manchester to city of manchester. Plugwash 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Why has some new user steamed in, removed the extensive page on Manchester, redirected it to Greater Manchester and taken the Manchester page to "City of Manchester"?!
What a fucking mess. 86.138.10.139 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it back seem as this mess seems to have been created by one user without asking anyone. And there appears to be consensus for this bizarre move to City of Manchester, and it is totally inconsistant with every other city article. G-Man 21:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you acknowledge that there is consensus then how can you justify going ahead and changing it to suit your own agenda? EarlyBird 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on earth is going on here? 

message: Welcome back home, Manchester!  Hope you enjoyed your little trip. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome back!

message: There are many inaccuracies throughout the article. Please check. --Litherland 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific, or do we have any reason to believe this isn't more of the same vandalism we had a few weeks ago? Cormaggio @ 14:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy's been trolling all day. David 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: A more full and detailed discussion regarding this matter is currently taking place on the City of Manchester talk page. I think all would agree that trying to engage in a lenghty discussion across two pages is at best confusing and at worst disadvantageous to the expression of the points raised by everyone.
As I did above, I refer everybody to the discussion on the City of Manchester:Talk page.Mr ed 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: City of Manchester Talk page

message: Please add suggestions at Talk:City_of_Manchester#Definitions about which Manchester-related articles we should have and what each of them should contain. Cormaggio @ 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: The article is referring to Manchester as a Conurbation. This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham.  There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. --BigBriton 12:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly G-Man 20:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think making wild accusations like this is helpful.  There is a genuine and legitimate disagreement here, and it would be appropriate of both sides to acknowledge this.  Morwen - Talk 15:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Hijacked For Propoganda Purposes 

message: I live in Sale, Trafford, I consider myself to be a Mancunian, from Manchester, as does everyone else I know.
In my opinion, what essentially are political boundaries are not representative, in the slightest, of what is considered to be Manchester.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned I think there should be three articles, firstly one for the area of land, where people live and pay council tax to Manchester city council - the City of Manchester page - I think we all agree on that???
There should also be a page that refers to Greater Manchester, and should be an article similar to that for, say the West Midlands.
However, since neither of these articles gets close to describing what most of the locals actually understand to be Manchester, I believe that there should be a third article, essentially describing the urban area that surrounds the area described in the City of Manchester page. This would include all the areas listed in Earlybirds earlier posting.
Otherwise, the area you are describing in the other articles do not relate to the reality of what people undestand Manchester to be - isn't that the whole idea of an encyclopedia, to reflect reality? I think the first line should read something like... 'The urban area that spans the Greater Manchester boroughs of... is commonly known as Manchester', otherwise, the articles do not reflect what people actually understand Manchester to be.
Fo example, looking at the following image from Multimap...
http://mc.multimap.com/cs/os50k//X15/Y15/X1532Y1588S25W700H400.gif
the people who live south of St Georges are, in reality, living in the same city as those who live just to the north (Trafford - south and Mancheseter - north).
So in short, 3 articles, City of Manchester, Greater Manchester and Manchester (the urban bit of Greater Manchester) otherwise, you are not reflecting what people understand to be Manchester.
To show how people see the urban area as Manchester have a look at how the Chamions League final was described...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League#1999_to_2003_-_Varied_success
says "who lifted the trophy in Manchester"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/news/words/general/030528_witn.shtml
says "Italian fans travelled to England in their thousands for the European champions league final in Manchester in the north of England today."
Even the Italians see it all as Manchester...
http://www.gazzetta.it/speciali/champions_league/2003/index.shtml
There are plenty more examples like this, that show that people in general describe the urban area as Manchester, and do not simply relate to the part that pays council tax to the city of Manchester council - not to reflect this would surely be a mistake.
By the way, UEFA always hold a ceromony outside the town hall for the local city to show off the trophy, when the final was held in Manchester in 2003, that ceromony took place outside the Manchester town hall, and NOT the Trafford one.
:I agree with everything EB has said, everything. Manchester or at least what Mancunians see as Manchester is a whole lot bigger than just the central core of the City, People in Sale, Prestwich, Whitefield, Broughton, Stretford etc,(all outside MCC control) all justs say they live in Manchester. The suburbs stretch out for miles and the urban area is a hell of a lot bigger than just the centre of town. Im inclined to go along whole heartedly with everything EB has suggested.86.130.181.58 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester article 

message: I am going to move these pages back to their original positions. Seem as this mess has been created by one user without any consultation or agreement. EarlyBird I suggest that if you want to move it back again then you take the issue to Wikipedia: Requested page moves. If you try changing things back again without the correct proceedures I will request these pages to be blocked. G-Man 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: G-Man, Celestianpower specifically said that the changes could be made with a simple majority. There is a simple majority in favour here. The changes were then made. If you change the articles despite this I will request that your changes be undone and the threads locked. Please stop forcing your opinions on others. EarlyBird 18:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact, G-Man, have you noticed that the pages you are simply moving about have been heavily edited since they were moved? You aren't simply reverting my changes you know. EarlyBird 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: EarlyBird please stop deluding yourself and trying to fool me that you have 'consensus'. You dont have anything of the sort. I'm not stupid you know. I can see a sockpuppet when I see one. Now as I have said If you wish to move the page, take it through the correct channels, which I have outlined above. Until then LEAVE IT ALONE. Cutting and pasting is against the rules. G-Man 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am merely reverting EarlyBird's cut& paste jobs which are clearly not allowed. All I want is for this matter to be taken through the correct channels rather than being forced upon us by one editor through brute force. I have given EarlyBird the chance to take this through the correct channels. G-Man 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: G-Man, unfortunately I'm relatively new to all this and I do not yet know how to move articles about in the correct manner. I was simply trying to return the articles to the way they were this morning. A majority of people in this discussion have agreed to this system which is why I changed it in the first place and too many edits have taken place since for you to simply rename them. This is why I was trying to get you to discuss the issues. As for "a single editor forcing it upon you by brute force", I see a number of people agreeing with me and the only person I see editing without discussing is yourself, despite pleas from myself in your talk page for you to do precisely this. EarlyBird 19:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Firefox, that's precisely what I've been asking G-man to do on his talk page but he is continuing to ignore me. I'm trying to return the articles to the status quo from this morning, before G-Man came along and started moving stuff. At the end of the day, the articles have been to heavily edited for him to just rename them like this. EarlyBird 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: G-man: Whatever you may be doing, there is no cause for leaving messages which may be seen to be abusive to EarlyBird. As I am not an admin, if either of you revert the page once more I will contact an admin to have you blocked for 24 hours if they see fit. FireFox 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think he was referring to the sockpuppet comment, which incidentally I did find quite offensive. Now please try discussing the issues instead of reverting and moving. EarlyBird 19:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er excuse me, it was you who came from nowhere and suddenly decided to move and split up what had been perfectly good articles without asking anyone. As I have said repeatedly if you want to move major articles around then take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. G-Man 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I discussed the issue in this talk page. I asked Celestianpower what was needed in order for the change to be made and he informed me that a simple majority was enough. That simple majority is there and so when the articles were unlocked the changes were made. I then spent a long time editing the articles to ensure that the local authority article only mentioned things related to the local authority. After this a number of edits and improvements to those articles were made. You then came back, decided you didn't like it and proceeded to start moving things, regardless of the discussions in here and the edits in the articles. Could you not have come in here and discussed these things? EarlyBird 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said that as a very last resort. I also refered you to Wikipedia:Consensus. Please everyone try to compromise and reach an agreement that perhaps yopu don't like per say but can live with. No consensus or even majority, in my eyes, has been formed but perhaps the straw poll below will help clear up the muddyness of the water. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Erm, I didn't delete anything. Your comments are in the talk page for Manchester (city)
 EarlyBird 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: I dont know exactly where this majority you talk of is. Well lets put this to the test then shall we and hold a vote.
*In favour of returning Manchester page to its previous unsplit state, with City of Manchester being a redirect to Manchester
#G-Man 20:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should do this. 203.26.16.66 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Against split
#Tang1 21.45, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (user has no contibutions!!!)
For split
#84.92.159.229 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discounted votes 

message: Looking above it seems this poll was instigated to prove/disprove there is a majority who want the Manchster article split.
There is clearly not a majority who wanted change so I suggest we revert now to the original content while we continue this conversation as I fear it might drag on a bit and divert us from any improvement work. MRSC 13:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should do this. 203.26.16.66 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: Ok, this talk page is currently running at 72k, all generated in the heat of the last 4/5 days - I suggest we nail it. We now have four Manchester-related articles - clearly this is too many. So why don't we define exactly what should and (where relevant) should not go in each article, and whether one article should redirect to another:
Manchester
* Includes:
** This should be the main article - about the defined local authority area with clear definition of status, name and "City of Manchester" in infobox. i.e. should be reverted to this content: Original content of Manchester article MRSC 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: #This article needs to be reverted to: Original content of Manchester article.
#The newly restored article moved to Manchester and a redirect left on this page.
#Thorough check through all the links to the various Manchster articles to make sure they are working properly.
#Use the talk page to identify any areas for improvement in the restored Manchester article.
I will be able to offer support with all of the above but need someone able to complete point #2 (without resorting to cut and paste). MRSC 07:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #2 should be fairly straightforward. 'Manchester' should be deleted, 'City of Manchester' moved to Manchester, and then the edit history of the deleted Manchester page is restored and merged into the new one. G-Man 21:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Process

message: :I am aware that it is against the general ethos of Wikipedia to not 'assume good faith', but in this case I truly believe my remarks of yesterday have been summarily glanced over and have not been fully considered. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong about this, however please do not charge ahead before we have come to a general consensus. 
:I also object to the way that the straw poll has been taken apart according to a particular point of view, is it not true that as many people voted in this poll, and that the nature of wikipedia is that everybody can contribute, that the opinions of these voters are as valid as anybody elses? I may be new here, but it is my firm intention to offer a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, and it would help matters greatly if we could spend our discussion time positively striving to reach a consensus on this matter. This will not come about whilst valid points are being ignored.Mr ed 17:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate continues

message: The dispute about the location and number of "Manchester" articles has now been going on for at least 10 days and the current pages Manchester and City of Manchester show significant overlap (look at the History sections) and are a mess (does the Bibliography on City of Manchester only refer to the city proper - I think not). Our first and only priority is to write an encyclopedia; to impart knowledge, not just facts, and the current mess fails to do this. There are therefore two questions: 
# How do we get the articles into a state that is useful and stop wasting time arguing with each other.
# How do we improve the articles to help make this a really good encyclopedia.
My view is that we should have one page, at Manchester, that includes most of our information about the city (in the broad sense - possibly without delimitating the boundary in any detail). Sections would include history, industry, culture, economy sport and so on. None of these subjects follow local authority boundaries so they should not need to be discussed in the other articles. Another important section would be local government. This should talk about the existence of Greater Manchester (and link to it) and the cities and boroughs that make up Manchester. I'm unsure if we need a separate article about the City of Manchester - I suppose a list of wards and more information about the council would be over the top for Manchester so we may need a separate page but I don't think the information we currently have is enough to justify one. If we choose to have a separate City of Manchester page it should host the template but some of the information would need to be in Manchester's local government section. If not, the template would go on Manchester but we would need to note that the template information relates to the local government area not the extended city. Information about the Greater Manchester Urban Area should go in the economy section (but could also grow into its own page if there is enough info - at present I don't think there is). This is all only my view, and we should discuss the proposal. What is important is that implementing this needs more than a few page moves, redirect redirection, and the odd bit of copy and paste.
How do we achieve point 1 and start to improve things? I'm afraid we would have to follow steps 1 - 3 of  User:Mrsteviec's October 24 suggestion. And could we remove some of the talk page redirects? Andreww 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 10 days is too long to be leaving things. Some remedial action is required. MRSC 11:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Both points sound fine, but I think such articles should "grow out" or the Manchester article and not just exist because we can string together one or two facts about about a title. Andreww 08:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should we go from here? 

message: The discussion on this page is doing nothing for the good of the article or the wikipedia, and that should be our top priority above any of our POVs.
Having thought about this I'm going to revert City of Manchester back to the old combined article (it's in the City of Manchester's article history rather than the Manchester history because of a page move) and then make Manchester a redirect to City of Manchester. I'm then going to suggest at WP:RM that City of Manchester gets moved back to Manchester. This achieves two things:
# We get a stable article back
# There is forum through WP:RM for those who want change 
MRSC 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RM]]

message: The article is referring to the "Manchester Conurbation". This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham.  There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. --BigBriton 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that there is a place that people call "Manchester" which includes a local authority called the "City of Manchester" and which is mostly within a county called "Greater Manchester". Andreww 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Hijacked For Propoganda Purposes