Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

message: The wording "However, these formal city boundaries should not be regarded as the sole criterion", which I removed, has just been replaced. It appears to be an assertion with no supporting citation, and therefore unacceptable on Wikipedia. Likewise "the City of London [..] is very small" in the same paragraph. Andy Mabbett 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, as an unbiased encyclopaedia we should not be telling the reader what "should" or "should not" be considering.  I've inserted a "some people believe that" to indicate that it's a point of view, but the sentence could probably do with more cleanup. Waggers 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PoV

message: Was the BBC's recent poll not a vote to find ENGLAND'S Second City, not that of the entire UK? I think this should be made clear, it is misleading. I'd say Edinburgh has more of a claim to second city status than Manchester, considering it's historic importance and the fact it's the biggest tourist centre and the biggest economic centre outside of London (as stated on its own Wikipedia page). And also just simply the fact that it is the capital city of Britain's "second country". We English are so bad at thinking 'England' and 'the UK' are interchangeable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.181.47 (talk • contribs).
:I have ammended the article to reflect this comment - thank you mystery poster - please point out any other items like this - it certainly helps. Sprigot 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC 'Second City' Poll

message: I think it would be valuable to add the following:
"Birmingham City Council is the largest local authority in Europe and is notable for having the largest wards by population in the whole of the UK (each ward has approximately 18,000 voters)."
Source: Wikipedia - Birmingham City Council
Sprigot 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no comment on this I will add it in the set of edits. Sprigot 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added section on "Local Government" - with the above quote. Sprigot 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest local authority (in Europe) and largest wards (in the UK)

message: Birmingham is still regularly described as the second city by the media. The current wording appears designed to lend credence to Manchester's claim. TharkunColl 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As we've discussed before, this isn't 100% - there is a contrary and long running "assumption" that Manchester is second in both government and industry. We don't have all that in the article right now because of all the dogfighting over rival "proofs" in past iterations of the article - let's not get back into that by making over-bold claims again. MarkThomas 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the 2001 bit in because the reference (Hopkins) used to support the sentence "Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War." was published in 2001.  Hopkins is an historian and so the book should be a WP:RS, but it doesn't seem to be widely available in the libraries; I will WP:AGF and assume that the book really does support the assertion as written.  That reference cannot possibly project beyond 2001 and properly take into account the regeneration of Manchester (the book is about Birmingham pre-WWII after all) that led to results of the MORI poll of 2002, the comments in Management Today that were picked up by the BBC in 2005, and the BBC poll in 2007.  It is incorrect to assert that Birmingham has a clear run post-2000.  Mr Stephen 13:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Endless reversions above. In the quoted 2002 poll Manchester tops the 3rd City list as well as the 2nd City one. Also as the 2002 poll is actually by Mori North, it may well explain why the majority of those polled didn't consider Birmingham - in fact only 85% put London as 1st City. I believe this should be stated explictly in the article. Sprigot 14:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's all this about 2001?

message: The following reference Manchester 'close to second city' (Access Date:2006-05-03, Publisher:BBC NEWS (in 2005)), used in Machester's defence of the claim of 2nd city of the UK implies that Manchester is not yet nor not quite the 2nd city of the UK - I think it would be valuable that this is explicitly stated in the article. Sprigot 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manchester 'close to second city' - implies not yet nor not quite

message: Re: Mancunian appreciation of Birmingham Second City of the UK
I find the following quotations, from the above article, appropriate to this discussion - opinions welcomed:
*"Second City? So what? So which one is the second city? Personally I couldn't care less about second city status, who wants to be second?"
*"The City of Birmingham municipal area has over 1 million people, compared to only 450,000 or so within the City of Manchester. It's true, the surrounding conurbations of both cities - Greater Manchester and the West Midlands - are each in the region of 3 million, but until Manchester addresses the problem of its under-sized municipal authority and creates a larger city authority, like Birmingham did many years ago, then the second city of England, indeed the second city of the UK, by population and land area, is, without a shadow of a doubt: Birmingham."
Sprigot 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions on the following quotations and associated article

message: Is an advert for airtravel / flights an appropriate reference source for wikipedia ? Opinion welcomed.
RE: Manchester second city flights (accessdate: 2007-07-19, publisher: BootsnAll Travel Network, year: 2007)
Sprigot 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly acceptable as it show that it is regarded by many as being the UK's second city and it is the "about" section you need to look at for details and it is not an advert but links to an advertising site as does all of the news articles used against the third city "statement". XAndreWx 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a dead link. Removed. Sprigot 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing dead about it.  Mr Stephen 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right - my link was bad above, not the article link - however does an advert for airtravel consistute a reliable, referencable, authorative source ? Sprigot 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is an advert for airtravel / flights an appropriate reference ?

message: For the simple fact that Manchester and Birmingham were distinguishable in the early 20th century is one thing, but for the "title" now to be claimed by data that presents itself in such a way that in places it, conflicts, aggresses and pronounces information which can be untrue or unbiased reflects the intentional disregard for the United Kingdom today and the disrespect for it's cities as a whole.  R_O (Talk) 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely no need for that sarchasm there "Mike33". R_O (Talk) 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitary Break 

message: Because it gives the impression that there really is a genuine debate in the country about which is the second city, rather than a couple of random polls and a huge marketing campaign rammed in our faces by the Manchester City council PR department. TharkunColl 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page does agree with everybodies theories even "ministers". The opening gives us There is no official mechanism by which second city status is conferred on a city, rather, it is a description which is unofficial carrying no authority. (a solid idea about the nobility of any statement after?) - second city is probably non-notable if we are to use our own text. The great flaw is that it can never be found. 1000 ppl doing a poll or a few Mps or brian rehead saying its a toss up between london and birmingham. This article doesn't help Wikipedia and I have tried to stop any refence on the Manchester page which tries to support it. I would now support an afd on this page. based entirely on the opening sentences which make the whole article redundant. Mike33 - t@lk 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer the suggestion of Ngb above. I also find his quote acceptable too (apart from only mentioning the one poll by the BBC - not the one commissioned by the Manchester tourist board, obv.) Sprigot 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is fundamentally flawed

message: In an attempt to reach a consensus, how about we:
* WP:AFD the Second city of the United Kingdom (as suggested above by Mike33)
* Use the following text (as suggested above by Ngb):
:"Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War. (refs to Hopkins, news media) More recently, it has been claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction (refs to poll) and has occasionally been described as the second city in published media. (refs to news media)
:Since the formation of the UK, Bristol (ref), Glasgow (ref), and Liverpool (ref) have all also been seen as the second city, and indeed Glasgow was often described as the second city of the entire British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All three cities were prominent because of their economic importance, especially the central role which they played in overseas trade, and are still some of the largest cities in the country."
All opinions more than welcomed - please lets all work towards getting this stabailised soon. Sprigot 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be opposed to deletion. I think it's an interesting article and actually adding more rival claims is not a weakness. People in the "Birmingham camp" tend to resent those that promote the Manchester case and the same in reverse. The real problem is that up to now the "Birmingham camp", who tend to be more sensitive and perhaps a little precious on it, are much more vociferous than the other camp. The public reality outside of the narrow little WP clans (I know one or two of the editors personally in this battle - they are very narrow-minded people in real life too!) is that this is a contested and uncertain question. The pro-Birmingham POV is that there is no doubt and anyone who thinks otherwise hates Birmingham, Brummies and very possibly Sutton Coldfield as well. The pro-Manchester POV is that probably it's Manc but who really cares. The official government position is, and has been for more than a century, that it's Manchester. Well worth having a page and the debate is actually rather good and enjoyable, albeit sometimes rather pointless. MarkThomas 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If we merged text from here back into Second city then I don't think an AFD would be necessary here; we'd just turn this article into a redirect. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we try and reach a consensus on the text to go in the "Second city" article so the edit war doesn't spread there (Afd or Redirect work fine with me). Ngb can you action this if we reach a consensus on the text - and then get the page semi-protected ? Cheers. Sprigot 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the text is as in your proposal and includes the contentious phrase "Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War" then I for one will want to add more material, since it does not give an accurate view. The government of the UK for example have long regarded Manchester as the de-facto second city. MarkThomas 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this, Mark? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I will do so if a consensus is reached. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards a Consensus

message: Andy, I am aware you used to work for Birmingham City Council, is this still the case? If so, is it fair for you to be making really quite determinedly POV edits to the article? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, (a) totally irrelevant to the question in this section and (b) total rubbish. Why don't you sign in and discuss properly? An obvious attempt to thwart 3RR rules by editing from a number. The material was referenced, you just don't like it - that's against the spirit of WP NPOV article formation. MarkThomas 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pigsonthewing

message: Could we not just delete the page, the one's who want to keep it open are the one's that are ruining it! Either that, or we could introduce a system where disruptive users are blocked from editing the page. R_O (Talk) 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want the page deleted - with a short entry (as put forward by Ngb) - see "[Talk:Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom#Towards_a_Consensus|Towards a Consensus]" above. Sprigot 16:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh - and I want to reach a consensus on the text to go in the "Second city" article so the edit war doesn't spread there. Sprigot 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would entirely go along with the deletion idea. There is an interesting issue to do with how a ranking scheme for cities could be constructed making use of a range of relevant attributes various cities have, so that a second city could be identified (things such as Pareto Optimality would be relevant), but that would be a different issue to the arguments about the reliability and the validity of the separate attribute-values that could be used, and it would definitely be Original Research. Given that the arguments about this article are now futile and disruptive because such original research has not been done, and certainly cannot be done in this article. Even to describe the different viewpoints in a seemingly NPOV way would involve some degree of Original Research in doing anything other than a simple listing of the alternative conclusions. So, I think simple deletion is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use logical arguments like this to delete articles like Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations but they are fascinating articles - if each "side" would let the other "side" contribute referenced material, they give a valuable resource to the average visitor to Wikipedia. This is a real issue - if it isn't, why do the BBC conduct nationwide polls on it? It deserves an article, and the article deserves to be NPOV - that means letting each case build and not fighting the other editors. MarkThomas 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have a point. But from what I, as a passive observer, with no real opinion either way, have observed, it hasn't happened up to now, and from very recent accusations, etc made on this talk page, it doesn't seem likely to happen in the future. If what people want to do is to proceed, the best feasible way of doing that, as far as I can see, is for each "side" to prepare their case in isolation, only advancing arguments that directly support "their side" and not attack the other side's imagined arguments. Then, the article begins with a general account of the disagreements and contested claims, with the two sections that advance their own "side's position" put one after the other (in alphabetical order to prevent another set of squabbles about precedence), and with no cross-side editing allowed. No synthesis would be allowed, unless it was done in independent and verified sources that can be cited. If such evidence can be found and cited, it could go in a final section. Otherwise, it would not be added, as that would be ruled out by NOR. I can't see the article's integrity lasting, though. Go one, all of you. Prove me wrong!  DDStretch  (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly support this proposal.  There has been far too much negative editing on this page recently, with the "Third City" rubbish being a case in point.  I feel that the article should be split into three sections: Birmingham, Manchester and Other Cities.  Only the pro-Birmingham case should go into the Birmingham section, the pro-Manchester case in the Manchester section and any other claimants, both modern and historical into Other Cities. Whilst I hope that this compromise will work, I also doubt that it will! Fingerpuppet 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This article should be deleted. Either that, or go to 'Mediation', then Arbitration (if needed). PS- I thought Edinburgh was the second city of the UK (shows what I know). GoodDay 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: I suggest we redirect Second city of the United Kingdom to Birmingham, and Third city of the United Kingdom (currently a redirect to here) to Manchester. TharkunColl 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  Which is exactly why this article is in such trouble. Fingerpuppet 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: It isn't just about population, but....
(1) The populations of local authority areas are irrelevant - they have no bearing on true urban size.
(2) The difference reported between one commonly used method of urban comparison, contiguous conurbation size, gives a clear lead to Greater Manchester.
(3) The difference reported between another commonly used method of urban comparison, official National Statistics Office figures for conurbation size, gives a lead to Greater Birmingham that is so small it must be regarded as essentially a dead heat. This figure was generated from the 2001 census which was a notoriously bad census and the huge influx of hidden immigrant populations into all major British cities has no doubt further distorted the figures.
:::Just an aside - there's no such thing as "Greater Birmingham" - it's "West Midlands". Fingerpuppet 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this section was intended for the actual statistics themselves, rather than assertions of their irrelevence. If you can find any statistics that favour Manchester, feel free to include them. TharkunColl 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you now agree they should be included Tharkun, you vehemently opposed their inclusion before. I refer of course to the most authoritative, detailed and comprehensive statistical analysis of European urban areas ever conducted, the Largest urban areas of the European Union - this clearly shows that Manchester-Liverpool is the 7th largest urban area in Europe with 3.85m people. Birmingham-Wolverhampton is 15th with 2.37m people. MarkThomas 11:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  The "City" with a capital C of london may not be often residential but the surrounding suburbs/whatever you call it hold about 1 in 10 of the population or something.  One reason Birmingham became the 2nd City is because being centrally positioned, it's useful for transport/people meeting up who for some reason (such as more members from the North/Scotland,) want to meet outside London.etc.Merkinsmum 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, we could refer to the Largest European metropolitan areas. On those figures, Greater Manchester is the 11th largest Metropolitan Area in Europe, with 4.2m people and the West Midlands is the 17th largest with 3.2m people. Of course, I know that you are going to say this article is about cities. But if it is, and those cities are based on local authority boundaries, than Birmingham is first and I believe Glasgow second or something. MarkThomas 12:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard Statistics

message: (1)  More government offices in Manchester.
(2)  More foreign consulates in Manchester.
(3)  More corporate headquarters in Manchester.
(4)  Bigger media presence in Manchester.
(5)  First port of call for relocation of major national institutions from London such as the BBC is invariably Manchester.
:Again, please give figures and references for numbers of government offices, consulates, ice cream vans, or what-have-you. TharkunColl 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjective criteria

message: I'm not sure why no one has added anything useful to the above sections, since that was apparently what people wanted. Oh well, here's a Guardian article from last November that unequivocally calls Birmingham the second city, without further comment - and given the content of the article the fact that there is no further comment is even more significant.
Britain's second city has an image problem. But one disgruntled resident is on a mission to prove there's life beyond the Bullring 
TharkunColl 11:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) It's just in the heading, so it's not as unequivocal as you think.  Try this Guardian article for another view.  It's about Birmingham and Manchester.  Quote: "another skirmish in the long campaign for ownership of the dubious title of England's second city" Mr Stephen 12:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Birmingham is very frequently mentioned as second city in the media with no further comment. If Manchester is ever mentioned as potentially the second city, Birmingham is always mentioned as well. This is a significant difference of emphasis. TharkunColl 12:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion that "If Manchester is ever mentioned as potentially the second city, Birmingham is always mentioned as well" does not stand up to much searching.  See Conference and Incentive Travel (me neither), The Age, Guardian and New Yorker (joke) for some examples.  Mr Stephen 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is almost unsalvageable now.  Can we please try to stick with being positive about one city, and not being negative about the other? Please? Fingerpuppet 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but that was quite a funny and informative article, it says for example "Officially, there is no second city. In the UK, second cities are an arbitrary concept with no definitive supporting criteria. Not population. Not culture. But there's one thing they all agree on - whatever the second city is, it isn't Leeds". We could use that article as a source for saying there are no official criteria and then have lots of claims for each city. MarkThomas 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: According to the Guardian, Birmingham is the Second City

message: Here's a film made by Telly Savalas in 1979 showing wonderful scenes from Birmingham with his own inimitable descriptions of them (you'll need RealPlayer). It's from the Birmingham: It's Not Shit website -  (scroll down, it's the second item under "Classic stuff"). Manchester, eat your heart out! TharkunColl 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kojak's lolipops secretly symbolised Manchester's indisputable pre-eminence though, as did the extraordinary hair in The Professionals. MarkThomas 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kojak loves Birmingham - it's official

message: It might be worthwhile airing an accusation that was levelled at myself on another talk page concerning populations: Talk:List of largest cities in England by population. User:Concrete Cowboy  accuses me of being similar to the Historic Counties advocates (ludicrously, for anyone knowing my editing history). He did this because I argued against a now apparently vanished editor ("EasyBird") who argued that cities are largely undefined and so the term "city" is not worth dealing with anymore. If easybird's view prevails, a simple solution to the problems of this article would be say it deals with defunct concepts and that it no longer reflects reality in the way it is claimed to do. Thus, the people engaging in so much energy one or another place are perhaps not just arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, but they are also getting worked up about the kinds of fashion accessories they are wearing when they dance. (note that EasyBird created that article, but the record of them seems to have been expunged to such an extent that on my view of the history of the article, his name no longer appears. My own contribution, which corrects a serious flaw in his/her arguments, appears to be the first edit to the article when it was the third or fourth.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL'ed at several bits of that DD, particularly the fashion accessories bit. To some extent, the nationalisms that infect all cities and for example dog football teams, are charming and eccentric and no more worthy of comment in a serious cyclopedia than is for example the concept that the moon is a balloon. But alas - Wikipedia is stuffed full of such articles. It's a fun place. Let it hang out a little - this article is certaily more valid than many another. I think we will try to systematise it a bit more though. As this article is really about a dispute, we should list key aspects of the dispute, supporters and detractors, etc, wierd and fantastical claims and so on, without in any way getting too bogged down with actual facts, over which both "sides" have a somewhat slippery grasp. MarkThomas 17:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we not then rename it "Second City of the United Kingdom Controversy"? I know that's probably frowned upon but it might take the heat off things a bit.Merkinsmum 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd welcome that title change for one - though dispute might be more appropriate than controversy. Jza84 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, good idea. Or "debate" or "competition", or "battle to the death". :-) MarkThomas 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The claim that "cities" is an old, outmoded term that rank traditionalists only cling onto

message: Why not have a consensus vote? Birmingham or Manchester. The city which gets the 'support' (backing by majority of editors) gets the 'Second City' tag. It may help, as this page is filled with 'sources' supporting both cities. Give it try (it can't hurt). GoodDay 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be for this as definitive proof, but it must be a telephone poll, with me holding the casting vote. MarkThomas 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manchester or Birmingham

message: OK the following table is a little bit of fun, but it does have a serious underlying point. Alot of the debate here so far is about size... I'm not one to shout that "size isn't everything", but in the case of Manchester vs. Birmingham, we really can't rule out the cultural factors of the debate from the article.... afterall, the proper City of London is one of the smallest cities in Europe (much smaller than Birmingham too). Have we not thought to consider writing that it's capital status is only de facto and not written in law etc??
Below is a table of some of the cultural contributions of our two leading cities... joking aside, imagine if Manchester had a population of Birmingham's!!!!
Topic           	Manchester                                                                                                                                                                                           	Birmingham
Population      	441,200                                                                                                                                                                                              	1,001,200
County          	Greater Manchester (ten boroughs - first to suggest it's own Manchester-region county after London)                                                                                                  	West Midlands (seven boroughs)
Music           	Oasis, Happy Mondays, The Smiths, Mock Turtles, Take That, The Buzzcocks, The Fall, New Order, Joy Division, Shane Ward, Simon Webbe, Stone Roses, Jay Kay, The Haçienda, Morrissey, and many more...	Black Sabbath
Art             	Chris Ofili, Peter Saville, L. S. Lowry                                                                                                                                                              	- pass -
Architecture    	Manchester Town Hall, Beetham Tower (tallest residential building in Europe), Manchester Ship Canal                                                                                                  	The Bullring... Spaghetti Junction
Events          	Commonwealth Games, Peterloo Massacre, IRA bomb, Industrial Revolution, Madchester                                                                                                                   	- pass -
Football        	Manchester United (founded in Newton Heath, Manchester - not Trafford), Manchester City                                                                                                              	Birmingham, Aston Villa
TV and film     	Corronation Street, Life on Mars, 24 hour party people, Mrs Merton, Granada TV, Channel M, Queer as Folk, The Royale Family, Boddington's Ads,                                                       	- pass -
Nicknames       	Cottonopolis, Capital of the North, Madchester, Gunchester                                                                                                                                           	- pass -
Comedians       	Steve Coogan, Bernard Manning, Caroline Ahern (Gtr. Mcr - Peter Kaye, John Thomson, many many more)                                                                                                  	- pass -
Founded         	Roman times                                                                                                                                                                                          	Anglo-Saxon times
Rank            	Largest economic centre outside of London, most motorway, most complex transport network outside of London, third most visited city in UK (no Birmingham is not 1st or 2nd)                          	Most populated place with city status
Gift to humanity	First passenger railway station, Splitting of the atom, First programable computer, the Industrialised World, world's first inland dock                                                              	Howard Brown, Brum
I think the cultural aspects of Manchester should be given more weight in the article, as it is central to Manchester's case. I'm not from Manchester btw, and not stating that any city holds any official title, just making a point. Jza84 12:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really cool. Can we make edits to your table Jza84, or should we add our own new ones? MarkThomas 12:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an excellent addition to the dispute. If we can encourage people to add positive aspects of their own "side's" aspects to the table, and not attempt to rubbish the other side's, then this table could form a basis for a good article that would be correctly called "The Second City of the UK dispute". I can, however, see some people selectively shouting WP:NOR (on the grounds that this would yield a novel synthesis of information) when, in fact, collating information into a table like this happens all the time in similar articles. If this happens, we should stand firm and not allow the table to be brow-beaten into deletion.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. The above table's content was a little bit of mischief I admit, but I think the point I made was a valid one. I also think that if we are to place something like this in the article, we should consider having other cities, and decide upon the content here or in a sandbox before adding it to the article. Jza84 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No the above table is my comment and point - please lets draw up a new one for the article. Jza84 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, shall we create a separate sandboxing page for tables? BTW, we could have more serious entries in it like populations at different dates, that kind of thing. Your jokes were good though! MarkThomas 13:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural reasons...