Talk:Manchester/Archive 4

message: I've reverted this edit of 23 October 2006, by which User:Manchester2k6 removed the  notice and promoted the article to Good Article status. This was done unilaterally, without going through the proper channels (i.e. listing it on the nominations page and putting a candidacy notice here). The article was demoted for being too long back in May 2006, when it was 75 kb long; as it is now 87 kb long, it doesn't look as if these concerns have been addressed. I'm not otherwise commenting on the quality of the article, but if the GA process is to work, a candidate needs to be reviewed by an impartial editor (which, on the basis of their contributions, Manchester2k6 appears not to be), and only after other editors have had a chance to comment. --Blisco 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article status removed

message: Thanks for pointing this out. This should have never happened. You raise valid points with regards to getting this article upto WP:GA standard. The article is massively too long - we need to create some daughter articles, or move the info to these pages. Some leadership and fresh eyes would help here. Jhamez84 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Way too long

message: How is Manchester pronounced according to the IPA chart for English. We need to include this in the lead to emulate our rivals London and Birmingham. Any lingusts out there? I'll try to work it out now, but may need a specialist to correct me. Jhamez84 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included the IPA pronunciation - please feel free to verify and ammend if appropriate. Jhamez84 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is necessary really. There's scope for ambiguity with the other two cities - the first syllable of London could be taken to rhyme with "bond", and the h of Birmingham could be pronounced (as Americans tend to) - but could Manchester conceivably be pronounced any other way? Including the pronunciation is counter-productive if anything, since to the vast majority of readers who don't understand IPA it gives the impression that it's pronounced differently to how it looks. --Blisco 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchester is one of those places where you do actually say it as you spell it! David 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does IPA make any reference to which syllables are stressed?  If so, there's scope for ambiguity: is it 'ManCHESter' or 'MANchester'?, etc. Matthew 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it should be stressed that it is made up of three syllables - "Man" then "Ches" - "ter" (the last two rolled into one almost). I'm sure some clever cloggs can write that up in a clearer/more scientific way!! David 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting a bit silly. Anyone whose standard of English is so poor that they mispronounce Manchester - which is after all probably the second most famous city in England worldwide - is unlikely to be able to read Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there should be no need to give IPA for every single proper noun unless there might be genuine doubt as to how to pronounce it - otherwise we're only creating confusion where there was none before. --Blisco 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you add IPA to every settlement in the English-speaking world by the same argument? That could get very silly. "New York City (pronounced )"? The English Wikipedia has to assume that its readers have a basic familiarity with English, including pronunciation. Bear in mind that (at a guess) >99% of English speakers have no knowledge of IPA, and >99% of those that do know how to pronounce Manchester. I'm all for including IPA where necessary, but I maintain that having it here will merely confuse the 99%, and bemuse most of the remaining 1%. --Blisco 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the IPA to the etymology section. I think 86.138 makes a valid point that it broadens the comprehensiveness of the article, but it perhaps wasnt appropriate for it to be in the lead as in other articles. Jhamez84 14:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: This great big article deserved some weeding out of minutiae and trivia from some text, among other things like list-whitespace ecomonizing, and removal of redundancies. There's much more to be done, folks.Piperdown 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing time 

message: I have cut down the article and created new articles. I also removed the too long tag as the length has been reduced to around that of similar articles e.g. Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool. There is still lots of work that needs to be done and the new pages needs to be improved. I added a Food and Drink in Manchester page and moved the text which was already here to there, not sure if it is really needed as the section does not cite sources but Food and Drink in Birmingham has managed to build itself up. XAndreWx 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: The economics and politics sections are completely empty, with the exception of main article tags. These sections should at least have a summary of the sub-articles and not be left empty. - Erebus555 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics and Politics sections 

message: It exists POLICE/SHERRIF/Births marriages deaths - everything is registered in (NON EXISTANT?) County of Greater Manchester. The county exists in legality. Its bizarre that u continually fight a revision war over its existence or area. I accept that the post office have never accepted it. but place like Humberside list births and death as yorks or lincs now. Mike33 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greater Manchester