Talk:Manchester/Archive 1

message: I have this source:
http://www.cec.org.uk/info/pubs/regional/nw/chap1p4.htm
:The Greater Manchester conurbation has a population of 2.5 million, which 
:represents almost two-fifths of the North West’s total population; it is 
:the second largest conurbation in the UK.
Do you have anything more authoritative? - Khendon 08:25 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
:How about wikipedia! Birmingham... this would need to be corrected too if its wrong. "Greater Manchester" is a bit misleading, as there are several large cities in the Greater Manchester area that are technically seperate authorities. However the same applies to London in this sense, and getting a firm grip on population could be difficult. Greg Godwin 08:51 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
That's why it specifically talks about the "conurbation". The Birmingham article
isn't wrong either, AFAIK - it talks about the city of Birmingham, rather than 
the conurbation around it. Greater Manchester is made up of two cities and a collection of towns that are *administratively* separate, but it's all part
of one cohesive urban "sprawl". Talking about the population of just the
city of Manchester would be (as you note) as misleading as talking about
just the city of London. - Khendon 09:19 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
conurbation
:But the Birmingham page says it it forms part of a large conurbation of over four million. This would easily exceed the 2.5 million quoted for Manchester. One of these pages must be wrong.  -- Chris Q 09:33 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
: OK I am sure it is the third largest so I've decided to "be bold"
"Although the population of Manchester City is only 400,000 and of Greater Manchester, 2.5 million" from http://www.commonwealthgames.ca/eng/publication/cdm/cdm0400.htm.
"Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK and has a population of over 1 million" from http://www.locatebirmingham.org.uk/pages/images/pdf_files/Key_Fact_Pack_1_in_full_colour.pdf
Why not forget the whole "conurbation" thing altogether, and just state the facts. Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK. Greg Godwin 12:40 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
:Its OK with me if you want to do that ! -- Chris Q 12:44 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
The problem with removing the "conurbation" idea and just talking about the city of Manchester is it would give a misleading impression. - Khendon 12:53 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
:I cant see an issue though. The City of Manchester has a population of 400,000 - Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5 million, why don't we just put the 400,000 in Manchester and the conurbation size in Greater Manchester, it makes perfect sense -  Greg Godwin
And would you support the same criteria being applied to London? - Khendon 12:59 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
:As a compromise, why not state the population of Manchester as 400,000 but in parathesis note that the conurbation is upwards of 2.5 million. As we have a page on Greater Manchester it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure on population of the City of London, but I suspect it is greater than Birmingham and certainly larger than Manchester.
Population of the City of London was 5200 in 1998, according to 
City of London - Khendon 13:06 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
:he-he I was a little bit off then! Birmingham is commonly recognised as the second largest city in the UK, at least from everything I've read. Although I think everybody is arguing the same point here, as we have two different definations (city/conurbation) and two matching results (400,000/2.5 million). Lets just mention both figures, I can't see why not. Greg Godwin 13:21 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Let me throw a cat amoung the pigeons, Manchester is the sixth largets city!
From  National Statistics:
*Birmingham (1,013,431)
*Leeds (727,389)
*Sheffield (531,141)
*Bradford (483,285)
*Liverpool (461,481)
*Manchester (429,812)
*Bristol (402,310)
*Croydon (338,217)
*Cardiff (320,940)
*Wakefield (318,804)
*Dudley (311,468)
*Wigan (310,491)
*Coventry (304,334)
So by city size Machester is sixth in England and Wales!
:Yes, but that's divided along arbitrary administrative divisions. Imagine
:you had a map of the country, colour-coded by urbanisation. There would
:be a distinct cohesive urban area around each "city proper". That's the
:most useful size to use when comparing cities. Anyway, I think the
:article is now clear and accurate enough for everyone, isn't it? - Khendon 14:01 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Making claims on city size/comparisons is always going to be controversial. To think that there are only 5200 people in London!... Greg Godwin
:Controversial, but too important to skip over, I think. - Khendon 15:27 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Today's scores (from the 4 Wikipedia articles)
*Manchester 391,000
*Birmingham 1,013,431
*Birmingham conurbation "around 2.2 million" 
*Manchester conurbation 2,438,000
*Greater Manchester "about 2.5 million"
*West Midlands 2,552,000 
Andy G 23:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Census of 29 April 2001: 
:*Manchester 392,819; Greater Manchester 2,482,352 
:*Birmingham 977,091; West Midlands (county) 2,555,596. 
:That isn't really the point, though: for one thing, the counties in neither case represent the city even at its widest extent (Bolton and Wigan aren't in Manchester any more than Coventry or Wolverhampton are in Bormingham, though they're all in the respective metropolitan counties). The real issue is that Manchester is ludicrously underbounded in comparison with say Leeds, while Birmingham is about right. If Manchester had enjoyed the same kind of boundary extension that Birmingham experienced in 1891-1931 it would be approaching a similar size - and I'm not talking here about conurbations, which can often lump together independent urban areas of similar rank. 
:I still think that leaves Birmingham securely Britain's second city, but it shows that we have to be careful in throwing out rankings - I'd put Liverpool and Manchester ahead of Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford in "real" terms, ie disregarding purely administrative boundaries: as for Wakefield, Dudley and Wigan (about 310,000 apiece for the administrative area, which in each case includes neighbouring towns), I doubt any would come close to 100,000 on a similar definition. Oh, and Newcastle should be up there too with about 450,000 once Gateshead is included. 
:Graculus (how do you do that time thing?) 
------
The Office for National Statistics publish official figures for conurbations from the 2001 census.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8271.xls
Greater Manchester Urban Area - 2,244,931
West Midlands Urban Area - 2,284,093
So whether you measure it by city, conurbation or metropolitan county, Manchester is still smaller than Birmingham.
Billy.
----
re the number of universities: it was announced last week that the University of Manchester and UMIST are to merge, so someone should be ready to make the appropriate changes when it actually happens! Arwel 15:16 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
===population===
I have adjusted the population statistics upwards because the original cesus figures have been shown to be incorrect and have been revised upwards: see here  just in case anyone was wondering G-Man 19:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Second largest conurbation in the UK''

message: I have adjusted the population statistics upwards because the original cesus figures have been shown to be incorrect and have been revised upwards: see here  just in case anyone was wondering G-Man 19:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: population

message: Am I alone in finding this Second City stuff tiresome? Do we think that the user will come to this article to learn about Manchester is interested either? In any case, surely Glasgow is the Second city of the UK. It used to be the Second City of the Empire! I suggest a separate article Second city of England where the debate can continue for those who care.Cutler 10:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Rest assured, you're not alone. But before anyone decides to fill in those red links, there is already a second city article with a UK section, where the whole issue has been played out in the past, and continues to linger on.We had it down to the bare bones before xmas, and that looked pretty good, but I think it's got flabby again since. I've been embroiled in second city arguments before and can see with confidence that all it does in the end is mess up decent articles. It's wreaking havoc with this one. Mattley 10:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiresome

message: The recent addition that Old Trafford (ManU's ground) is in Trafford, is of course right. However, to someone not familiar with M'cr this sounds as if it was out somewhere... how can we bring in that Trafford is part of Greater Manchester? Kokiri 09:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ManU

message: The article should probably make some mention of The Guardian, altho I am unsure where and how... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:42, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
:The 'media' section seems the best place, as it already mentions the Guardian's sister publication, the Manchester Evening News. I added a sentence and link. --David Edgar 15:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Grauniad

message: Since the Manchester page is really about the City of Manchester, I think it should be merged with Manchester City Centre. What do people think? Bornslippy 12:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I made a few comments on Talk:Manchester City Centre. --David Edgar 09:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with City Centre article

message: Manchester has a great music history but The Charlatans are not a Manchester band, they were formed in Brum by a Brummie, and the band have consisted mainly of West Midlands musicians throughout their history, Mark is the only member from Manchester, Tim is from Chester area and he is quoted as distancing himself from the Manchester Scene (otherwise known as the baggy or indie scene to many) sorry to be pedantic but this place has made me this way :)
: The item which has been removed did not describe The Charlatans as a Manchester band--indeed I specifically changed the text to state that they were from Birmingham.  They were associated with the Madchester phenomenon, so it's wrong to remove them on the grounds that they were actually from Birmingham. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Charlatans

message: On Nick Boulevard's additions, I think they're vague. It isn't enough to say that "although some say it is a missleading poll", you have to be more specific.  I'm removing this until someone can come up with a specific, significant reference (not "the bloke I met down the pub says it's misleading.") --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchester is more recently regarded as England's second city after London by many; a 2002 opinion poll  illustrates the prevalence of this impression; although Birmingham has a much larger population and has also claimed this title for many decades, fewer people described Birmingham as England's second city than Manchester.
So although we note that despite the fact that Manchester doesn't have the population to challenge Birmingham (which in my mind is easily the winner in the Second City stakes, for what it's worth), nevertheless in a fairly recent poll (yes, probably affected by recent high profile events in Manchester) significantly more people think Manchester is the second city (utter nonsense in my mind, but that makes the prevalence of the impression all the more significant).
To summarise:
* I don't think Manchester has a ghost of a chance of challenging Birmingham as England's second city.
* I do think the fact that so many people regard it as the second most important city is worth mentioning.
And 5% in a poll size of around 1000 is usually regarded as significant in opinion polling.  The surprising thing is that the number who think of Manchester as England's second most important city is anywhere near those who think Birmingham is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok well i've edited the second city title to try and please both sides, you cannot simply deny the fact that for many, many decades the second city has been Birmingham, it's a massive cultural place that gets grosely overlooked mainly by the press. Imagine if Manchester had been known as the second city for decades with hundreds of well established business's with 'second city' in their title (heaven forbid they ever read this page) and then one day the press decided they would pass the crown to Birmingham??? you'd be well pissed off and i don't think you would let it pass you by! Manchester is a magnificent vibrant city like Birmingham but it is not second to London in many ways, (in some ways Manc might be first?) i prefer to think of Manchester as the main city of the north west but even that may be contested by Liverpool and that is something i wish NOT to get emroiled in.
Nick Boulevard 22:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Just a warning to the anonymous user who keeps blanking this page, if you do it again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Difficult one, this, as the term is so vague.  Obviously Birmingham has a higher population but in terms of influence (and football trophies :-P) Manchester does pretty well.  I suggest trying to resolve this by citing sources - can we get references for people whose opinions are considered important (Blair would be a good example but can't find anything on google) saying which they consider to be the second city?  It's perfectly reasonable to say that many consider Manchester to be Britain's second city - they do - but as with anything contentious it would be helpful to have a source.
Of course, I'm biased as hell and think Birmingham is Britain's second city - after Manchester. CTOAGN 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second city 

message: I have had it in my mind for a while to start an article Crime and policing in Manchester. This would serve as an informal portal for such much needed and overdue articles as:
*Quality Street gang
*James Anderton
*John Stalker
*Anatasios Arnaouti (well, not so overdue)
*...
- in addition to providing a home for all the stuff on gun-related crime which does seem to take up a disproportionate amount of space in the main articles. Any thoughts on this idea? Cutler 20:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
**Good idea. There's so much more to Manchester and this stuff in the main article could have made people look at the city in a bad light - it's in the past now. Smileyrepublic 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime and policing in Manchester 

message: The Bull_Ring,_Birmingham article claims that's the biggest shopping centre in Europe - clearly one of the articles is wrong, and I believe it's this one (someone can change it if its not...).  I also reworded the section as it seemed to imply that Manchester is unique in having two indoor shopping centres, rather than two large ones.
--Alex Whittaker 17:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arndale centre/Bullring 

message: I have to say this is one of the poorer articles about UK cities. It seems to consist mostly of lists, and reads more like a travel guide than an encyclopedia article. Compare this to say the Birmingham, Bristol Liverpool or London articles, and you will see that this is sorely lacking. Its about time some serious effort as put into bringing this up to standard. G-Man 20:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've been taking out the worst crap - now on to making it read more coherently and look nicer.. Cormaggio 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Music section is terrible and rather boring, surely the Manchester music scene should be to the point and above all, make you want to read on, I am sure there are loads of bands missed off the list? Nick Boulevard 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is poor

message: In what terms? Land area? Passengers a year? Daily flights? How much of that is freight? Dan100 (Talk) 19:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:In terms of passengers a year it's actually fourth. As this is verifiable information, I am amending as such. Dan100 (Talk) 19:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
::What's third, as a matter of interest? Cormaggio 01:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Third-largest airport" 

message: Not a neutral page at all. --The Bad Tax Man 11:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain? David 11:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a troll. David 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How is it a biased article then? David 11:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, this guy is a troll - can someone lock up the article and deal with this? David 11:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You need to get out more and make some friends. David 11:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: David, please don't give this person any attention. Instead just try to address the article - it does need improvement. Meantime, said user has an appointment with a cluestick. Cormaggio @ 12:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Arwel. Cormaggio @ 12:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ignore it, it was pure vandalism.  The same vandal hit a number of other pages. -- Curps 20:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality