Talk:Manchester/Archive 3

message: I've updated this sentence to remove the undue prominence given to Birmingham in what is an article about Manchester. Note that I say the prominence is undue not because I am partisan but because it is given in the opening sentences of the article - this is an article about Manchester, not about which city is the UK's second city. Let that battle be fought out by those who care particularly on the page that I have linked through to, and I suggest we aim to keep this article free of that particular squabble.
:This seems somewhat familiar.... (See ) Matthew 13:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second City

message: I have moved City of Manchester back to its original home at Manchester following the debate and vote at Talk:City of Manchester. And have merged the edit history of the deleted Manchester page into this one. G-Man 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll sort out the talk pages later today. Andreww 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: I've removed this section as it was pretty much unencyclopedic and most certainly did not have a NPOV. The link was to a site that was pretty much irrelevant. MRSC 12:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The gangs of Manchester

message: I have removed the following from the recent history section in the article. This stuff isn't bad per-se it was just in completely the wrong place. I shall put it here until I (or someone else) can work out what to do with it. G-Man 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: A reference to Jamal Morelli was added to the TV and radio section a few hours ago by an anonymous editor, though they didn't bother to wikilink that article.  The exact same text was added in late december, by a different anon IP, which presumably explains the "please don't cut without explaining" comment on the more recent edit summary.
There seems little reason to give Mr Jamal such a prominent position alongside Granada TV and Auntie Beeb, particularly given that more prominent local production companies (e.g. Cosgrove Hall Films) are not listed, and the article is already pretty large.  Could the anonymous editor(s) please explain why this is worthy of inclusion here, before it just gets deleted again? Blufive 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamal Morelli 

message: This is an urban myth. Cities such as London, Paris, Rome and Berlin have several hundreds of thousands of students - many times the number that Manchester has. Even some quite small cities such as Toulouse and Bologna have over 100,000 which is quite a few more than Manchester.
In the UK context, the number of students in higher education at Manchester-based institutions (Manchester University, MMU, RNCM and UMIST) in the latest year for which consistent figures are available (2003/04) was 72,890, but this includes around 5,000 based at the MMU campuses in Crewe and Alsager over 30 miles away, so the final number for Manchester itself is about the same as the totals for Birmingham (68,890), Glasgow (67,110) and Leeds (66,115).
Greater Manchester as a whole had 99,395 students in higher education in 2003/04, considerably fewer than London (366,460) and the West Midlands (140,496) and probably fewer than West Yorkshire (97,210) if you subtract the Crewe and Alsager 5,000. This is fewer students percapita in each case, as well as fewer in total.
So Manchester's student population isn't really unusually large, and *Greater* Manchester's is in fact surprisingly small relative to other comparable areas in the UK. The only unusual thing is that so many of them are concentrated in a single small area of the city around the Oxford Road, which is presumably how the myth arose.
Latest statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency here - http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/institution0304.csv
- I believe the statistic was referring to student density in a particular area. I'll try and find backup for this. Myth it may well be, but that's the way I'd always heard it. I lived in Fallowfield/Owen's Park for over 20 years and saw no reason to doubt it, put it that way. - Renaissance Manc  
::The statistic used by the University of Manchester itself in its recruitment videos (not necessarily true though!) is the highest concentration of students in Europe. It also mentions the bus route being the busiest in europe, but it didn't reference anything.Jameskeates 14:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only example I can find that isn't university related is from the South Manchester Reporter. I think the original claim was that the bus stop outside Owens Park is the busiest in Europe. Oldelpaso 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student population "one of the largest in Europe" 

message: I have removed a paragraph about an alleged sectarian divide between supporters of City and United, as it is speculative, and also not of particular relevance to the city of Manchester, Manchester derby would be a more appropriate place. In any case, I do not think the assertion has much basis in fact. City were formed from a church team, but have not had church ties since 1887 or possibly earlier. United are popular in Ireland, but I would have thought that's more to do with George Best than anything else. I also removed a list of local people who support each club. Discussions on football club pages have favoured removing such lists. Oldelpaso 16:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport section

message: If Leicester is pronounced "lester" and Gloucester is pronounced "gloster", why isn't Manchester pronounced "manster"? JIP | Talk 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beacause Manchester has an "H", and Leicester and Gloucester do not. Oldelpaso 09:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Has anyone got a source for this. It doesn't seem correct. Greater Manchester has 9 clubs for 2.5 mil (288 thou per club) whereas South Yorkshire has 5 clubs for about 1.25 mil (255 thou per club). It also lists FC Manchester as a profesional club, which it isn't. josh (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I also suggest that such an item doesn't belong in the Manchester article, but in the Greater Manchester one.  Rochdale, for example, in no sense represents Manchester, and Wigan officially isn't even in the same conurbation as Manchester, although it is in the Metropolitan County. Steven J 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  highest concentration of football clubs per capita 

message: I reviewed it, and have given it its well-deserved "good article" badge. I've also given most of it a new copyedit for style and consistency. I hope that has helped polish it a little bit more. Metamagician3000 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: An anonymous user, User talk:62.252.196.26, has today made a large number of changes to the Manchester page. A couple of them are clearly wrong, based on the source information, and I have reverted them. Another, about the Beetham Tower, I have expanded on to provide explanation. However, there still remain a number of changes and blankings that could prove contraversial. It may be best if we discuss if these should go back into the page before a revert war is triggered. The list of edits are:
* "As in any large city, there has always been a thriving nightclub culture in Manchester, but its place in the history of modern clubbing arguably surpasses that of every other city in the UK with the possible exception of London."
: Changed to: "As in any large city, there has always been a thriving nightclub culture in Manchester."
* "The Shambles contains a branch of Harvey Nichols, the UK’s flagship Marks and Spencer store, and a branch of Selfridges. Together with the branch at the Trafford Centre, this means Manchester is the only city in the UK to have more than one branch of Selfridges."
: Changed to: "The Shambles contains a branch of Harvey Nichols, a Marks and Spencer store, and a branch of Selfridges."
* "Other buildings include a 150 metre tall office building, a new justice centre and new Crown Court."
: Changed to: "Other buildings include a 110 metre tall office building, a new justice centre and new Crown Court." (I'm not sure which one of these is correct as neither version supplies a name for the building to check)
* Removal of the statement: "The city is the main UK television production centre outside London"
* Removal of the statement: "Outside the city centre there is a large John Lewis department store situated eight miles to the south of the city centre at Cheadle and also one at the Trafford Centre."
* Removal of "Imperial War Museum North by Daniel Libeskind and Lowry Footbridge" from the places of interest.
* Removal of the statement: "The centre of Salford is situated less than 20 metres from the centre of Manchester, across the River Irwell." from the Districts in the City of Manchester section.
I would appreciate any comments you have on wheter these changes should be reverted or left as they are. Thanks. Road Wizard 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by 62.252.196.26 

message: The film section lists Grand Hotel (1932) as a film set in Manchester, yet this source says it was set in Berlin. Does anyone have any sources to verify that it was set in Manchester before I remove it from the list? Thanks. Road Wizard 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: I have chopped things around quite a lot so that less priority is given to pop culture. I think the balance of the article needs some work. The government section is little but lists of subdivisions (and they aren't very clearly presented), and it really needs to give readers an idea of how the city is governed, and by whom. This applies especially to non-UK readers who will have no idea what the powers of the various types of subdivision may be. The business section needs a lot of work: what is Manchester's economic role in the UK and in the world? At the moment the section doesn't say. The education section lacks context and says nothing about schools. The transport section also needs an introductory overview to put the detail in context.
Other things could be moved into subarticles (while leaving a summary here - far too often people just wipe out a whole section when they create a subarticle, which tends to leave the balance of the main article worse than it was beforehand). The main Manchester article really doesn't need to give advice on buying bus tickets; maybe travel in Manchester could, but not in a tourist guide manner. The further reading section of the nightlife section needs to be moved somehow, either to the end of this article, or into Nightlife in Manchester. 
That said, there is a lot of information and some sections are excellent. CalJW 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article balance / expansion / contraction

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it has weak coverage of some of the fundamentals as explained above.
CalJW 02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:At 75kb in length this article is far too long.  More concise writing is needed throughout.  Article length guidelines suggest 32kb as a healthy maximum.  Worldtraveller 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can shorten the history section and the transport section. Create a Transport in Manchester article if needed. Perhaps also culture and media. Skinnyweed 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: Can someone provide verification for the statement:
* Manchester also had Britain's first sewer network, which still exists today.
Weren't the Romans the first to build sewer networks in the UK? If so, is the Manchester sewer network Roman? Somehow I think one of their main southern settlements would have received a sewer system before their northern outposts. Does anyone have any comments about this? Thanks. Road Wizard 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it means the first post-Roman sewer system. David 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know when the sewers were built? We could say, "Manchester also had Britain's first post-Roman sewer system." but that could be taken to mean that anyone from the Vikings to the Victorians built it. Thanks. Road Wizard 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First British Sewer System? 

message: We should put these two in their respective sections, rather than here. Skinnyweed 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, that should hopefully allow us to cut down on duplication on this overly large article. Road Wizard 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" links 

message: I have removed this unnecessary list. Skinnyweed 17:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every previous version of this article (and indeed any article) is available by clicking on the "history" tab at the top. Oldelpaso 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film trivia 

message: There are lots of suggestions for ways of shortening this article, and there is still a lot of work needed.  There's lots of discussion, but little action taken.  I'd suggest that some sub-articles would help.  I think there's a good case for separate articles on Transport in Manchester, Sport In Greater Manchester, Science in Manchester and so on.  The history section on the main page is too long (especially as there is already a sub-article) and I think there are cases for more sub articles - such as culture in Manchester, encompassing art, media, theatre, film and music.  What do other people think?  Can we get a consensus to at least create the transport page as this would help shortening. --Gavinio 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Work Needed on this Page 

message: We could possibly do with mentioning the M postal area and also the Manchester post town.  Morwen - Talk 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it reflects Greater Manchester. Salford and Trafford certainly have "M" post codes. Cymruisrael 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post town 

message: Has some nicer people than London and Birmingham.
Especially the women, very nice indeed. Am I allowed to put that here!? 81.158.210.172 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add 

message: The city has a population of half a million, whilst Manchester as a whole is home to 2.5 Million people, making it England's and the United Kingdom's second largest city after London.
Wtf? The city has a population of half a million. And then later on in the paragraph the city gains a further two million people?
:The city has a population of just under half a million.  The conurbation has a population of around two and a half million, roughly the same as West Midlands.  Manchester and the Greater Manchester Urban Area are NOT the same thing, though "Manchester" itself definately includes areas outside the borough.  Steven J 09:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big me up! 

message: At last, in an effort to bring Greater Manchester inline with other parts of the country, there is now a new user category to help connect Wikipedians from across the Greater Manchester county with each other.
This will be invaluable should there be a push or project which requires collaboration on a Greater Manchester related article in the future. Those who are interested, please see :Category:Wikipedians in Greater Manchester and follow the instructions as appropriate. Many thanks, Jhamez84 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Category 

message: Can we look at updating the Infobox? I'm not familliar with how to format such things or else I certainly would do!... Manchester's looks tired and is basically just a table. Birmingham has a sleek looking one, although London's is the best! Is there a UK-city specific infobox we should be using anyway? I know "places" have one at Template:Infobox England place. Jhamez84 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could upgrade the Manchester one to the type shown on the Birmingham page. I may do it when I have the time. David 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the offer! However, I've since had a whirlwind training session and upgraded the infobox! Hope it's well received. Jhamez84 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, good stuff. :) David 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hi there.  I thought it might be worth bringing the following to your attention, as there are certain editors on Wikipedia who learn the results of a poll and repeatedly make reference to its results on every vaguely relevant page, apparently with little critical consideration.  Let's hope they don't didn't watch the pseudo-science of Channel 4's Worst Places to Live 2006 () and don't find out about it either! ;-) (Yes, I am being tongue in cheek, but I think there's a more serious point in here too.) Matthew 13:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New poll result

message: I switched the metric and imperial units around on the climate table due to metric being the official and currently predominant form in England (unlike where Jhamez84 borrowed the climate table from - nice work on that by the way). Any problems with the change feel free to revert and state here the reasoning. Jastein 00:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate Table

message: What are the people of Manchester called? Birmingham are Brummies, Liverpool are Liverpudlians and London are Londoners. So what are the people of Manchester called? Manchesties?- SCB '92 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mancunians, sometimes shortened to Mancs. Matthew 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Residents 

message: "Note that Manchester United is in Greater Manchester but not inside Manchester city limits: it is in Trafford borough. But it is the city's biggest football club and most succsessful winning several premiership trophys, FA cups and european cup."
It's worth recording, how the hell has this managed to last at least two weeks?--82.15.46.131 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth para 

message: I've just wiped the section on gun culture. Not only was it full of grammatical and spelling errors but it may many unsupported claims. Whether Manchester has a significant gun culture is something I am out of touch with but this post (the first by this anonymous poster) seemed not to be adding anything to the article. Normally, I am not so harsh as to wipe and by all means return it if appropriate, corrected and referenced.
The article was:
"==Gun Culture==
As with any major city, crime is bound to be a problem and the 'gun culture' has put a dint in Manchesters well established proud history. (Grammar, PoV)
There was a claim that major gang members who operate through gun crime, on average, dont make it past the tender age of 24. (Grammar, citation)
The Metropolitan Police have produced statistics that showed there has been a 3% climb in gun crime and a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation weapons. (Citation)
The actual total of fire-arms on the streets of Manchester is admittedly hard to predict but the recent shootings and escalation in gun crime is for all to see. Events such as the drive-by of the 15 year old school pupil, police officers being killed on duty reaching national news. (PoV, ref, grammar)
This has prompted insensitive nicknames such as the "Iraq of the North-West" and "Gun-chester". (Ref)
However glamorous the city is, there is a less than desirable underbelly of Manchester which bares unemployment, gang-prown areas fueling crime and a general 'rough tough' lifestlye lived out by many. (PoV, spelling)
Manchester is a great place with a character to match but the elevation in 'Gun Culture' is ringing alarm bells for any prospective tourists and tainting the image of what is in many peoples opinion 'the second city' of England. (PoV)"
Candy 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Culture 

message: As per the official Wikipedia polciy (WP:LEAD) the lead section of the article is way too long at six paragraphs. It needs to be streamlined to four paragraphs. If nobody objects I'll take out some of the info relating to Greater Manchester from the lead section (as this is repeated again further in the article and doesn't srictly aid/relate to Manchester). Jhamez84 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: This statement: "Manchester is historically notable for being the world's first industrialised city,"
This is a bold statement however this is unsourced. Please source it to avoid any other future disputes over this. Thank you - Erebus555 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's particularly controversial (though may need caveating as 'world's first industrialised major city' or similar), but I think you're right that a source should be found.  Related to this, I'm not so sure that the 'central' in the second half of this sentence is the right word - 'major' seems less controversial while still acknowledging the large part played by the mills etc.  Thoughts? Matthew 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it need caveating to 'world's first industrialised major city' or similar? Is there a world's first industrialised minor city? If so what is it? ˜˜˜˜ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much my concern - what is it, exactly, to be an industrialised city?  Would a small city with a factory count as more industrialised than a large one with five factories?  It's probably not a concern (can only think of small towns, as opposed to cities, but perhaps this is a quirk of the way we differentiate the two in the UK) but inserting 'major' would stop it all from the outset. Matthew 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed a common assertion/well known fact that this is true; and alot of literature exists to back it up. I've provided two sources, one of which is from a quick google search, the other from an academic journal. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something amiss with your second ref.  That volume of English Historical Review contains a review by David Nash of Fielding and Davies' book, but that is at p191, not 1323, and as far as I can tell, makes no reference to Manchester being the first industrialised city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not some kind of citation from Urbis itself?  It would be doubly beneficial, as it would be a citation from a pretty authoritative and neutral source, as opposed to from someone somewhere on the Interweb sharing what his particular thought on the matter is. Matthew 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Though it was a provisional source whilst I searched print material. I've found two more sources for this statement just from my own personal books alone - I'm sure there are hundreds. I must say that I'm presuming those users who seek the citation are not from Manchester, or indeed England, as I understood this to be taken as read. Anyway, hope the new references suffice.... now to the rest of the article.... Jhamez84 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Lonely Planet - should be a sufficiently neutral source free from any kind of marketing spin! NB I think that the original poster was being pedantic, but that's fine.  Matthew 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a Pevsner Architectural Guide (same logic)? Matthew 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial thought.  However, I couldn't find anything so specific in the book.  We do have "Ancoats ... was the world's first industrial suburb ..." (p5) "SE Lancashire and Manchester became the first industrial economy and society in the world ..." (p13) which is not quite the same thing.  Mr Stephen 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source this statement please 

message: For those, if there is anyone, interested I have created a proposal for a Manchester WikiProject.  I think a Wikiproject to co-ordinate work on articles about Manchester could be useful. 
Pit-yacker 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea.  I've got no idea how one would go about doing this though! --Gavinio 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry forgot to post that the proposal details are posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Manchester.  AFAICT, its not too difficult to start, but for it to work three needs to be enough people interested.  Pit-yacker 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added my support eventhough I'm from Birmingham. You will probably ohnly find me editting buildings and structures articles though as that's the only thing I am really interested in on Wiki. - Erebus555 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now five editors interested - I think this is the minimum threshold for initiating such a project- though some interest is conditional on creating a Greater Manchester wide WikiProject. Jhamez84 02:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject:Manchester

message: "Manchester also has one of the largest ASDA-WalMart supercentres in the UK"
Wow! Is this really wothy of note? Can the statement just be removed? The largest of something maybe, but 'one of'? We're effectively saying that Manchester has grocery stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.152.194 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shopping 

message: I think that perhaps the information on nightlife is a little too historical, should this section not read more like a city guide for tourists etc?
:No - that's what Wikitravel is for! Matthew 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too historical?