Talk:Manchester Victoria station

message: Is the station usage of 0.385 million correct for a large city central station? Simply south 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures aren't exactly correct, there should be a disclaimer linked to the template, but the editors haven't implemented it yet. Basically, the figures come from sales of tickets to and from the station, but a lot of tickets for trains in and out of Manchester are listed with either "Manchester Stations" or "Manchester CTLZ" for the four stations of Victoria, Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Deansgate. Rather than divide the figures by the number of stations present, the statisticians opted for the easy option and dumped all the tickets they couldn't identify into the statistics for the largest station (Piccadilly). Road Wizard 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, dividing the tickets evenly wouldn't have been any more valid - possibly
less so in fact. So I don't know why it's seen as an "easy option". Unless someone spends a lot of money on censuses or surveys it's not going to be possible to allocate the tickets sensibly.
Possibly better would be to show "Manchester Stations"(unspecified) separately.
Anyway if you take the 2004-5 figures and add "interchange" traffic you end up with 891,000.
Possibly the true figure, including Metrolink, and GMPTE season ticket holders, is about 5 million but that's a guess.
Exile 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The usage figures in the infobox look ridiculous as they now stand, with an apparent jump from half a million to 5 million from one year to the next. I propose we remove the years 2004/5 and 2005/6 from the infobox so that all the figures shown are on a comparable basis. -- Alarics (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long suspected that all the station usage figures are dodgy (I know they come from an official source), but this is not the worst: see  for example. If there were a general move to deprecate the usage parameters I would support it; but pending that, I'm neither adding nor removing them. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two major changes responsible, better division of group stations and the inclusion of PTE tickets which were previously uncounted. WatcherZero (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks quite absurd to give those figures with no explanation, so I have deleted the years 2004/5 and 2005/6 as suggested. -- Alarics (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to do that for every rail station in a PTE area in the country then? Because If I remember right it was a pretty uniform 39% average rise in usage 08/09 and at grouping stations 07/08 always has a temporary downwards swing as they over estimated the grouping allocations in 06/07 the first year they changed them. WatcherZero (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 39% is one thing, but this was 900% - ridiculous unless given with some explanation. -- Alarics (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage 

message: The reason for the previous low usage figures was because of a different method used to measure the number of journeys. As of the 2007 usage, this changed with the separating of grouped stations and other things, which reulted in Man Piccadilly going down but Man Oxford Road, Deansgate and Man Victoria going up. See this report. Simply south (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage figures in the infobox look ridiculous as they now stand, with an apparent jump from half a million to 5 million from one year to the next. I propose we remove the years 2004/5 and 2005/6 from the infobox so that all the figures shown are on a comparable basis. -- Alarics (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long suspected that all the station usage figures are dodgy (I know they come from an official source), but this is not the worst: see  for example. If there were a general move to deprecate the usage parameters I would support it; but pending that, I'm neither adding nor removing them. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two major changes responsible, better division of group stations and the inclusion of PTE tickets which were previously uncounted. WatcherZero (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks quite absurd to give those figures with no explanation, so I have deleted the years 2004/5 and 2005/6 as suggested. -- Alarics (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to do that for every rail station in a PTE area in the country then? Because If I remember right it was a pretty uniform 39% average rise in usage 08/09 and at grouping stations 07/08 always has a temporary downwards swing as they over estimated the grouping allocations in 06/07 the first year they changed them. WatcherZero (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 39% is one thing, but this was 900% - ridiculous unless given with some explanation. -- Alarics (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: When and how did the name change from Hunt's Bank to Victoria? Budhen (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunts Bank/Victoria 

message: Theres too many of simlar scenes in the same time period lacking notability when only a couple would serve for illusrative purposes, pick one or two and delete the rest please. WatcherZero (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is already a , and all the old pics are in commons:Category:Manchester Victoria station already, we definitely don't need all of them. I nominate :File:Manchester Victoria railway station 2118098 93089916.jpg and :File:Manchester Victoria 6 railway station geograph-2161766.jpg to keep, since they show the station buildings. Most of the rest show little or nothing of the actual station. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What a rare and delicious luxury. Thank you Ben Brooksbank. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vintage Photos 

message: Should the number of metrolink platforms be listed in the infobox? I made this change but another editor reverted it. That's fine, but there should be consistency with the Manchester Piccadilly article- either that should have it's infobox changed to remove Metrolink platforms, or this should have it changed to add them  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.51.164 (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two infoboxes, one for each part of the station. Each infobox contains that information that is specific to the corresponding portion. Giving Piccadilly as an example to copy from is straight-up WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrolink Platforms in Infobox