Jump to content

Talk:Greater Manchester/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Definitions

Please add suggestions at Talk:City_of_Manchester#Definitions about which Manchester-related articles we should have and what each of them should contain. Cormaggio @ 00:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the text of this definition. I believe GM as a county only ever existed while there was a county council. The county council was created and the county council was abolished. There remains are an area which is referred to as Greater Manchester but it's not a county in an administrative sense and it is not recognised in any way by the Government Office for the North West. Surely any reference to GM as being a 'county' is misleading?

Also doesn't there need to be a clear definition of what the GM conurbation is and shouldn't the definition highlight how that differs from any area which might be recognised for statistical collection purposes - which is where GM might exist as an administrative convenience rather than a legal entity. Cosmopolitancats 13:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of what the GM conurbation is. It's the Greater Manchester Urban Area, defined by the ONS. Fingerpuppet 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county (they just happen to no longer have county councils) and a ceremonial/geographic county by virtue of the Lieutenancies Act 1997. It is a county therefore in two ways. David 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite evidence for the former definition. The Lieutenancies Acts surely only relates to the ceremonial function. Middlesex is a county but I believe Wikipedia is treating that as history. The more important area for the purposes of wikipedia is the GM conurbation as defined for statistical purposes - see Finerpuppet's comment. Cosmopolitancats 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Having had another look at this I am completely at a loss as to why there are two Greater Manchester pages in wikipedia when one of them is perfectly capable of being subsumed into the other. The ceremonial aspect of the county is of very minor importance compared to the geographical framework used for the collection of important and informative statistics - which is the area covered by the metropolitan boroughs. I would suggest that the two articles are combined to avoid confusion and that the aspect which should take the lead is the urban conurbation and geog. framework relating to the ONS. The ceremonial aspects can be dealt with adequately in a sub-section. Cosmopolitancats 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two articles (both this and the GMUA) because a) they deal with different divisions of land, with different purposes and origins, b) to avoid confusion between the two, and c) to maintain national consistency with every other county/Urban area article on Wikipedia (e.g. Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and Wigan Urban Area). The Government Office for the North West website you cited earlier (if you re-read carefully) outlines administrative authorities (i.e. councils - people/organisations!), not divisions of land (hense why Merseyside is also not on that list). All of this is explained within the text of the Wikipedia articles themselves with references. The ONS GMUA does not correlate at all with any of the metropolitan boroughs or even any borough/county system (historic, administrative, shire, metro, postal or ceremonial!); it is a completely different system of geography. 86.138.162.84 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The GMUA is a conurbation, a continuous built up area. Greater Manchester Metropolitan County is an administrative area. The two are not the same, despite the similarity in name. Whilst I agree that there is no actual administration done at the GMC level, there are still bodies that cover the GMC area, such as the GM Police amongst many others. See also West Midlands conurbation and West Midlands (county) for another pairing - similar name, similar location but very different in terms of what they are. Fingerpuppet 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The name

There is an article in The Times of April 30, 1971, "Regional notebook" section by John Chartres, which gleefully mocks the "Selnec" name, quoting the Lord Mayor of Manchester as saying "who wants to call himself a Selneckian?"

Also Chartres notes

"Even in here in the egalitarian north-west there is a teeny weeny bit of snobbishness over addresses. Not many will admit it openly, but dwellers in the such lush places south of Manchester as Altrincham, Bowdon, Hale and Wilmslow have set a certain store by their Cheshire addresses and do not always blurt out to people they meet on holiday that they live in the suburbs of Manchester."

He then in the second-to-last paragraph proposes using the name "Greater Manchester". 82.35.9.122 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The SELNEC reference is very old and belongs in the history section Cosmopolitancats 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User Category

At last, in an effort to bring us 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 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sports Section

I've removed:

Some will say that the ONLY team in Manchester is Manchester City F.C., this is due to the fact that local rivals Manchester United F.C. ply their trade in the borough of Trafford.

although some County fans might take offence with calling them a 'Manchester team' after self styling themselves as 'The Pride Of Cheshire'. Bury and Rochdale, although still situated within the parameters of Greater Manchester are considered more as Lancashire teams, as with Wigan and Bolton in The Premiership.

Greater Manchester could be considered as one of Britain's most successful sporting counties.

To me, they're Weasel words I'm afraid. If any can be attributed to a source, then stick it back in. I've expanded the sports section the include other sports, and thrown in a brief note about the state of that particular sport at the moment, so hopefully it all balances out! Lawful Hippo 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section

Sorry, but I really don't understand why there's a sentence at the start of this article about the County of Greater Manchester that refers to the Greater Manchester Urban Area. Whilst there can be no argument about the EU statement itself, the user concerned appears to be using it to refer to the county, when using the word "conurbation". They are not co-terminus and indeed refer to two totally separate concepts - one being a continuous built up area, and the other being an administrative area. I notice that the same user has removed that reference to the more relevant Greater Manchester Urban Area page, and claimed Wikipedia:Verifiability (which it clearly is), Wikipedia:No original research (which it clearly isn't) and Wikipedia:Lead section.

The last named currently reads "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

Now, I know I'm relatively new around here, but it rather seems to me that adding a paragraph in the lead section of an article regarding an administrative area that refers to a similarly named but non-coterminus conurbation or city-region is not appropriate as an overview of that article, if you see what I'm getting at. Fingerpuppet 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think (given a few poorly worded articles) this is a misunderstanding - the Greater Manchester Urban Area does not necessarily mean the urban sprawl that is the Manchester/Greater Manchester conurbation - the GMUA is actually an area defined by the Office of National Statistics.
The paragraph (which was sourced and thus should not have been edited out per policy), was raising that though neither the county or the U.A. have city status in the UK, the conurbation still constitutes a large singluar city region in global/international terms.
That said, the paragraph, though raises a useful conjecture for users, wasn't really suitable for the lead, and it has been moved down to an appropriate section. I trust this elaborates somewhat, though would add for any user new or established, that it is best to make contact with fellow contributors for justification if one finds a contribution objectionable, as working together to reword statements often improves article content. Jhamez84 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Whilst the GMUA is undoubtedly defined by the ONS, I was under the distinct impression [1] that the ONS actually look at the continuous urban area to within (I think) 50 metres. I'll take this over to Greater Manchester Urban Area, where this more naturally lies Fingerpuppet 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography section

This section needs to be expanded and needs work (sorry left out signature) Cosmopolitancats 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

History section

This section has got far too little about the history of the area (sorry left out signatur)e Cosmopolitancats 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Post 1974 section get rated as a stub? I don't think it needs expanding - it was a council which lasted for 12 years. The focus should be on the present day rather than history (eg are we going to go back and rate the Poor Law Unions and the old County Boroughs as a stub as well? They held sway in the area for longer than the GMC )- which is neglected at present. Cosmopolitancats 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes today. The justification for this is that most of your edits were inaccurate and damaging to the integrity of the text. E.G. Metropolitan counties still exist, and legally so (reference here). Metropolitan boroughs are also districts, and legally so (reference here). Your edits appeared to show the contrary, removing referenced content.
Also, Greater Manchester is the legally bestowed name of an official, verifiable division of land - the metropoltian county. The conurbation that encompasses Manchester actually does not have an official name, and thus is open to interpretation as to what it includes and the extent of its boundaries. Therefore Greater Manchester is not verifiably a conurbation in encyclopedic terms.
Please do not edit that Greater Manchester only existed for 12 years - only the county council was abolished, not the county boundaries. This is explained in the text and is fully referenced. It is also against the consensus formualted by users in the British counties Naming conventions. 86.138.162.84 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you are incorrect about the conurbation. It is officially defined as the Greater Manchester Urban Area and has defined boundaries. The GMUA is quite verifiable as a conurbation. However, as the GM Urban Area has differing boundaries from the GM County (for example Wigan is part of the county but outside the GMUA, whereas Wilmslow is outside the county but inside the GMUA) the comments regarding conurbation-wide services are false. Fingerpuppet 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. You elaborate on the point I was intending to make - This article is about the metropolitan county which is not the Urban Area or a conurbation. Though I would add that the GMUA is a division of land used and determinied by ONS, and not strictly a legal/official entity bestowed upon the conurbation for universal usage beyond ONS literature. Greater Manchester (without Urban Area suffix) is not encyclopedically verifiable as a conurbation and is very POV. 86.138.162.84 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The bit I don't understand is if we are only talking about a county which only exists for ceremonial reasons then why does it have such a large entry - which concerns itself with matters wholly unrelated to its ceremonial status? (I haven't looked at the other met counties and don't know if they are the same or not) The thing which is fundamentally different about all metropolitan counties when compared to the non-met counties is that the latter continue to have councils and a role in English local government (the mets do not) and have a layer of councils which form part of them (ie the District Councils) and the Mets do not. The Metropolitan Boroughs in all met counties are all unitary authorities (having responsibility for all functions other than emergency services) and are all wholly independent of any met county.
It's a bit like talking about the Duchy of Lancashire and rather than the County of Lancashire. (I'm not sure if this is the best analogy but I'm sure you'll get the drift)Cosmopolitancats 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, public transport is also responsibillity of a county-wide body (GMPTE). And so is transport policy http://www.gmltp.co.uk/. G-Man * 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - point taken. In which case IMO this article needs to highlight MUCH more clearly in the front-end summary that this particular definition of GM (as opposed to Urban Area) relates to:

  • all those functions which operate across the Greater Manchester conurbation for reasons of scale economy but which use the 10 City/Metropolitan Borough Council areas as their geographical frame of reference. the important feature of Greater Manchester insofar as it relates to public service functions is that it operates on am essentially co-operative basis - without the benefit of a co-ordinating metropolitan council (because the only county which exists is ceremonial only!)
  • a ceremonial county

(ie reduce the history data and increase the present day profile in the summary)

The relationship between the MBCs and the relevant authorities for each relevant function might then be spelt out in a bit more detail (given the way historical matters currently swamp this article) So, for example, re Travel: the ten City and Metropolitan Borough Councils are the local highway and transport planning authorities for their areas and they have to work in partnership with the GMPTA in order to bring some coherence to travel within and across the conurbation. And the plan LTP1 was produced by staff from the constituent authorities working together on a temporary basis, and LTP2, together with monitoring and review, is co-ordinated by a permanent team, the Greater Manchester Joint Transport Team (GMJTT), seconded from those authorities. (see website for all this info - the point is it's essetially 10 authorities working ona co-operative basis).

Can we also make much clearer which bit of GM is used for which stats. So far as I am aware (ie last time I looked), most of the important stats (eg employment/unemployment) are not counted at a GM level at all. They are counted at a City/MBC level. The stats people have to find a way of grouping stats and they do it in different ways for different stats. Grouping the 10 City/MBCs together on a page does not mean there is a GM total. Bottom line - the primary unit within GM which operates the bulk of public service functions in an autonomous way is the MBC/City - not GM. They then agree to co-operate at a GM level to deliver the remaining functions. I keep getting an impression from the the article (maybe because of the strong historical flavour?) that the MBCs are somehow subordinate units when in fact they very largely run the show. Maybe because this is not spelt out upfront in the summary?

Bottom line re History: Might the whole Redcliffe Maud section and some of the other historical info thing be moved to a History sub-page so that a debate which is 35 years old does not swamp the article? It takes an awfully long time to get to the present day and the current definition of Greater Manchester.

Sorry I did no understand previously about the two separate pages for GM. The lack of clear referencing between the pages makes it very confusing. I've not changed anything this time - just suggested where I think improvements should be made to reflect properly the current modern profile of GM. However happy to draft a revised front-end if people agree with what's proposed above. Cosmopolitancats 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, The Greater Manchester police, fire service and PTE are statutary, i.e legally required to exist. They are not the result of voluntary co-operation. The local transport plan is I believe also effectively statutary, as LTPs are required to cover the same areas as Passenger Transport Executives for obvious reasons. Secondly the Local Government Act 1985 did not abolish GM as a leagal entity. Just abolished its council and redistributed its functions between the districts and Joint-boards. It is still recognised as an existing entity. G-Man * 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to these proposals - per all the reference material. We have two seperate GM articles becuase, as stated before by another user, "The ONS GMUA does not correlate at all with any of the metropolitan boroughs or even any borough/county system (historic, administrative, shire, metro, postal or ceremonial!); it is a completely different system of geography." Your proposals would undermine this point, annexing Wigan and other settlements out of Greater Manchester, and placing Cheshire territory (such as Wilmslow) into GM.
I suggest you read The Gazetter of Old and New Geographies of the United Kingdom. The fact metropolitan counties don't have an upper tier council has no impact upon its county status. I'm presuming you intend to make these changes to Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear etc, saying they are nothing but ceremonial conurbations!? Counties of England have a complex history, hence complex openings, just take a look at Lancashire or Yorkshire. Jhamez84 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the link Jhamez84 gave, the following section, titled "Metropolitan district councils" appears in the "The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (2005) and Prepared by the Office for National Statistics, London: TSO (ISBN 0 11 621738 3)[2]: "The six metropolitan county areas in England – Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear,West Midlands and West Yorkshire – have 36 district councils but no county councils." (page 9) I think this very clearly implies that the metropolitan counties still exist, and it is an official document written by an office of the UK government. I would also be interested in what those people who deny the metropolitian counties still exist say about the existence of Berkshire: a county that has no county council, it having been completely divided up, on 1st April 1998, into unitary authorities.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
--But Berkshire sounds so much more poetic and it was lucky enough to be a postal county, so it must still exist! ;) Jhamez84 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have several texts which clearly state the county councils were abolished, not the counties, such as HMSO, Aspects of Britain: Local Government, (1996) and Jones, B. et al, Politics UK, (2004). Furthermore, when they became lieutenancy/ceremonial counties in the Lieutenancies Act 1997, they were already counted in 2c of the schedule and did not need to be listed as groups of unitary authorities i.e they existed prior to the 1997 Act as metropolitan counties. As regards the history, I think its fine as it is. The only reason to move it off is if the article gets very long, I don't think its really at that stage just yet. Everyone will come to the article for a different need or purpose so sometimes there are sections we're not really interested in. MRSC • Talk 06:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
But then there's a school of thought that only the old Administrative Counties were abolished in 1974, not the Counties themselves, hence somehow, say, Rochdale manages to exist within both Lancashire and Greater Manchester at the same time. Isn't all this rather fun?
Fundamentally, the GM County exists as an Administrative County (even though no actual administration is done at that level), and as a Ceremonial County. Unitary Authorities are defined differently (as Administrative Counties in their own right - hence technically "County of Blackburn with Darwen and so on), even though functionally they're pretty much identical to Metropolitan Boroughs. Fingerpuppet 12:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SELNEC?

Article reads

Prior to the creation of the metropolitan county, the name SELNEC was used for the area from the initials 'South East Lancashire North East Cheshire'. Parts of the historic counties of Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire covered the area that is now Greater Manchester.


To most Mancunians I venture that SELNEC means a bus company, that later merged with LUT (Lancashire United Transport) and others to become GMT (Greater Manchester Transport, run by Greater Manchester PTE

Indeed the article "Northern Counties", states The Transport Act of 1968 merged the municipal corporations of Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Oldham, Stockport, Rochdale, Bury and Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Joint Board (SHMD Board). The resulting conglomerate was known as the Southeast Lancashire Northeast Cheshire Passenger Transport Authority, commonly known as SELNEC. SELNEC was faced with a fleet of 2500 vehicles consisting of a wide variety of types and manufacturers, reflecting the preferences of their former municipal owners. Northern Counties worked closely with SELNEC to develop a standard bus for fleet replacement

I think most people would be unaware of the historical reference to SELNEC as a politcal/geographical one.

Molby61 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry mate but have I missed you point? I don't know what you are trying to say. If you have a point you have completely confused anyone trying to read your section.

What do we know about SELNEC?

  • A Wilson initiative introduced in 1971, just as Heath was going to reorganise county councils.
  • SELNEC provided a cross county bus service.
  • SELNEC tried to integrate waste disposal.
  • In 1974, SELNEC disappeared.

It is only remembered for the bus services. Mike33 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. SELNEC was certainly used in the early 1960s as an umbrella name for the local authorities covering the Greater Manchester Urban Area - examples of this being the 1962 SELNEC Highways Plan. It was also one of the Metropolitan Areas by the Redcliffe-Maud Report of the late 1960s. SELNEC (the PTE) came into existence prior to the Metropolitan County, so cannot have provided a "cross-county bus service". SELNEC might be primarily remembered for the PTE (as that was the most visible item), but to say "only" is factually incorrect. If people today are unaware of the use of SELNEC in any other form, then that isn't a problem - it still needs to be mentioned here as it was a precursor to Greater Manchester. Fingerpuppet 08:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Places of interest

I've finished converting this section into prose, that's one less barrier to GA. It's not perfect and might be a bit too long, but I think that's for other people to decide. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! A vast improvement. One thing though, I think we may have to remove a couple of the images in this section per WP:IMAGE (specifically that they sandwich alot of text between them). I'm inclined for the "Excavations" and "Manchester Art Gallery" images to go (at least for now). Also, I'm mindful that in the forthcoming months that we (hopefully) improve this article, we should try to avoid a Manchester-bias, particularly with images. Of course the city has special status within the county, but I would hope it doesn't become a point for content forking from the main Manchester article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. We should try to include a representative sample of images from all around the county.
With regard to image placement, I've been led to believe that it's a no-no to have a left-aligned image directly underneath a section/subsection header. The reasoning being that separates the heading from its content. I may of course be completely mistaken, in which case please feel free to revert the change I just made to the Governance section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's only for 2nd level headings, so "===" rather than "==". Why I don't know, as it looks fine in my browser, but it must be to cater for other browsers. I'll pop the governance one back as it is fine in this instance -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation required

This, from the Transport section, needs to be sourced I think. "Manchester Airport, which is the fourth largest in the United Kingdom, serves the county with flights to more destinations than any other airport in the UK." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this in in a sec. This one can be used to confirm the 225 destinations claim, although it looks a bit less "official". Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's odd: I thought the "225 claim" was on there, but it wasn't! Never mind; I've added it now. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Terraced houses

... in red-brick seem to be a recurring featured throughout the county, and I'm surprised this isn't already mentioned. There's a few nice shots at commons, including Image:Middleton, Durnford Street.jpg, Image:Chadderton Mill.jpg, Image:Fredrick Street, Werneth, Oldham.jpg. As there are already several images from that part of the county however, I'd be more inclined to go with Image:Church Street, Hyde, Greater Manchester.jpg or Image:Ancoats.jpg or something from Flickr like this, which could kill a few birds at once. I know a few other cities have this type of housing stock, but not an entire county. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to forget the stone-built terraces in many of the mill towns of course! I think the red brick is due to the large amount of clay which was deposited in the area at the end of the last ice age and the softness of the red sandstone in the lower reaches of the Irwell. If you look on the old maps there were brick fields all around Manchester and Salford. I imagine brick was cheaper and easier to use than stone also. Richerman (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The only space where another image could go would be in the settlements section, is that where you were thinking of putting one? I really like the Urban Splash street as some of the others look like simple generic "Northern" streets, built on the cheap after the war, although common they are pretty boring.
Also it looks like my plan is working with 63 edits to the article today (including mine). I think it's already GA standard, you may think we need more sources but we have 127 refs compared to another GA county such as Hampshire which has only 17! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky!..... 'Tis amazing we have so many refs compared with Hampshire. I've just expanded the History section with loads of really interesting factoids (well, interesting to me, and fairly unknown too!). I also agree we should go with the Urban Splash image - it's the best one and we can use it to elaborate on several phenomina such as the mill town history, decline, slum clearances and contemporary gentrification. I think this would be suitable for the Demography section. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to see the Picadilly Gardens image replaced with something from Heaton or Peel park - both less Manc-centric and both with slightly more interesting histories. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you really have to put that horrible, oversized, blurry, outdated, redundant ex-COA back in? It's ugly as sin and far too big, eurrgggghhhh makes me ill! Putting it in the governance section is misleading too even with the description as the county council is totally dead. If anywhere it belongs in the history section or preferably the bin! Why does it need to disgrace this article when it can sit happily on Greater Manchester County Council instead?
I agree about the Piccadilly Gardens image, it's not a great pic either as it was taken through a window with bird poop splattered down it so it obviously wasn't washed often. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And how about swapping one of the two pictures of Old Trafford for one of a different sport, say the velodrome or the Aquatic centre? And before you ask, I don't support any football team so I've no axe to grind! Richerman (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict!... I'll rescan the CofA (I have a colour print of it in a book) and make it a crisp PNG file. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I like your idea Richerman, sounds good to me. I've also just rescanned the GMC coat of arms to a really crisp version. It may or may not make people ill, but it is encyclopedic and notable enough to warrent inclusion here I think! I wouldn't mind it going into the Post-74 section, but would like to see it replaced with a shot of "Westminster house", the former HQ of the GMC. The GMC was the basic idea behind why the whole county exists afterall! -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a photo of Westminster House tomorrow if you promise to ditch the COA! I think the Old Trafford cricket ground should be dropped in favour for the velodrome, less cars on the image and it's a little bit different. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be comfortable in "ditching" the COA outright based on personal tastes and sensibilities. Wikipedia is not censored, even for us! I'd be fine with it being moved to the history section however. I actually think the rescan is of a fitting quality now too and improves the article. Every other county of England displays their arms, council or no-council. :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you not add it to the top of the infobox where the flag usually goes with a note under it stressing it is defunct? That way it will be smaller. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

"The ceremonial counties are increasingly being seen as the main geographic frames of reference within England." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Although we know it is true it is hard to find a reference for it and google is bringing up some foul sites e.g., some people really don't have anything better to do with their time! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Vaughan.com? Could it be Owain Vaughan, (self-styled) president of the Association of British Counties from Monmouthshire? Now where have I heard that name before?...
Anyway, I agree with Malleus, we need to amend this. We could say "as used by the Ordnance Survey/AA", which would imply the claim? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that was a "foul" site; it's quite informative, whether you share its pov or not. But if we're making a claim that ceremonial counties are increasingly being seen etc., then we ought to be able to back up that assertion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's foul in the sense that it is totally biased. It says that everyone was unhappy with the new counties. Whoever runs it just needs to let it go, the only difference we see is road signs and logos on local services. Anyway that does not concern us, I agree about the ordinance survey maps as it shows they are not just statistical. Google maps is terrible too, a search for Manchester takes you to Manchester, Lancashire :(. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
They've only recently changed that, probably when they implimented the "terrain" feature. It's been aligned to the postal counties, which is daft when they've been abolished for years. Uppermill of "Yorkshire" is once again in Lancashire too! Madness.
While I'm here, does anybody else think the lead section is a little thin, if not a bit weak? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
GA status:Lead fine
FA status:Lead needs work
We have easily got it to GA status already so any more improvements are working towards FA status imho. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd still keep going onwards and upwards for A and FA status. I wonder what WP:PR would've thrown-up? The automated system is always surprising useful. Also we have some references that don't make use of a cite template that we need to fix up I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's just wait for the GA status then we can go straight for a peer review and we will soon have it up to FA! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said at WT:GM, I think this article is close to GA, but I think there are still things to address. I'm not sure that the Redcliffe-Maud Report section is properly referenced, do the references at the end of the paragraph apply to all the paragraph? Also I think the demography section is very under developed. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nev1. The article isn't at GA yet, it needs quite a bit more work. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I also have a few worries about some parts, but at the rate of change, we could make it in time (GA reviews usually take a few weeks to happen). In comparison with Hampshire we've got it, but I'm not sure it meets our project's high standards. I've just upped the citation for the Redcliffe-Maud section which should help (though some statements aren't quite supported by my book - which is only a few pounds at Amazon btw!). I'm definately not happy with the lead too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I even found some stuff about "Botchdale" for us too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some refs in the sports section are mission publishers, dates, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The line has been removed but could this not be used for a reference to "The ceremonial counties are increasingly being seen as the main geographic frames of reference within England."? It does touch on modern importance of ceremonial counties quite well. I was also pleased to see on that site that the government has plans to give Greater Manchester and Tyne and Wear proper mayors, making the county administrative thus putting us on par with London, hopefully the boroughs could be renamed to Manchester Borough of Stockport etc. Although that is unlikely to happen any time soon with this increasingly useless government (Supercasino). └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they're planning something slightly different to London, creating a new tier of city regions - mainly to invigorate the economy of Northern England. There's stuff about this here and here. Certainly the Manchester congestion charge is a step towards this.
I should imagine my locals over the hill won't be happy about such proposals, unsurprisingly. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly old people with nothing better to do with their lives who start opposing any form of change which would modernise a region. I wish they would give us a London style mayor, someone who had as much passion as Ken and with enough power to throw their weight around a lot. AGMA want the congestion charge, most of it at least, and AGMA has no powers at all really and relies on co-operation. A nice Mayor of Manchester could force the good schemes like Ken does, especially in relation to public transport, and there would be no opposition from the Con Council because lets face it, we're labour through and through here so any mayor would be a labour one. The idea of a "city region" could turn out to be a right mess especially if some councils start giving it out like the "Birmingham, Coventry & Black country" proposals, what a stupid name. I hope our GM councils will realise the benefits from becoming Mancunian and adopting an international brand. Maybe, just maybe, we might get some form of a decent transport system then, the trams are OK but can be very limited especially when in street running mode and the buses well... they need nationalising, bloody Thatcher lol and there's me talking about moaning old people. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

This edit knocks the alignment out for me, making the image bigger than the rest of them, which looks a little odd. I understood that images should not have their sizes set, unless under very special circumstances.

I don't think Andrew wants the image in, but I think it's an important part of the article. What do others think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the size because it looks horrific when it is at 300px which is what I like to set in my preferences, I'm trying to comprimise here on something I don't like. It's not the COA I don't like but just the inclusion of it here, at least make it look decent. Try previewing it at 300px and you will see what I mean about how awful it looks! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It also shunted all the other images under it when it was 300px and was pushing everything right down the article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It still appears fine for me. Is it a technical problem? I'm just struggling what you mean by "horrific" and "decent", it really looks fine to me. Even if it was an ugly COA, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it being editted out on those grounds.
How about we swap round the positions of the COA and Westminster house images? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks horrific at 300px because it looks sort of grainy, blotchy and generally shabby. At 200px it looks much much nicer and clean. My opinion is that we don't need it on here but if you really think it is going to educate anybody then keep wherever it but don't change the size as it really will look awful. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you're looking at the new version ([3]) and not the old one ([4])? I uploaded a new version (which looks great to me), but you may still have the former version displaying because of caching. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what has gone wrong with firefox but a purge sorted it. Yes it looks better, still don't agree it should be on there in the governance section though! And it still pushes every other image in every section down. I wonder if the same problem with caching has happened to everyone else? I think it must be because you uploaded over the top of the old one. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion very puzzling. I'm using Firefox (v2.0.0.12) and everything looks fine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The quality issues were addressed with a purge. I just don't feel the COA has any place being in the Governance of Greater Manchester section, Governance of Greater Manchester County Council fine but not the modern county which is what this article is about. A more appropriate place would be the history section. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, for whatever it's worth I think the COA is in the right place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd really have to agree I'm afraid. I mean we use this style on other articles, like Stretford and Oldham. It looks great to me! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They both have their COA in the "Civic history" see the history i.e. no longer exists? Maybe the article's Governance section needs to be split in half then? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

Why do I always get requested to do the long articles? :) Here goes...

  • "on 1 April 1974,[1] as a result" - comma not needed
  • I thought the standard method of describe area in the UK is metric (km^2 as opposed to square mile), but in the article the mile is used as the default. Am I wrong?
  • "at Castlefield in Manchester[8]" - the ref needs some punctuation under it; so move it to the end of the sentence
  • "Most of Greater Manchester lies within the ancient county boundaries of Lancashire; those areas south of the Mersey and Tame were in Cheshire. " - you change from present to past tense mid sentence
  • Last para of the Origins section only uses one source, so you can just dump it at the end of the para
  • "which despite its name included north east Cheshire as well" --> "which, despite its name, included north east Cheshire"
  • "but still including" - use "included" as you've used "excluded" prior
  • "although the new local authorities were already running following local elections in 1973." - ref?
  • 'Some noted historians of Manchester have claimed that..." - you're quoting one person (not some), so just say who
  • "as a geographic frame of reference.[17][18][19]" - IMO you only need one ref here; use #17 I think
  • "a polycentric county[28]" - can you put the ref over the next comma?
  • "For the first 12 years after the county was created in 1974, the county had a two-tier system of local government, and the metropolitan borough councils shared power with the Greater Manchester County Council. " - refs for this and the rest of the para?
  • "Below is a table outlining population totals of the area for every ten years since 1801. Pre-1974 statistics were gathered from local government areas that now comprise Greater Manchester." - this works better as a title for the table and a footnote, if necessary
  • "This is a chart of trend of regional gross value added of Greater Manchester at current basic prices published (pp.240–253) by Office for National Statistics with figures in millions of British Pounds Sterling (GB£)." - remove the external link and use it as a reference for the table a la all the other tables
  • "The stadium has also acted as a music venue, hosting U2, Bon Jovi, and Oasis.[86][87] Old Trafford Cricket Ground, the home of Lancashire County Cricket Club, has also acted as a music venue for bands such as the Arctic Monkeys, Radiohead, and Foo Fighters." - remove the "also"s
  • "The Urbis is a "museum of the modern city"; it receives £1.5M a year from Manchester City Council and experienced its most successful year in 2006" - I don't see what its catchline has to do with the funding it receives, or with its income. Reword
  • "The county is also home to the Red Rose Forest, which at 756 square kilometres (292 sq mi) is the second largest and most urban community forest in England.[128]" - merge this into another para or expand the para on community forests etc.
  • "best known for George Orwell’s book The Road to Wigan Pier" - book titles go in italics

And leave me a note when you're done. Nice work on the collab, and good luck. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We've got quite a few references that need converting to one of the relevant Wikipedia:Citation templates. I'll try to do some of these this evening but would appreciate some help. It seems ref 4 and 19 are infact one and the same too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cor! Well done you lot and thanks to H20 for the appraisal. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Erk!

The West Pennine Moors, as well as a number of coalfields (mainly sandstones and shales) lie in the west of the county. The rivers Mersey and Tame run through the county boundaries, both of which rise in the Pennines. Other rivers run through the county, including the Beal, the Douglas and the Irk.

This is a bit mangled: I'd fix it but I have to be elsewhere for a while (RL!). The Pennine moors are in the east; the Tame only just runs in, but the unmentioned Goyt and Etherow certainly do; the Mersey runs out. I don't know about the other three - I think the Irk is fully enclosed by the county, no?Mr Stephen (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(self correction) It seems the West Pennine Moors are indeed in the west - I must get out more. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Beal is within the Oldham and Rochdale boroughs entirely, and, I believe the Irk is wholly within Oldham, Rochdale and Manchester boroughs. Not sure about the Douglas. I agree the above paragraph needs fixing too! -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I see User:Joshii, who requested the peer review, has retired from Wikipedia. Is there still interest in a peer review or should I archive the request? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's still interest, please leave the request up. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the GM project as a whole has an interest in the peer review, not just Joshii. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks - I will get to it in a few days if no one else does first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Splendid! Thanks. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Students

I have removed

Greater Manchester is home to Europe's largest student population drawing students from across the world.[1] There are four universities in the county: Bolton, Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan, and Salford.

Malcolm Tight gives figures which, no matter how I read them, places Manchester & GM well down the list of 'most' students. "The (Re)Location of Higher Education in England (Revisited)", Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224, Volume 61, No. 3, July 2007, pp 250–265. As always, if you have a better reference, bring it on. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it not depend on what you compare it to? We have the largest and third largest university in the country here so the city must rank high. I can't see it being bigger than London because they have several universities but London is nothing like Greater Manchester so what are you comparing Greater Manchester to? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello mate, I thought ... no matter, nice to see you. Well, apparently Greater Manchester is thirteenth with 4% students in 2.5 million, whereas top of the list is Avon with 7.3% in just under a million. The city of Manchester might stand a fighting chance, but Canterbury is 70% students (in 45,000 admittedly), or Oxford is 28.8% (of 150,000). Mr Stephen (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But surely Avon no longer exists, meaning that the source isn't all that valuable? Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI Oxfordshire (6.8%) and Leicestershire (6.0%) come in second and third. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A google search for Manchester largest student population brings back lots of results including one for the Push uni guide for MMU saying along with Manchester and Salford uni Manchester has Europe's largest student population so that must be Greater Manchester rather than just the city. Your souce is going off proportion of the population being students (possibly including college and schools?) rather than total numbers which is what most the sites on google must be going off. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This does keep coming around, doesn't it? I'm off for some kip now, but I'll have another look at the paper in the morning. Mr Stephen (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't really see it. This BBC article (2005) suggests there are 88000 students in "Manchester", but the council say the 2001 census only counted "almost 46,500 full-time students residents in the city of Manchester" in a population of 392,819 (or 422,900). The BBC's numbers are less than Tight's numbers for GM (to be exact, they are 4.0% of 2,482,328, say 100,000). The West Midland's student count seems to exceed GM's with 5.5% of 2,555,592 (140,000). I'll certainly run with the Oxford road corridor being the largest education campus in Europe (see Manchester). Mr Stephen (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say the census is not the greatest measure partly because it was taken 7 years ago and because students don't live here all year so it could have been taken when the population was lower than usual. There is one source which says Birmingham now has the largest student population but it is obvious they are trying to sell office space in Birmingham so it is not WP:NPOV. The Uni of Manchester is the most subscribed university in the UK and the number of students rises year-on-year with the constant addition of new courses. City College Manchester has 25,000 students and MANCAT has 45,000 plans to merge would mean a 70,000 student college so that already beats the census along with 32,795 at MMU and 40,420 at Man Uni that makes 143,215 in those 4 alone. Salford Uni has 20,185, Bolton Uni has 8,540 bringing the total to 171,940 in those 6. There are many more colleges in the county, some of which are very large so how can any of the figures you found be true if I got that many from just 6 places? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read elsewhere that the timing of the census affects the student count; fair enough. Does MANCAT count as higher education? Anyway, this 2001 census datset lists the numbers (they are different, again), though I'm not sure about the difference between "People aged 16-74: Economically active: Full-time student" and "People aged 16-74: Economically inactive: Student". GM still comes below the West Midlands. If you're really confident that you can defend that snippet of information, then reinsert it by all means and let's move on to the rest of the review. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think it is a pretty important claim and is a good indicator of the importance of the county in economical terms. I hope you don't think I am just arguing with you, I just think it's a big claim with numerous sources. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No, of course I don't think anything of the sort. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The official figures for higher education are published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. The 2006-2007 ones are here [5]

Greater Manchester (Manchester Uni + MMU + RNCM + Salford Uni + Bolton Uni) has 101,165 students in higher education.

This is slightly more than West Yorkshire (Leeds Uni + Leeds Met + Bradford Uni + Huddersfield Uni + Leeds Trinity + Leeds College of Music = 97,430) but a lot less than the West Midlands (Aston Uni + Birmingham Uni + Birmingham City Uni + Birmingham College of Food + Coventry Uni + Newman + Warwick Uni + Wolverhampton = 140,980) and far less than London which has so many colleges and Unis I can't be bothered to list them all but comes in at 360,890.

These are the official figures and seem to match Mr Stephen's figures quite neatly.

JimmyGuano (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does that source not include the City College Manchester or MANCAT? They are both Higher Education, also the Birmingham College of Food is further education, not higher. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Because City College Manchester and MANCAT are Further Education Colleges that also teach courses from local universities - for example MANCAT's BSc in Psychology is actually a course of MMU [6]
Birmingham College of Food (now University College Birmingham) offers both Further and Higher Education courses - as with every other institution I've only included the Higher Education students in the figures above.
There's a map of all UK Universitites and Higher Education Colleges here - [7]
JimmyGuano (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like we're cpmparing apples and pears. Is the claim not that Manchester has the highest number of students in higher (i.e., university) level education, rather than higher education? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - that's what the figures from the HESA are, and they show the claim to be false. Further Education is something else entirely and includes quite a lot of Sixth Form colleges etc. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote is "is home to Europe's largest student population drawing students from across the world" so it is not claiming the highest number of higher education students. As the google search shows it is not a claim unique to wikipedia so I feel it should definatly be included. We are never going to be able to work out figures as I could start saying "what is London?" "is it fair to compare a region to a county, shouldn't it just be the city of London?" blah blah so I think it should stay. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, doesn't it now come down to how reliable the sources making that claim are considered to be? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The British Council says it as does the very respectable Inependent newspaper, Salford Uni says it, Visit Manchester say it, the MEN says it too. Thats just a select few of the most respected IMO. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Those sources don't even agree what the claim is though...
The British Councilsays "Things you may not know about Manchester - Largest student population" (no mention of Greater Manchester, no mention of Europe, no mention of exactly what it is the largest of)
the very respectable Inependent newspaper says "The city is also home to Europe's largest student population" no mention of Greater Manchester, it says it's talking about the city
Salford Uni says "Over 70,000 students choose to live in Manchester, making it the biggest student population in Europe." (which is about the right number for the higher education students in the City, but clearly isn't talking about HE+FE students in Greater Manchester which is far higher)
Visit Manchester says "With one of the largest student populations in Europe, the University has also spawned its own fair share of music legends" - it's clearly talking about the university itself and doesn't claim to actually be the largest anything.
... and the MEN is the MEN, famous for getting every fact spot on ;)
It looks like a classic myth to me, everybody repeats it, nobody even agrees exactly what it is, and the official figures (and HESA was created for no other purpose than to produce official statistics for Higher Education) clearly show it to be completely false.
Greater London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands (county) are all perfectly comparable on a like-for like basis - they're all ceremonial counties. As the subject of the article is itself a ceremonial county, comparing them would seem a perfactly sensible thing to do.
JimmyGuano (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the plausible claim here is that it is Manchester that has the/one of the highest student populations in England/Europe. [8]. Not Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this for the Greater Manchester article then:
"Greater Manchester has four universities: the University of Bolton, the University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University, and the University of Salford. Together with the Royal Northern College of Music these have a combined population of students in higher education of 101,165 - the third highest number in England behind Greater London (360,890) and the West Midlands (140,980) and the thirteenth highest per head of population."
citing the HESA stats for the first claim and Mr Stephen's journal article for the second one.
An accurate representation of a precisely-defined set of facts refenced to the most reliable and definitive available sources.
JimmyGuano (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that "is home to one of Europe's largest student population drawing students from across the world" would be better than listing all the poplations of different counties, this is about Greater Manchester. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But it clearly isn't even "home to one of Europe's largest student populations" - it's only the third largest even just in England. As you have demonstrated with your huge list of links, there is a lot of confusion and misinformation on this subject, so isn't this a good place for Wikipedia to present some well-referenced facts? JimmyGuano (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that, and your form of words, or something like it would be quite acceptable to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if you want to damage the quality of the article by adding excessive information then thats your prerogative. I'm getting bored. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think that's a consensus...
On a slightly separate note, does this really belong in the Demography section? Would it be better to have a separate Education section? Then the article could mention MANCAT etc too.
JimmyGuano (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm failing to understand how the quality of the article can possibly be damaged by adding the correct information. It appears to be unequivocally true that the original claim was incorrect, and applied to Manchester, not Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
To answer the other question, I'd certainly be in favour of an Education section. I'm not bored in the slightest yet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up the new section :)

As far as "The majority of students in higher education are concentrated in Manchester itself, home to one of the largest student populations in Europe." is concerned, if there's a precise claim with accurate figures from an authoritative source (not a throwaway line in a student guide or city marketing brochure) then it should be included in the article, but looking at the HESA figures there seems little to support the claim that there is anything unusually large about Manchester's student population in either a UK or European context.

  • The City of Manchester (Manc Uni + MMU + RNCM) = 73,160
  • Glasgow (Glasgow + Glasgow Cal + Strathclyde + Glasgow SoArt + RSAMD) = 71,125
  • Birmingham (Birmingham Uni + BCU + Aston + Newman + Birmingham CoF) = 70,485
  • Leeds (Leeds Uni + Leeds Met + Leeds Trinity + Leeds CoM) = 64,090

So Manchester's student population isn't really amazingly massive compared to similar UK cities, and if you bear in mind that almost 6,000 of MMU's students are actually based 30 miles from Manchester in Crewe [9] then the student population of Manchester itself is probably a bit smaller than those of Glasgow and Birmingham.

Some European comparisons:

  • Paris had 323,861 students in higher education in 2005 [12]. That's Paris itself, not the Paris/Ile de France region, which had 600,527.
  • Even Bologna - quite a small city with only one university, has 53,161 undergraduates and 38,321 postgraduates [16] - 25% more students than Manchester.

JimmyGuano (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim on the Manchester page - "The University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University and the Royal Northern College of Music are grouped around Oxford Road on the southern side of the city centre, and form the largest city-centre group of higher education institutions in Europe." looks a bit more credible. I'm personally not convinced that Manchester University is any more "city centre" than La Sapienza in Rome (which is a few hundred yards from Rome's main railway station), but the claim cites Pevsner, which is a pretty credible source, so who am I to argue? Is that worth including in this article instead of the existing highly dubious one?
JimmyGuano (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The former UMIST campus of Manchester University is quite definately in the city centre, as is that MMU building opposite the BBC. There isn't any break in the educational establishments from there to the far side of Whitworth Park (the hall, rather than the park). City centre might well be pushing it a little, but inner city would be the more correct term I would have thought. Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If those are the words Pevsner uses then that's good enough for me (unless somebody can find a better source to contradict it). It's certainly better than the "largest student population in Europe" which doesn't seem to be even close to being true.
JimmyGuano (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(ce) :::The source says "Manchester has the largest urban higher-education precinct in Europe, ...". Mr Stephen (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew I'd seen it somewhere ... the council put the "Higher Education Precinct" in the city centre. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC) PS – sorry, see the map on page 20 Mr Stephen (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should go with the wording used in the source. Largest could well be area rather than number of students (La Sapienza is quite small in area despite its 150,000+ students - 1.7 sqm per student! [17]) JimmyGuano (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How does that look? JimmyGuano (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you copied the reference word-for-word. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's quite a precise claim and we need to get it right. Urban is not the same as city centre, largest precinct is not the same as largest population. We could move the Europe first if you're worried it's bordering on WP:COPYVIO? JimmyGuano (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester - first mention?

I was just browsing, and I came across the following, one of several pre-1900 mentions

The Rev J A Macfayden said that as they had heard of a lesser and greater London, so there was a greater and lesser Manchester. The city stood on a comparatively small area, but what was understood to be Manchester was a very large place …

— The Congregational Union, Manchester Times, 16 October 16, 1880

Which disagrees with the claim in this article. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also found the term in the History of the County of Lancaster (1911) too!... (While the development of Greater Manchester in these respects was proceeding steadily the religious and political progress of the people was comparatively peaceful. The Methodist Revival soon affected Manchester, and John Wesley paid the town many visits between 1747 and 1790; "Greater%20Manchester").
The claim cited (from Frangopulo - 1977) is actually a little more amiguious than I first thought, but states (from page 226):

When was the term "Greater Manchester" first used? A few months before the outbreak of the First World War, a Manchester City Councillor read a paper to the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers entitled, "Greater Manchester: The Future of Municipal Government of Large Cities" (1914)....

It's a good book (I'd recommend it to all our project members) but seems to have missed a few early uses. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can just say that. Something like "The first mention of GM is given by Frangopulo as ... but the term was in use before then." and reference those two sources, with quotes. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Towards FA

Another holiday nearly over. I hoped to have a go at this article (and others) a bite at a time, but the best-laid plans of mice and men ... We've had a peer review which is now archived, so discussion should carry on here. First, my summary of the outstanding suggestions at the PR, neutral I hope, is

  1. 'History' should avoide generalities but concentrate on things which brought GM together
    1. industry
    2. the M60 motorway
  2. Move the history of GMC from 'History' to 'Governance'
  3. Rewrite the part of the 'Governance' section covering the joint bodies (waste, GMPTE etc) to make it easier to read
  4. Get rid of WP:PEACOCK terms at
    1. Economy
    2. Sport
    3. Transport
  5. Explain the factors which have lead to Manchester's recent recovery
  6. Rename 'Places of Interest' to 'Culture', strip out the non-cultural stuff
  7. Improve 'Transport'

Some of these changes would be WP:BOLD, so can I ask for comments on the changes I have summarised above? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post. I'm with you all the way on this, although I'd be mindful of removing everything about the GMC from 'History' to 'Governance'; Greater Manchester was always about municipal unity and administrative convienience afterall, but I think I know where you're going with these changes. These sound good. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ta. I'm just a bit worried about striking out whole chunks of pre-industrial revolution history in both the 'History' and 'Places of Interest' sections. I suppose if the GMC History/governance sections are self-contained and easy to move about then we can decide later where they fit best. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at the peer review now, and I notice that one of the items mentioned is a merge of Greater Manchester with the Greater Manchester Urban Area. I don't know what others think of that, but I'd be opposed to such a merge. GMC is an administrative area with statutory boundaries, whilst the GMUA is the physical built-up area whose boundaries change from census to census. Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think they should be separate. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Greater Manchester County Council was abolished in 1986...

Just over a decade after it was created, what role legal role does Greater Manchester actually have since local power is located with the unitary authories? In the intro the article alleges that Greater Manchester "continues to exist in law". In what sense? Do we have a reference for this claim, since the one provided only backs up a claim that sometimes some people use it as a "geographic frame of reference". Since the only designation is actually has today is "ceremonial", essentially a courtesy designation with no actual power, then the claim that it "exists in law" needs to be sourced, very strongly by official legislation or a high up government official. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would The Derbyshire and Greater Manchester (County Boundaries) Order 1991 be a start? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And Parliamentary representation, Lieutenancies Act 1997. The three references provided also back up this claim too... --Jza84 |  Talk  11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Jza, Greater Manchester is not a parliamentary constituency. There are "28 Parliamentary constituencies - 18 Borough constituencies and 10 County constituencies" within what some consider the geographical area of Greater Manchester, taking for example Rochdale (UK Parliament constituency). There is no "Greater Manchester mega MP" who has power over these or even one representing Greater Manchester, thus the entity is powerless. Also, in the modern age the Lieutenancies, etc are ceremonial and does not define a legal existence or power of an area since Lord Lieutenants "have no role in local government, nor are they responsible for promulgating local ordinances in the monarch's name", an award given to retired people. Perhaps you would be interested in reading Lady Thatcher's Local Government Act 1985. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Greater Manchester is not a parliamentary constituency" - never said it was, but it is used for constituencies - it's boroughs are not. I've just reverted your traditional-counties POV too from the lead. Please obtain a consensus here prior to restoration (you also need to secure that edit for the rest of the metropoltian counties) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You claimed Greater Manchester had parliamentary representation, it doesn't. Government in the modern day is very localised, so we have things like an MP for Rochdale (UK Parliament constituency) instead. Also I am reverting your edit which covered up the fact that it is a former administrative area. That is the most notable thing about it. It used to be a centre of power with a council, until the Greater Manchester County Council was abolished thanks to Margaret Thatcher and the Local Government Act 1985. As for the "traditional counties POV" attack, I'm not sure what the Local Government Act 1985 has to do with traditional counties, since Greater Manchester doesn't fall under that? As for the rest of the metropolitan articles, I'm not really interested in editing them. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)::::I don't think "Greater Manchester" as such ever had any legal powers. Greater Manchester Council, whose writ was contiguous with the county boundaries, certainly had plenty of power. About 70% of the powers of GM Council now rests with the county-wide authorities (I have a ref somewhere if you intend to follow it up), so in some ways the powers have just been split up but are still held along county lines. Greater Manchester exists with precisely delineated boundaries, and as a frame of reference for laws, as indicated in the Order I linked to above. What exactly are you getting at Yorkshirian? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
To make it clearer in the article, that it no longer has any power (the Greater Manchester County Council is one of the only notable things about it, providing the coat of arms you even see on this talk). This should be made as clear as possible. Certainly it should be mentioned within the opening sentence the most notable thing about it, in following with the Local Government Act 1985. I've added a source for it in the form of Regional Imperative: Regional Planning and Governance in Britain, Europe and the United States, Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So what is the Greater Manchester Police, the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive then. G-Man ? 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having those services are nothing to do with the county status - see West Mercia Police or Thames Valley Police for example. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm still not certain what Yorkshirian is driving at. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian might elaborate somewhat. Certainly I find it disagreeable that Greater Manchester is "targetted" here, rather than any other metropolitan county. To me, that screams volumes. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jza, please refrain from personal attacks and read WP:NPA. Comment on the edit not the editor. As for your claim that I'm "targetting" this subject which Lady Thatcher took all power away from in 1986, by inserting referenced information, is rather dubious. I don't personally have an interest in editing the other abolished powers and why must I? There is no Wikipedia rule that says I have to edit every former administrative area who's powers were abolished by Thatcher. Also removing sourced information, just because you have a bias stance against what it says, is a big no no. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The source isn't reliable - there's clearly a greater wealth and greater quality of material asserting, or even prooving the contrary "[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ons_geography/Gazetteer_v3.pdf The former council areas were not abolished and continue to be used for statistical purposes". That aside, your edit is against WP:PLACE, and the piping is at best substandard. Try to view this less as a "battle" that needs to be won, but more as a space to add real value to the internet - your edits are clearly damaging and destructive, and given the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian, would be best avoided all together. What do others think? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
--P.S. Even the Association of British Counties admit that "the county councils for the "metropolitan counties" were abolished by the Local Government Act 1985 although the "metropolitan counties" themselves were not abolished." ([18]!) I'm not sure what is to be gained by adding such an incorrect claim. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


May I suggest you read WP:V and WP:COI first. Apart from the reference from the book not reflecting your opinion, it would be interesting what rationale you're claiming it isn't a reliable source? Just because you dislike it, as you seem to dislike the Local Government Act 1985 does not mean that it is not reliable. Some use Greater Manchester for statistics, that is true, but that does not contradict the fact that it no longer has local power, due to the Local Government Act 1986. Are you denying this? If so on what basis.
Try to view this as less of an "attack" on the former administrative area and more an attempt to provide highly important and useful information that the reader needs to know. Using such words as "damaging" and "destructive" is clearly not an assumption of good faith on your part and is clearly untrue. Adding referenced information is in no way "destructive", quite the opposite. Also the WP:NPA philosophy of "comment on the edit not the editor" doesn't seem to have got through. Lets discuss the content please, not your opinion of me. Cheers! - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
PS - Jza, you seem to be incorrectly reading the referenced information I put in the article. I did not delete it being a "metropolitan county" and I do not have anything against that phrase being in the intro, which you seem to be suggesting. I simply added after that with a reference that it is a former administrative area. Both apply to this entity. Are you denying that, due to the Local Government Act 1985 its status is now a "former" administrative area? On what basis. Its power was abolished. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"I simply added after that with a reference that it is a former administrative area.".... "former administrative area" has no statutory definition - it's a made up term; a sythesis if you will! Greater Manchester clearly is an administrative area in that it has the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, as well as ten district councils. You're confusing the lack of a top-level county council with lack of administration altogether. Yorkshire is probably better described as a "former administrative area", where's your edit to that article's lead? Also, Greater Manchester isn't sentient - "Its power was abolished" is nonsensical - the county council was abolished, and I'd urge you to be mindful of that distinction. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion. If you were to go to the official website of the AGMA, instead of expressing your own personal opinion on its role, you would see that it says of itself;
"AGMA (the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) was formed after the abolition of the Greater Manchester Council in 1986. The 1985 Local Government Act devolved power to local areas but also recognised that there were some functions that needed to be co-ordinated at a metropolitan level. AGMA was formed to undertake these functions."[19]
You still seem to be confused on the ". Also interesting and fittingly, considering your insistance that Greater Manchester is a "legal entity" (WP:OR opinion which you refuse to source, such as on the Greater Manchester County Council article). The organisation you have just brought up as a means to counter the claim, describes itself as so, "AGMA is not a legally constituted body or a large organisation".[20] Interesting.
Please with references, present how "Greater Manchester's power was not abolished". This is the core argument and you're not providing anything to counter that it was. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can find, if you're interested and intend to take it up, a reference that states (from memory) "the political reality is that all key budgetary decisions are taken via the AGMA". The AGMA is, on paper, basically one man and his dog in an office in (IIRC) Wigan, but that's just the permanent staff. There are multiple sub-committees that quietly get on with the job of running a large fraction of GM business, and the leaders of the ten boroughs meet regularly under its auspices. The idea that there isn't a central powerful body is oversimplified. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is argument is all very odd. Greater Manchester is a county according to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). It is a county for the purposes of the Lieutenancies Act 1997 by virtue of its existence according to the 1972 act. This continued existence under the 1972 legislation is, as I understand it, its existence 'in law'. MRSC • Talk 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite, but until Yorkshirian comes clean about what he means and stops using ambiguous or nonsensical phrases, we won't get far. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting these here to save having to re-run the tool. Wayback is dead atm. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

checkY All fixed now (thanks Joshii). Mr Stephen (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

History section

I'm thinking the Post 74 section has a couple of gaps. Between 1974 and 1986 was there anything notable that occured on a "county-wide" basis that could be included? Perhaps something the county council or GMPTE implimented? It's a little thin in that respects.

Also, might the Manchester congestion charge be suitable also for a mention in the history seciton? It is probably (or at least might be...!) the most important development in the region's history since its creation. Just some thoughts. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really surprised the section's quite thin - we're only talking about a total of 12 years after all. I'd include the Congestion Charge, as the majority of the GM boroughs have at least some territory within the M60. Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
GMEX; the Greater Manchester Development Corporation which (apparently) paved the way for the later initiatives; and the Science Museum. I just found out that the Conservatives were in control of GMC 1977–1981 - remarkable! Mr Stephen (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like potential and wholesome additions. As for the Conservatives, I too thank that is remarkable given the region's tendancy for the centre-left! I was hoping we could add politicial history to the Greater Manchester County Council page. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I updated this section in question. There's now a very breif note on G-Mex, but it needs a bit of tightening up IMHO. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

M postcode areas

This is the subject of a current edit, erm, discussion at the moment.

Whilst it is true that while Postal Counties were still a part of the address Greater Manchester was not used, but Lancashire and Cheshire (such as Stockport, Cheshire and Bolton, Lancashire), it is not true that all M postcoded areas are considered to be part of Manchester.

There are three postal towns within the M postcode area, MANCHESTER, SALFORD and SALE. None of these post towns are coterminous with the settlements or local authorities of those names - originally simply the most convenient sorting office for the Post Office to use. M5 postcodes, for example, are all part of the SALFORD post town.

Postal Counties are no more, and people can choose whether to use the traditional counties, the modern Administrative County, the Ceremonial County or none of the above, as long as the Post Code is present. Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the postal counties paragraph should go, lock stock and barrel. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted that rubbish twice now, and I'm keen to avoid embarrassing Jza84 by being forced to block me for a 3RR violation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if anyone shows any enthusiasm for the paragraph as a whole, and if not I'll clear it tonight. The new stuff is certainly on very shaky foundations. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the factual inaccuracy of "M postcode = Manchester" that concerns me. The Postal County stuff was covered adequately previously. Fingerpuppet (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this. Doesn't seem to be a consensus to keep it. Amongst the other objections already raised, I wasn't happy with the source provided. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A-class?

I think we could make a push from our GA status to A or even FA status here with just a little bit of communal work. All the text seems to be in place now, and the article reads and flows like a whole. I think we could go for FA by making the following changes:

  1. Upgrade all the internet citation to use Template:Cite web (there aren't that many).
  2. Resolve the last few {{cn}} issues.
  3. Perhaps find images of a) the G-Mex centre (at the time - perhaps for the history section where it is mentioned), and b) an image from somewhere like Wigan and/or Altrincham to ensure a representative mix of media.
  4. Consider expanding the Education section which is a little thin.

Other than that I think we could be ready for A-class, IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it would look like the hard work's been done and the last few points shouldn't be too hard to fix. How about we skip A-class and go straight for FA? I'm all for trial by fire ;-) Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Nev1, I've never seen the point of A class. To me, the only categories worth spit are the two awarded by independent reviewers. So why don't we just go for it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooooo, go on then! :P --Jza84 |  Talk  00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you do it, I'm shy. Besides, I've still not fully disengaged from another FA battle nomination, at History of timekeeping devices. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if nobody else has done so, I'll list it in circa 24 hours. That should give WP:GM and article-watchers enough time to prepare and/or help fix the outstanding issues. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Good. To be serious though, my real reason for not wanting to nominate is that I'm hoping to have the Pendle witch trials ready soon, and SandyG quite rightly doesn't like to see multiple concurrent nominations from the same editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I saw a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England for people to take a look before the FA nomination of this article. I have a few questions/comments, based on a quick scan, which are meant to be helpful & supportive not overly critical:

  • In the infobox map of Metropolitan Boroughs why is there a blue "i" button on No 2 Stockport - clicking on it goes to the standard image info - any reason for this?
    •  Done - fixed by Mr Stephen.
  • The lede has lots on administration but could a bit on economy, transport, sport etc be included?
  • "Much of the region was omitted from the Domesday Book of 1086." might be nice to explain why?
  • Why are the independent schools "notable"?
  • The pic of a former weavers cottage doesn't look like a cottage to me - is there an explanation of why such a large building is considered a cottage?
  • What was the name (if any) of the area before "Manchesterthum"?
    •  Not done - There was Salfordshire - but that was a different entity really. I don't believe there was a name for this area pre-Manchesterthum.
  • There are quite a few redlinks in pre 1974 boroughs & districts table
  • I know it is the focus of the article but on a quick read there does seem to be duplication between post 1974 & geography & governance
  • The paragraph on GMPTE, police, airport etc is unreferenced
  • The population figure of 2,547,700 is referenced in the lede but not in demographics section
  • Does sylvan opulence need speech marks - it is referenced, but could be POV
  • There is a clarify tag on Manchester Arena
  • I would put the "Table notes" which are at the end under the table in the economy section - or at least make some link between the two.

I hope these comments are helpful.— Rod talk 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, very helpful. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Much of the region was omitted from the Domesday Book of 1086." Hmm. Well, there wasn't much coverage of the Lancashire/Inter ripam et Mersham area (5 entries), which Redhead puts down to administrative oversight. I don't have Kidd or Hylton to hand to remind me of their take on the matter. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Yorkshire/Saddleworth was covered. There were about 7 entries for the Cheshire part and one for the Derbyshire part (according to Arrowsmith). So that's 5+7+1+1, fourteen entries. If we are going to expand this bit, I think we should include the huge reduction in value (which we do have) associated with the Harrying of the North (but I haven't been able to find if the campaign west of the Pennines is generally called the Harrying). Mr Stephen (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That "Much of the region was omitted from the Domesday Book of 1086" is probably a little bit flowery/POV too on reflection. I don't think "Greater Manchester's" broad omition in the Domesday Book has much to do with Greater Manchester specifically really. I'm also a bit worried about the history section beginning to sprawl (perhaps we're nearly ready for a daughter article?) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the sound of the History of Greater Manchester, the fact that much of (what would become) Greater Manchester was omitted would certainly belong there. Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we're ready for a break-out article - we have enough material here, plus it could draw from elements of articles such as the History of Lancashire, History of Cheshire, History of Oldham and History of Manchester. For anyone in any doubt, there is a 306 page book about the history of GM. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alternative image of Weavers' cottages for the article
I think so. As an addendum, I forgot about half a dozen Domesday enties around the area of sylvan opulence, so make the total about twenty. We should still come up with a form of words to answer Rod's comments. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this still needs to be tackles. The lead is also a little too admin-centric as Rod points out. Per his concerns about the oversized weavers' cottage, I've found an alternative we could use (pegged right). --Jza84 |  Talk  15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Much better image. Well done. Another reviewer (Our own Mike Peel) has commented on the Domesday issue. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I've added a very brief note on the Domesday issue. As above, I think an in-depth discussion can wait for History of Greater Manchester. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this right?

From Post 1974: Frangopulo noted that with the creation of the Greater Manchester "was the official unifying of a region which, through history and tradition, had forged for itself over many centuries". Is that quote from Frangopulo correct? Doesn't seem to make sense to me ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My fault - I've missed the second half. Gimme a few mins, I'll fix that. :O --Jza84 |  Talk  11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done --Jza84 |  Talk  12:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to go?

Is everyone comfortable with FAC this eve? I can hold back if needbe, there is no deadline. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's go for it. How about a project nomination as happened with Peterloo? Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Initiated with this sig. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The 1910s?

"Due to its commercial and socioeconomic success, the need for local government and geo-administrative change in what is now Greater Manchester was proposed as early as the 1910s" I can't say I've ever heard of the 1910s before. When we talk about the 1900s or the 1920's there are a number of them (1921, 1922, 1923 etc.) but there is only one 1910. Is there another way of saying this such as "the second decade of the 20th Century" or maybe "early in the 20th Century" or does "the 1910s" come from the reference? Richerman (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article entitled 1910s supports that this is a decade. The term does verifiably appear in this decade too, in a number of publications. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I suppose in a couple of years there will be a big debate about what we call it this time round - the twenty tens? I remember there was quite a discussion about what the first decade of this century would be called. I think we ended up with the noughties -but only time will tell :-)

Multi Area Agreement and the future...

 Done Hello guys, probably not the best time to start proposals for change, but something has come to my attention (new Multi Area Agreements) which I think is a suitable point for inclusion in the article - at the end of the Post 1974 section. I want to add something like the following:

AGMA has suggested that a formal government structure be created to cover the whole city region.[52]... The issue resurfaced in June 2008 with regards to proposed traffic congestion pricing in Greater Manchester; Sir Richard Leese (leader of Manchester City Council) said "I've come to the conclusion that [we should hold a referendum on congestion charging] because we don't have an indirectly or directly elected body for Greater Manchester that has the power to make this decision".[2] On 14 July 2008 the ten local authorities in Greater Manchester agreed to a strategic and integrated cross-county Multi Area Agreement, a voluntary initiative aimed at making councils "work together to challenge the artificial limits of boundaries".[3]

Refs

  1. ^ Aimhigher. "Welcome to mentor4u". mentor4u.salford.ac.uk. Retrieved 2008-02-26.
  2. ^ Ottewell, David (2008-06-25), "Now YOU can vote on congestion charge", Manchester Evening News, pp. 1–2 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ "More than the sum of their parts - partnerships seal deal to increase economic growth". communities.gov.uk. 2008-07-14. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

How's that read? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this could go straight in as it is. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to play. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports image

Now that the photo of (cricket) Old Trafford has gone - perhaps we could put something in that section that is from the Wigan or Bolton boroughs? Those boroughs are currently unrepresented in images. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but maybe we'd be wise to wait until the FAC is over? Image policy is a bloody nightmare! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine. I'll see if I can dig something up from Flickr or Geograph for us. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
JJB Stadium
(ec) I have a picture I can upload to commons of the pavilion of OT (cricket). If we want a bit of diveristy (I agree Wigan is under-represented) there's always the JJB Sports stadium (look right). It's on commons so it should be fine. The crowd looks a bit thin though. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not surprising the crowd's a bit thin. How many footballs do you see on the pitch? Looks like a warm-up session. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
...I was wondering when you'd notice that ;-) The more I think about it, the JJB Stadium would be rather good: the home of a premiership football team and the county's leading rugby league side (sorry Salford). Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
They don't call me Hawkeye for nothing ... come to think of it, they don't call me Hawkeye at all. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I've left a note at talk:TerriersFan, who I think was the original uploader. If he reconfirms, it can go back in at an opportune moment. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added back the Old Trafford CCC image - I took the photo so it has no copyright probs. TerriersFan (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant, nice to see it back; although I'm still wondering what the guy in blue on the left is doing. Anyway, if you could possibly update the source info here, to say that the picture is yours, problem solved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have clarified the authorship. I might have a look at touching that guy out if I can do it neatly :-) I need to darken the image a touch, anyway. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
He's taking part in a pissing contest, right? Who can hit the white canvas from the furtherest away? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think he is doing what, in my younger days, was described as 'adjusting his dress'. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a cricket match, he's quite clearly polishing his balls. Nothing risqué about that... Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you, Jza84, can field that last remaining objection to one source, I think we'll be home and dry with this FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look... I've a feeling you mean the one I didn't want to touch (Jonathan Rawle or something?)!! I'll sort it! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually that one's gone. Which one is left? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Area?

Now that FAC is over, I have a quick question: what's the area of Greater Manchester? We're reporting it variously as 492, 493 and 496 square miles in this article alone. Anyone got something a little more "official" we could home in on? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

According to neighbourhood statistics the Greater Manchester health authority covers 1,405,905,080 square metres (542.82299 sq mi). Just to muddy the waters a little. Nev1 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It must be somewhere in the dog's breakfast that is statistics.gov.uk. Look here for a 2002 figure of 1276 sq km, which is 492.66 square miles, which we can round to 493 or shorten to 492. Or try this page. If you pick out 'display all' you will get an area of 128584 hectares, which is 496 square miles, for 1991. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Suddenly it's very clear why wikipedia wants consistency. I think we should round to 493 square miles; shortening is bad practice and 2002 is the most recent. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, 493 square miles. Having watched that Panorama programme last night on the Heathrow extension, I begin to wonder whether in some areas at least wikipedia isn't the most reliable and up-to-date source on the Internet. Thanks to awkward and pedantic sobs like us, demanding sources all the time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Flag

Both File:Unofficial County Flag of Greater Manchester.svg and Flag of Greater Manchester are clear that it's not an official flag (image description actually asks that it not be used in infoboxes). The only place it seems to be used is Piccadilly station. So if it's unrecognised and barely used, is it worth showing in the infobox at the very top of the page? Smurrayinchester 10:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It was the flag of the former County Council of Greater Manchester (1974-1986) and still appears on the crest of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service and Greater Manchester Army Cadet Force and as you said still flown by National Rail outside Piccadilly Station. The heraldry the flag comes from was granted to the county by the Royal College of Arms. It wasn't registered with the Flag Institute as they didn't at the time recognise Metropolitan Counties only Historic Counties however in Jan 2012 the act restricting flying of flags to official ones only was abolished and non-historic county flags were recognised.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2372/made WatcherZero (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The flag is official in all senses apart from the fact that it's not recognised by the Flags Institute (who refuse to recognise any flags bar those for Historic Counties). But the flag was officially adopted as the flag of Greater Manchester in 1974 by Greater Manchester County Council, and was flown by them in that capacity from 1974-1986. It's also been flown, officially, by the Greater Manchester Council since it's reconstitution as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. I would argue that, whilst the council was abolished in 1986 (and then reconstituted in 2011), the county remained as one of the Ceremonial Counties and, ergo, so did the Flag. It's as official a flag as you can get, unless you consider the Flags Institute to be the only arbiter here, in which case Greater Manchester does not have (and cannot ever have) an official flag. But the Flags Institute has no legal or official standing, as far as I can see, and I can't see why their opinion outweighs that of the various councils that have (and still do) run Greater Manchester. So, I'm putting it back.Steve3742 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2

Is there an ISO 3166-2 Code for Greater Manchester? I only found them for the individual „Metropolitan boroughs“ that together form Greater Manchester, but not for Greater Manchester as such. How could I address Greater Manchester along ISO? Thanks for any hint!195.200.70.45 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the article ISO 3166-2:GB, there are no ISO 3166-2 codes for ceremonial counties (presumably because they have no councils?) -- Dr Greg  talk  22:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, now I see the logic ...195.200.70.40 (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede statistics

I have removed the highlighted text from the lede:

Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county and combined authority area in North West England, with a population of 2.8 million; the third largest in England after Greater London and the West Midlands. It encompasses one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and comprises ten metropolitan boroughs:

Reasons:

  1. third largest what in England? London is neither a metropolitan county nor a combined authority area. The infobox suggest Ceremonial counties of England is meant; does that belong in the lede?
  2. Greater Manchester does not encompass any metropolitan area. The Greater Manchester Built-up Area is described more accurately in the next paragraph, so the first description is both inaccurate and redundant. From Greater Manchester Built-up Area: "The Greater Manchester Built-up Area is not conterminous with Greater Manchester, a metropolitan county of the same name, for it excludes settlements such as Wigan and Marple from Greater Manchester, but includes hinterland settlements which lie outside its statutory boundaries, such as Wilmslow in Cheshire, Glossop in Derbyshire, Whitworth in Lancashire and Newton-le-Willows in Merseyside."

By the way, the cited reference[1] seems to have linkrotted somewhat.

jnestorius(talk) 15:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland mid-2018". www.ons.gov.uk. Office for National Statistics. 26 June 2019. Retrieved 27 December 2019.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Manchester/Archive_1&oldid=1136274493"