Jump to content

Talk:Manchester/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Second City

I've updated this sentence to remove the undue prominence given to Birmingham in what is an article about Manchester. Note that I say the prominence is undue not because I am partisan but because it is given in the opening sentences of the article - this is an article about Manchester, not about which city is the UK's second city. Let that battle be fought out by those who care particularly on the page that I have linked through to, and I suggest we aim to keep this article free of that particular squabble.

This seems somewhat familiar.... (See [1]) Matthew 13:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved

I have moved City of Manchester back to its original home at Manchester following the debate and vote at Talk:City of Manchester. And have merged the edit history of the deleted Manchester page into this one. G-Man 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll sort out the talk pages later today. Andreww 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Focus on article improvement

Ok, the page has been recovered and moved back to Manchester. It has been noted here that this article is not very good in comparison to the pages of other large cities in the UK. We should now work out how to improve the article; its so far from a featured article that I think we should aim for something we could ask for peer review of and it not be a waste of time.

I have been through the various archived talk pages looking for sugestions - they are listed below if they are likly to need discussion. If I think a sugestion is obviously a good idea I have added it to the to-do list above. Cheers, Andreww 07:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

  • Do we need an article at City of Manchester, what should it include?
  • Should we add a section called "status" or "status and local government" to include info about UK city status and so on.
  • History - the History of Manchester page needs expanding and improving, should we just try to take a good (edited) lead section from there?
  • As User:Steven J pointed out: "there's loads in this article that would more logically go in Greater Manchester ... but 'Manchester is represented by Wigan Warriors'? Be real!" what do we do with these cases? I sugested adding "the closest rugby league team to the center of Manchester that plays in the Super League are the Wigan Warriors, somtimes considered to represent Manchester". Is this sensible?

Discussion

"the closest rugby league team to the center of Manchester that plays in the Super League are the Wigan Warriors, somtimes considered to represent Manchester".

I would prefer the wording of "the closest rugby league team to the center of Manchester that plays in the Super League are the Wigan Warriors". Factually accurate, without getting into "what people think" territory. Otherwise what's next? "Sunderland AFC are sometimes considered to represent Newcastle upon Tyne" for example?

Er... Wigan's rugby league team play a lot further away from the city centre (of Manchester) than Salford Reds do. Sorry to throw that into the mix. A similar thing would be Sale Sharks RFC in Rugby Union. (PS Never used the talk facility, so move all this if this is the wrong place to put it) --Gavinio 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

However, if the team/thing is named after Manchester, then quite clearly it represents the city. For example, Manchester United should be here, as they have Manchester in their name. Anything that's actually in, say, Salford, that either has "Manchester" in its name, or describes itself as belonging to Manchester in some way should be here. The important thing here is that it MUST be self-describing. Steven J 12:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Why is this the third largest city in England? The city of Birmingham is said to be less populated or the same.

It's not. Greater Manchester Urban Area is the third largest conurbation in England, being a tiny bit smaller than West Midlands. The city itself is either seventh if measured by Urban Sub-Area, or sixth if measured by Local Authority district.
However, it can be seen as the "second city" or even "third city" due to its very large economic power and cultural influence, rather than purely in population terms Steven J 21:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • London 7.5m
  • Birmingham city 977,087
  • Leeds 715,404
  • Sheffield 520,700
  • Liverpool city 447,500
  • Manchester city 422,300

It's second city to Liverpool MrBobla 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Another question

As much as I hate the idea of getting involved in this discussion again, I'm now not sure exactly what the scope of this article is, and would like it clarified as I might start doing some editing on it. Also, although another debate like the page move one is the last thing anyone needs, it might prevent major work on this later.

Is it the city of Manchester as defined on the map (ie not including Trafford, Salford etc.)? This seems perfectly workable to me, and well defined.

I've also noticed people referring to Greater Manchester as a conurbation, which I believe is incorrect according Wiktionary's definition of a conurbation (a collection of urban communities; urban sprawl). There is a county called Greater Manchester which includes a conurbation which includes Manchester, but it also includes places that could never be called part of Manchester's conurbation according to Wiktionary's definition (some countryside, Poynton, Wigan etc.) So, as much as I hate opening another debate here, can we decide exactly what this article refers to and make a note of the decision on this talk page? It'll hopefully prevent any more cut-and-paste merges like we've just had.

And thanks to everyone who helped fix the merge. Much appreciated. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

At least three things are clear: (1) there is a local authority with city status known as the "City of Manchester", this is shown on the map in the info box. (2) There is a county called "Greater Manchester" with no council and a large conurbation. (3) People mean different things when they say "Manchester".
I think most people mean the large city like thing in the NW of England when they say "Manchester" (note the lower case "c" in city) but this depends on context and I'll make my suggestion with this in mind. I would include anything pertaining to this city on this page and this includes things that don't follow the arbitrary boundaries of local authorities, post code areas or the lines drawn by the ONS. This includes culture, history, transport and geography. I would make a page about the local authority on City of Manchester but limit this to things about the authority, like the number of members of the council. If City of Manchester has a history section it would note things like the date of the granting of city status. If we do this it would be nice to avoid linguistic gymnastics like those found in the lead section of Leeds and answer "what is Manchester" below the TOC. People will disagree but that's my view at present. Andreww 11:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
There is indeed a Metropolitan County called "Greater Manchester", which includes places such as Wigan. There is also a Conurbation called "Greater Manchester", which does not include Wigan, but does include Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Trafford etc. They are not the same! This is not unusual - there is also a Metropolitan County called "West Midlands", that includes Coventry, and a Conurbation also called "West Midlands", that does not include Coventry but does include areas of the surrounding counties. Steven J 12:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a difference between the status of the conurbations and the counties. The county names (West Midlands and Greater Manchester) are official - they exist by act of parliament and have well defined boundaries. On the other hand there is no official name for the conurbations (is it Manchester or Greater Manchester, Birmingham or the West Midlands) and no well defined boundary. Was there a conurbation or called Manchester before the county was formed? What about Greater Manchester? How does this help define what this article should include? Andreww 19:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the Office for National Statistics, the conurbations have official boundaries, and are called Greater Manchester and West Midlands respectively. Prior to the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester, the area was known as SELNEC (South East Lancashire North East Cheshire). However, this is all a bit of a red herring. As I've mentioned above, the "Manchester" article should include items that are contained within the City of Manchester local authority, plus anything else that self-determines its status as belonging to Manchester, no matter which local authority area it lies within. For example, Manchester United should be referenced here (as it is named after the city), and the Lowry Centre (which declares itself to be in "Salford, Manchester") but, say, Bramhall Hall (in Stockport) should not. Steven J 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with your argument about what should be included, Manchester International Airport is another thing that should be (and, I think, is) included in the article. So "anything that self identifies as belonging to Manchester" is as good a criteria as any for inclusion. I'm sure that the ONS has well defined boundaries for the area it chooses to define as the conurbation of Greater Manchester but I would quibble with the suggestion that this is therefore either the edge of the true conurbation that exists on the ground today, or that the ONS's definition is official. As you say, this is a red herring - we should not just brake up the articles based on any arbitrary line drawn on a map. Andreww 07:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The gangs of Manchester

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

"international arena of the year"

anyone have a source for this?

http://www.men-arena.com/about/?page_id=68 - There's your source... I'll leave someone else to add it. Aaronsen 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22International+Arena+of+the+Year%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search&meta= gives 3 results. (without the -wikipedia you get an unmanagable flood of wikipedia mirrors).

http://www.notfah.com/wiki/Manchester is obviously an unattributed wikipedia mirror http://simplewebs.com/wiki/?o=Manchester was very slow and seemed to present a screwed up version of a wikipedia page http://www.guideofireland.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Manchester seems to give me the wikipedia homepage with links that just throw me back to said homepage.

in other words none of them back this up because they are all just using our content anyway. If i don't see some confirmation of this its going. Plugwash 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed and i'm going to get rid of "largest arena of its type in europe" too if a solid source isn't found.

Removed

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

In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst (b. Manchester 1858), and her daughters Christabel (b. 1880) and Sylvia (b. 1882), formed the Women’s Social and Political Union, to campaign for voting rights (suffrage) for women. The union became better known as the Suffragettes. In 1905 the organisation created a stir when Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney interrupted a political meeting in Manchester to ask two Liberal politicians (Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey) if they believed women should have the right to vote. Neither man replied. As a result, the two women got out a banner which reading ‘Votes for Women’ and shouted at the two politicians to answer their questions. Pankhurst and Kenney were thrown out of the meeting and arrested for causing an obstruction and a technical assault on a police officer.

Manchester has also been at the forefront of scientific and technological research since the beginning of the industrial revolution. John Dalton (b. Eaglesfield, Cumberland, 1766), a chemist and the originator of the modern concept of the atom, worked in Manchester. James Joule (b. Salford 1818), a protegé of Dalton who performed seminal work on the concepts of energy, heat and thermodynamics, and after whom the SI unit of energy is named, also worked in Manchester.

Sir Joseph Whitworth (b. Stockport 1803) invented and developed (in Openshaw, Manchester in 1841) the eponymous, accurate, standard screw thread which soon became a standard throughout the British Empire.

Osborne Reynolds (b.Belfast 1842), Professor of Engineering at Manchester from 1868 to 1905 undertook seminal work in the fields of fluid mechanics, turbulent flow and heat transfer; his important contributions are recognised by the widespread use of terms such as the Reynolds Number, Reynolds equations, Reynolds stresses and Reynolds Analogy.

At Manchester University in 1917 (reported 1919) Ernest Rutherford (b. Brightwater, New Zealand 1871) ‘split the atom’, having previously with colleagues Hans Geiger (inventor, with Müller, of the Geiger Counter) and Ernest Marsden helped discover the existence of the atomic nucleus. Whilst at Manchester Rutherford was awarded the 1908 Nobel prize for Chemistry.

The University of Manchester was at the forefront of computer research after the second world war. In 1948 F. C. Williams and Tom Kilburn of the Electrical Engineering Department built the the world’s first stored-program computer (a true universal computer, where changing a program would take minutes rather than days). These practical developments were accompanied by important theoretical contributions by Alan Turing (see that article). By October 1949, the team had built the full-sized ‘Manchester Mark I’, the first computer with a fast random access two-level store (i.e. with a magnetic drum ‘backing’ store, the ancestor of the hard disc). (An incidental invention was Manchester code - a phase modulation-based coding technique). This computer was used as the prototype for the first manufactured production computer, the Ferranti Mark I, the first one being delivered to the department in February 1951.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s the largest single-dish steerable radio telescope in the world was the 76 metre telescope at Jodrell Bank Observatory, part of the University of Manchester, which became operational in 1957.

4th UK city?

The following appears: Manchester is Britain's 4th largest city after London, Birmingham and Glasgow.

This cannot be true, independent of how one defines "city".

Firstly if defined as the local authority area Manchester is the UK's 7th or 8th largest city.

If defined as Met County it's 2nd or 3rd, probably 3rd slightly behind W Midlands. "Greater Glasgow" is I believe an artificial constuct for health authority purposes.

If defined as "conurbation" it's again 2nd or 3rd, probably 2nd slightly ahead of W Midlands, both roughly 2.3 million, though as there are probably many ways of defining each conurbation, it's arguable. The Glasgow conurbation is around 1.8 million, and it could be argued that Liverpool is a similar size to it.

Whichever way you cut it that statement is wrong and should be amended. --Apower 14:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How does "Manchester is one of the United Kingdom's larger cities. Measured by population, the City of Manchester local authority is the 7th or 8th largest city in the UK, but this underestimates the size of the conurbation which, for Manchester, is significantly larger than the local authority area. On the basis of the population within the conurbation Manchester is the second or third largest city behind London and possibly Birmingham." sound?
Then add a couple of footnotes one giving the source of the local authority size and the name of the next largest and next smallest city, and one pointing out the trouble with defining a conurbation, saying that the Glasgow and Liverpool may also be bigger and giving a reasonable shot at a source.
Andreww 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamal Morelli

A reference to Jamal Morelli was added to the TV and radio section a few hours ago by an anonymous editor[2], though they didn't bother to wikilink that article. The exact same text was added in late december[3], by a different anon IP, which presumably explains the "please don't cut without explaining" comment on the more recent edit summary.

There seems little reason to give Mr Jamal such a prominent position alongside Granada TV and Auntie Beeb, particularly given that more prominent local production companies (e.g. Cosgrove Hall Films) are not listed, and the article is already pretty large. Could the anonymous editor(s) please explain why this is worthy of inclusion here, before it just gets deleted again? Blufive 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the anon IP, it may be something that continues in cybercafe culture here in Morocco until we all have computers at our houses (and a large amount of time to create IDs which as of now is costly with our slow dial-ups) The reason I felt mr morelli should be re-included is that he has introduced a sister school of english in fes and is making a movie involving both cultures of fes(morocco) and manchester as well as investing in both cultures. It is a proud event for those of us who want more connectedness in the world. I am thankful however that you responded instead of just cutting us out, that is considerate for sure. Thank you. Also to help my friend editor the other above - It is very hard for us to translate sometimes - which is why we type please do not cut without explaining - the time it takes to contribute something is longer than it is in your country. also thank you.

City of Manchester/Greater Manchester

Some of this article is actually about Greater Manchester as an area, rather than the city itself. I suggest a refocus, especially regarding the sports parts. To say Manchester is served by Bury, Rochdale, Oldham football clubs is wrong, and would garner a heap of criticism from fans of said clubs. Also with Wigan Warriors RL. Boothman 10:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The political map in the infobox relates to Greater Manchester not the City of Manchester and should be removed. Also the list of historic counties for the City of Manchester is dubious. I thought the City (and county borough before it) were entirely within historic Lancashire. MRSC 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The City of Manchester expanded to take in Wythenshawe from Cheshire in the 1930s, and a bit more in 1974 when Ringway was added. Nothing in the *city* was ever in Derbyshire or Yorkshire...Lozleader 20:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the tuppenceworth of a new reader on this issue. It seems to me clear that Manchester (as commonly used in general speech, by residents and non-residents of the city alike), the county of Greater Manchester and the administrative City of Manchester are three distinct things. One can certainly make a coherent case that all three or any two of them should be covered by the same article, but in this case the article would have to clearly distinguish between them. At present, it doesn't, and is simply misleading bordering on factually inaccurate. It purports to be about the administrative City of Manchester, but then discusses a host of things which are not in the City of Manchester (eg. Manchester United football club), without making this clear.

My suggestion is that this page should be about Manchester as commonly defined, that is the city (small "c") which lies within Greater Manchester and contains the administrative City of Manchester. It should begin by explaining clearly that there is some ambiguity about what is meant by Manchester, giving links to Greater Manchester and to a (much smaller) page at City of Manchester describing the local authority. Of course the boundaries of Manchester (in my sense) are not formally defined so there will always be room for debate about what should or shouldn't be included, but I'm sure that should be manageable by common sense! Any objections or alternative suggestions, before I attempt this change? Best wishes, Cambyses 09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh, this is bonkers. People don't commonly mean the city of Manchester when they talk about Manchester, they mean Greater Manchester. Do you really think it makes sense to not mention Old Trafford (either of them) in this article just because it's outside some meaningless administrative boundary? --Khendon 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't bonkers, but sticking to facts. An encyclopedia article about Manchester should concern itself with facts about Manchester. Any mention of the sports grounds at Old Trafford should be kept to an article about Greater Manchester. Cymruisrael 09:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (born and bred in Manchester)
I will accept your argument when London restricts itself to talking about the City of London. --Khendon 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The obvious response to your point is that you therefore accept that as the London article deals with the area of the Mayor of London, that the Manchester article should deal with the area of the Mayor of Manchester. Which Greater Manchester would you like to see here, the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester, or the Greater Manchester Urban Area? Or perhaps you prefer the EU-defined 200m version of the Urban Area, in which case Manchester and Liverpool are considered part of the same urban area? Do you really believe that Salford, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and Bury are simply suburbs of Manchester? In which case, do you believe that say, Bradford is a part of Leeds?
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, something more defined than what any individual contributor "feels" is part of Manchester or is not part of Manchester - hence my suggestion regarding self-definition which covers the point that Manchester is felt to be not simply the City of Manchester local authority area. Steven J 22:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As I've pointed out previously, the sensible approach is one of a half-way house. Things should be included that are either in the City of Manchester Local Authority, or self-identify as being in Manchester in some way. Therefore, Salford's Lowry Centre (which describes itself as being in Salford, Manchester) or anything related to Manchester United should be included. Anything else in Greater Manchester should NOT be included. Steven J 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Khendon, please take the trouble to read carefully what people have actually written, before deriding it as "bonkers"! I never suggested that Old Trafford should be removed from the article - I merely pointed out that it was inconsistent with identifying "Manchester" with the "City of Manchester", as was at the time done in the introduction to the article. My proposed solution was NOT to remove the reference to Old Trafford from this article, but to reword the introduction to make it plain that this article is not just about the administrative "City of Manchester", and to make a separate article about the latter. In other words, I'm actually more or less on your side in this debate! Best wishes, Cambyses 10:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for being unclear; although my comment was next to your comment, it wasn't intended to be in direct response to it, but a general response to the state of the article after somebody *did* remove Old Trafford. --Khendon 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I attempted this change a while back as a lot of people agreed it was the sensible thing to do, but a couple of editors from outside the city took it upon themselves to decide this was wrong and they reverted it back to this confusing mess. We even had a poll on the matter which was in favour of the change, but this was ignored. I suggest we try again to get this structure in place. EarlyBird 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that a sentence which states that Manchester is home to Manchester United is quite simply incorrect. Please stop reverting this. Trafford (formerly Stretford) is home to Manchester United. Cymruisrael 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Manchester is a city and Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county. Or do some people think that the city and the county are the one and the same?

Salford is also a city. Towns of Ashton-under-Lyne, Wigan, Leigh, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, etc. are places in their own right.

Had the name Greater Manchester been called South Lancashire there wouldn’t be any problem.

Imagine that Merseyside had named Greater Liverpool or that South Yorkshire had been named Greater Sheffield. Would it mean that Liverpool or Sheffield are one and the same with their counties. Of course they wouldn’t be. Or what of the shire counties. Is Buckinghamshire and Buckingham, or Gloucestershire and Gloucester, or Nottinghamshire and Nottingham are one and the same. No they are not.

There’s a clear difference between a city/town and a county. Cwb61 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Student population "one of the largest in Europe"

This is an urban myth. Cities such as London, Paris, Rome and Berlin have several hundreds of thousands of students - many times the number that Manchester has. Even some quite small cities such as Toulouse and Bologna have over 100,000 which is quite a few more than Manchester.

In the UK context, the number of students in higher education at Manchester-based institutions (Manchester University, MMU, RNCM and UMIST) in the latest year for which consistent figures are available (2003/04) was 72,890, but this includes around 5,000 based at the MMU campuses in Crewe and Alsager over 30 miles away, so the final number for Manchester itself is about the same as the totals for Birmingham (68,890), Glasgow (67,110) and Leeds (66,115).

Greater Manchester as a whole had 99,395 students in higher education in 2003/04, considerably fewer than London (366,460) and the West Midlands (140,496) and probably fewer than West Yorkshire (97,210) if you subtract the Crewe and Alsager 5,000. This is fewer students percapita in each case, as well as fewer in total.

So Manchester's student population isn't really unusually large, and *Greater* Manchester's is in fact surprisingly small relative to other comparable areas in the UK. The only unusual thing is that so many of them are concentrated in a single small area of the city around the Oxford Road, which is presumably how the myth arose.

Latest statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency here - http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/institution0304.csv

- I believe the statistic was referring to student density in a particular area. I'll try and find backup for this. Myth it may well be, but that's the way I'd always heard it. I lived in Fallowfield/Owen's Park for over 20 years and saw no reason to doubt it, put it that way. - Renaissance Manc

The statistic used by the University of Manchester itself in its recruitment videos (not necessarily true though!) is the highest concentration of students in Europe. It also mentions the bus route being the busiest in europe, but it didn't reference anything.Jameskeates 14:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)



And while we're at it, is there any evidence to suggest that the claim that Oxford Road is the busiest bus route in Europe has any truth in it? Simple observation would suggest that it is unlikely to carry anything like the bus traffic of Oxford Street in London, for example. Is this just another urban myth too?

The only example I can find that isn't university related is from the South Manchester Reporter. I think the original claim was that the bus stop outside Owens Park is the busiest in Europe. Oldelpaso 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget postgrads and part-time students in all this too! As for busiest bus route - I think it was with number of busses rather than numbers on those busses. If it is an urban legend, it's a nice one, and can't be far off being wrong from what I've actually seen.--Gavinio 14:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So not only is there no evidence to support it, it's not even quite clear what the actual claim is (most passnegers? most busses? busiest bus stop?). Sounds like a classic urban myth to me. 86.6.110.247 10:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

'Busiest bus route' means most buses. Nowhere does it say 'most bus passengers'. Simple really. Again, it could easily be a myth, but as I say, I lived not two minutes away from the route for 20 years and I believe it, for what that's worth. - Renaissance Manc

Sport section

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

I think it's a shame to lose that para completely from the internet - it was interesting, even if it should be in a separate page or whatever. It was interesting information. Ditto the 'famous fans', I think people like this info, and often search for it, it; it would be a shame to lose it.--Gavinio 14:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

If Leicester is pronounced "lester" and Gloucester is pronounced "gloster", why isn't Manchester pronounced "manster"? JIP | Talk 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Beacause Manchester has an "H", and Leicester and Gloucester do not. Oldelpaso 09:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

highest concentration of football clubs per capita

Has anyone got a source for this. It doesn't seem correct. Greater Manchester has 9 clubs for 2.5 mil (288 thou per club) whereas South Yorkshire has 5 clubs for about 1.25 mil (255 thou per club). It also lists FC Manchester as a profesional club, which it isn't. josh (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that such an item doesn't belong in the Manchester article, but in the Greater Manchester one. Rochdale, for example, in no sense represents Manchester, and Wigan officially isn't even in the same conurbation as Manchester, although it is in the Metropolitan County. Steven J 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Great article

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

Recent edit by 62.252.196.26

An anonymous user, User talk:62.252.196.26, has today made a large number of changes to the Manchester page. A couple of them are clearly wrong, based on the source information, and I have reverted them. Another, about the Beetham Tower, I have expanded on to provide explanation. However, there still remain a number of changes and blankings that could prove contraversial. It may be best if we discuss if these should go back into the page before a revert war is triggered. The list of edits are:

  • "As in any large city, there has always been a thriving nightclub culture in Manchester, but its place in the history of modern clubbing arguably surpasses that of every other city in the UK with the possible exception of London."
Changed to: "As in any large city, there has always been a thriving nightclub culture in Manchester."
  • "The Shambles contains a branch of Harvey Nichols, the UK’s flagship Marks and Spencer store, and a branch of Selfridges. Together with the branch at the Trafford Centre, this means Manchester is the only city in the UK to have more than one branch of Selfridges."
Changed to: "The Shambles contains a branch of Harvey Nichols, a Marks and Spencer store, and a branch of Selfridges."
  • "Other buildings include a 150 metre tall office building, a new justice centre and new Crown Court."
Changed to: "Other buildings include a 110 metre tall office building, a new justice centre and new Crown Court." (I'm not sure which one of these is correct as neither version supplies a name for the building to check)
  • Removal of the statement: "The city is the main UK television production centre outside London"
  • Removal of the statement: "Outside the city centre there is a large John Lewis department store situated eight miles to the south of the city centre at Cheadle and also one at the Trafford Centre."
  • Removal of "Imperial War Museum North by Daniel Libeskind and Lowry Footbridge" from the places of interest.
  • Removal of the statement: "The centre of Salford is situated less than 20 metres from the centre of Manchester, across the River Irwell." from the Districts in the City of Manchester section.

I would appreciate any comments you have on wheter these changes should be reverted or left as they are. Thanks. Road Wizard 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Film

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

The film wasn't set in Manchester so it should be removed.

Why has the film list been deleted. King Konger 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article balance / expansion / contraction

I have chopped things around quite a lot so that less priority is given to pop culture. I think the balance of the article needs some work. The government section is little but lists of subdivisions (and they aren't very clearly presented), and it really needs to give readers an idea of how the city is governed, and by whom. This applies especially to non-UK readers who will have no idea what the powers of the various types of subdivision may be. The business section needs a lot of work: what is Manchester's economic role in the UK and in the world? At the moment the section doesn't say. The education section lacks context and says nothing about schools. The transport section also needs an introductory overview to put the detail in context.

Other things could be moved into subarticles (while leaving a summary here - far too often people just wipe out a whole section when they create a subarticle, which tends to leave the balance of the main article worse than it was beforehand). The main Manchester article really doesn't need to give advice on buying bus tickets; maybe travel in Manchester could, but not in a tourist guide manner. The further reading section of the nightlife section needs to be moved somehow, either to the end of this article, or into Nightlife in Manchester.

That said, there is a lot of information and some sections are excellent. CalJW 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

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

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Manchester/Archive 3 has failed, for the following reason:

At 75kb in length this article is far too long. More concise writing is needed throughout. Article length guidelines suggest 32kb as a healthy maximum. Worldtraveller 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can shorten the history section and the transport section. Create a Transport in Manchester article if needed. Perhaps also culture and media. Skinnyweed 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First British Sewer System?

Can someone provide verification for the statement:

  • Manchester also had Britain's first sewer network, which still exists today.

Weren't the Romans the first to build sewer networks in the UK? If so, is the Manchester sewer network Roman? Somehow I think one of their main southern settlements would have received a sewer system before their northern outposts. Does anyone have any comments about this? Thanks. Road Wizard 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it means the first post-Roman sewer system. David 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the sewers were built? We could say, "Manchester also had Britain's first post-Roman sewer system." but that could be taken to mean that anyone from the Vikings to the Victorians built it. Thanks. Road Wizard 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We should put these two in their respective sections, rather than here. Skinnyweed 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, that should hopefully allow us to cut down on duplication on this overly large article. Road Wizard 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Film trivia

I have removed this unnecessary list. Skinnyweed 17:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This list was very benifical i hope you have saved it the list so it can be given its own section. A lot of research had been put into this list. King Konger, 31 May 2006

Every previous version of this article (and indeed any article) is available by clicking on the "history" tab at the top. Oldelpaso 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of Work Needed on this Page

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

Post town

We could possibly do with mentioning the M postal area and also the Manchester post town. Morwen - Talk 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest does the "M" postal district remotely reflect the area of Manchester? I live in Bradford and the "BD" area is huge, going right into rural North Yorkshire which really have no connection with Bradford at all. -- Chris Q 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it reflects Greater Manchester. Salford and Trafford certainly have "M" post codes. Cymruisrael 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

add

Has some nicer people than London and Birmingham.

Especially the women, very nice indeed. Am I allowed to put that here!? 81.158.210.172 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditional vs modern

I noticed theres a revert war other whether Manchester should be included in Category:Towns in Lancashire. This is addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain which states that we should only use the current counties. josh (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact, the question of categorisation is not covered in that convention at all. The point is that categories that ignore everything more than thirty years old are not terribly useful. If, as an historian, I want to find the towns in the county of Lancashire as they existed for most of English history then it is not particularly useful for the category to ignore towns which only thirty years ago were switched to a new county. Wikipedia should cover all interests. -- Necrothesp 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
While that is true the policy indirectly affect categories. Anyone without the requesit knowledge would automaticly use the Lancashire article to determine what the county is. That article refers mainly to the current county. Therefore misleading the reader. Another problem is that traditional counties don't reflect modern geography. This causes problems with towns/cities that stradle the border. josh (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
So discriminating against anyone who is interested in the historical situation for hundreds of years rather than a mere thirty. Fair enough. Seems illogical to me, but if that's how people feel about it. Although I would point out that since the county of Greater Manchester itself effectively no longer exists except for ceremonial purposes this is a rather weak argument. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The county exists legally[4],[5], [6], and is used for emergency services, public transport, waste disposal, A-to-Z, ordnance survey and SatNav maps, heritage preservation, BDM and census returns (via the Greater Manchester County Records Office), sexual health provision, arts council funding, major sporting awards, as well as a well known and verifiable geographic reference frame by individuals and major business and organisations (as well as in the media, i.e. BBC, SKY, MEN news etc).
To assert that it no longer exists is silly. Please see AGMA, and this section of the main article, or the The Official Boundary Commission England for more. Jhamez84 20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester emergency services, transport, etc. don’t have anything to do with the ceremonial county.
The Greater Manchester Ambulance Service has merged with other Ambulance Services to become the North West Ambulance Service. That merger didn’t have anything with the ceremonial county.
The Wigan area doesn’t come under the Greater Manchester Urban Area but has its own Wigan Urban Area.
Humberside as a ceremonial county has been abolished, yet the Humberside Police Force and the Humberside Fire & Rescue Service still exist.
Greater Manchester was an administrative county which has since been abolished. The only thing that is left is that the area is kept for ceremonial purposes only.
To most people who live in the Greater Manchester area keep their loyalties to the historic counties of Lancashire or Cheshire or Yorkshire. Cwb61 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Big me up!

The city has a population of half a million, whilst Manchester as a whole is home to 2.5 Million people, making it England's and the United Kingdom's second largest city after London. Wtf? The city has a population of half a million. And then later on in the paragraph the city gains a further two million people?

The city has a population of just under half a million. The conurbation has a population of around two and a half million, roughly the same as West Midlands. Manchester and the Greater Manchester Urban Area are NOT the same thing, though "Manchester" itself definately includes areas outside the borough. Steven J 09:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User Category

At last, in an effort to bring Greater Manchester inline with other parts of the country, there is now a new user category to help connect Wikipedians from across the Greater Manchester county with each other.

This will be invaluable should there be a push or project which requires collaboration on a Greater Manchester related article in the future. Those who are interested, please see Category:Wikipedians in Greater Manchester and follow the instructions as appropriate. Many thanks, Jhamez84 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Can we look at updating the Infobox? I'm not familliar with how to format such things or else I certainly would do!... Manchester's looks tired and is basically just a table. Birmingham has a sleek looking one, although London's is the best! Is there a UK-city specific infobox we should be using anyway? I know "places" have one at Template:Infobox England place. Jhamez84 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We could upgrade the Manchester one to the type shown on the Birmingham page. I may do it when I have the time. David 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer! However, I've since had a whirlwind training session and upgraded the infobox! Hope it's well received. Jhamez84 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, good stuff. :) David 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My next beef...

From the opening section:

"Manchester is known as The Cotton City (as the city mainly produced textiles during the Industrial Revolution) or The Rainy City (due to the high levels of precipitation). More popularly has become 'Madchester' due to the city's notorious music scene."

I've lived and worked in Manchester, and I've never heard these three names. I've read of "Cottonpolis" as a term but not The Rainy City. They seem like anecdoteal terms to me, and not suitable for the opening section of an encyclopedia article. Do we have references, or should they just be removed (or at least moved)? Jhamez84 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Rainy City" should definetely be removed. David 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. I think the others are dubious however. They may have been used once or twice, or in certain small circles, but not in any lasting, significant sense. I'm going to tag them for the time being, despite how ugly it will make the lead (!). Reading through the article, this does need quite alot of work. Jhamez84 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You're making some good edits - really the whole article needs to be cleaned up, with some waffle/dubious stuff removed and other bits taken over to other (perhaps new) articles. David 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the map showing the districts of Manchester completely wrong. Example being number 2, I thought that was Stockport not Salford.--Colinreilly 20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My civic pride is getting to me. London, Birmingham, Sheffield, and even my part of the "city" Shaw and Crompton have (arguably) better articles than Manchester! Given it's size and population, I thought the article would evolve naturally, but its been stagnent for quite some time now. It needs a kick up the butt, and then some TLC.
Time permitting, I may start some of the sister articles which we're gonna need should we want to improve it, such as Geography of Manchester (Sheffield has one of those!). I agree though, there is alot of waffle. Jhamez84 22:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer a county wide Geography of Greater Manchester rather than a Manchester specific geography article. The area covered by the City of Manchester is small and "not a good shape". David 22:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Jhamez84 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding examples of excellence for city articles, as expected New York City is amoungst the finest. It may be in idea to "borrow" some ideas from this article, albeit simple ones such as the colour-coded climate table. Jhamez84 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New poll result

Hi there. I thought it might be worth bringing the following to your attention, as there are certain editors on Wikipedia who learn the results of a poll and repeatedly make reference to its results on every vaguely relevant page, apparently with little critical consideration. Let's hope they don't didn't watch the pseudo-science of Channel 4's Worst Places to Live 2006 ([7]) and don't find out about it either! ;-) (Yes, I am being tongue in cheek, but I think there's a more serious point in here too.) Matthew 13:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious point, I wanted to say that the work done here over the past few days is looking good. Keep it up! Matthew 13:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Climate Table

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

Manchester Residents

What are the people of Manchester called? Birmingham are Brummies, Liverpool are Liverpudlians and London are Londoners. So what are the people of Manchester called? Manchesties?- SCB '92 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mancunians, sometimes shortened to Mancs. Matthew 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Badly Drawn Boy

Badly Drawn Boy is from Bolton, Lancashire, not as stated Manchester.

Fourth para

"Note that Manchester United is in Greater Manchester but not inside Manchester city limits: it is in Trafford borough. But it is the city's biggest football club and most succsessful winning several premiership trophys, FA cups and european cup."

It's worth recording, how the hell has this managed to last at least two weeks?--82.15.46.131 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gun Culture

I've just wiped the section on gun culture. Not only was it full of grammatical and spelling errors but it may many unsupported claims. Whether Manchester has a significant gun culture is something I am out of touch with but this post (the first by this anonymous poster) seemed not to be adding anything to the article. Normally, I am not so harsh as to wipe and by all means return it if appropriate, corrected and referenced.

The article was:

"==Gun Culture== As with any major city, crime is bound to be a problem and the 'gun culture' has put a dint in Manchesters well established proud history. (Grammar, PoV)

There was a claim that major gang members who operate through gun crime, on average, dont make it past the tender age of 24. (Grammar, citation)

The Metropolitan Police have produced statistics that showed there has been a 3% climb in gun crime and a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation weapons. (Citation)

The actual total of fire-arms on the streets of Manchester is admittedly hard to predict but the recent shootings and escalation in gun crime is for all to see. Events such as the drive-by of the 15 year old school pupil, police officers being killed on duty reaching national news. (PoV, ref, grammar)

This has prompted insensitive nicknames such as the "Iraq of the North-West" and "Gun-chester". (Ref)

However glamorous the city is, there is a less than desirable underbelly of Manchester which bares unemployment, gang-prown areas fueling crime and a general 'rough tough' lifestlye lived out by many. (PoV, spelling)

Manchester is a great place with a character to match but the elevation in 'Gun Culture' is ringing alarm bells for any prospective tourists and tainting the image of what is in many peoples opinion 'the second city' of England. (PoV)"

Candy 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

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

Scope

This seems to have been said by others at other times, but I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring too. This article would benefit from having the exact scope of 'Manchester' defined early on in the article, and then having that definition adhered to throughout the article. Some write 'Manchester' and refer to the city, others write it and refer to the urban area, others write it and refer to the county, and others write it and refer to something between the city and the county, but I'm not exactly sure what. I'm not sure it matters particularly what the scope is, so long as it is consistently applied and what is said of Manchester, given that scope, is accurate. I suppose this is where a 'proper' encyclopaedia has one over Wikipedia - one editor means consistency. Matthew 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't really separate the whole thing, unfortunately. I think everyone agrees that the article definitely includes anything within the and about the local authority called "Manchester". The problem is that everyone also agrees that the local authority boundary are too small, and "Manchester" extends outside those. How about including everything outside the local authority that's named after the city, such as Manchester United, as well as anything that talks about itself as belonging to Manchester in some way. The fact that the item itself makes the distinction rather than contributors making that point is the relevant part. The other towns in the county and conurbation do have some gravitas of their own, so talking about, say, Wigan Town Centre or Stockport County Football Club isn't really relevant at all. That's not to say that Manchester's place within the Metropolitan County, conurbation and region as a whole should be ignored, but neither should it be claimed (as some contributors seem to wish) that the whole area is "Manchester". It's not. Fingerpuppet 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think an answer to this problem is finding reliable sources. Fingerpuppet is quite right in pointing out that legally/technically/verifiably, Manchester is defined as the area found within government literature - i.e. the local government boundary (which is also in keeping with the city boundary markers on the major roads).
However I respect that colloquially, that a much wider area is refered to as Manchester (see List of bands from Manchester - which I had to alter lead, and also Manchester (song)!). Without reliable sources however, we are limited to the definition presented in local government terms, and this is in keeping with other settlements of England on Wikipedia.
London may be an example of how to include the various levels of definition however, and should commentary be found, perhaps a "Scope" subsection within the Manchester article may be helpful to users to understand the various definitions, with context. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A subsection would certainly be useful. However, given that the scope can significantly affect this entire article, shouldn't there be something clearer in the introduction than what there is? I think the current introduction could be made less confusing with regard to what the article is actually about - if anybody knows for certain! :-) Matthew 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading something akin to this somewhere above (perhaps it was you writing elsewhere!), and to read it here again it seems a decent enough idea. Manchester's scope would be anything in the local authority and anything identifying itself as Mancunian, right? Matthew 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't me - someone mentioned it up above and I thought that it was about the best idea - showing that Manchester is larger than the local authority area, but taking the "what individual contributors think" out of the process. You've got exactly the scope that I had in mind. Fingerpuppet 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the lead section, per WP:LEAD it must be no more than four paragraphs (keep in mind that an article as wide-reaching as World War II has only one paragraph!). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus the lead should be an encyclopedic account of what Manchester absolutely is, rather than how some communities define it (though if significant enough it may be notable enough for the lead). The Encyclopedia Britannica, or other such articles on Manchester may provide ideas on how to better achieve this.

With regards to the scope of Manchester, I'm from the otherside of Oldham, but there are individuals here who identify as Mancunian. Of course this anecdotal and cannot be used as a source, but there are reputable websites that use Greater Manchester as a singular city of Manchester (i.e. a national-warehouse in the Oldham borough identifies their position as in North Manchester [8]). I am formualting an image that demonstrates the urban sprawl of the various settlements, which may help in this issue. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do with regard to outlining the scope in the lead section is to have a sentence in there linking down to a section that talks more about the scope. But it does seem important to me for a reader to be clear about the scope of the article from the outset.
Are the individuals identifying as Mancunian with an unspoken 'Greater' in front? Or perhaps it's like 'Roman' was used - one could be Roman without ever having been to Rome. Or perhaps they do indeed consider Manchester to extend that far. Not entirely convinced that your source is good as a means defining the area - it may be reputable but that doesn't make it authoritative. In my work I've seen more than my fair share of websites from 'proper' organisations that contain factual errors (and a good number of absolute howlers). In the case of a warehousing/distribution company, I would suppose them to go for simplicity rather than accuracy - I'd expect that 'North Manchester' is better than 'Near Oldham' for most people because while it is known that Oldham is in the Manchester area it probably isn't known whether it's north, south, east, or west. Matthew 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that that particular source is not authoritive, but it does demonstrate how Manchester is being defined as a wider area. I think that the Encyclopedia Britannica approach remains the best way forward, certainly for the opening paragraph of the lead. Jhamez84 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, although Manchester isn't alone in UK terms - there's also Reading that is larger than the local authority area, for example. Certainly when I lived in "North Manchester", that's how it was described by all and sundry, despite the fact that the bins were emptied and streets cleaned by Bury MBC. Crossing the M62 (as it was then!) really felt like going into a different town, rather than crossing the local authority border. Whilst deciding that the local authority area is the sole scope of the article is the easiest choice, the fact is that that would involve deleting all references to Manchester United, for example - which is clearly ridiculous. Therefore, the idea of self-determination of status comes into play. Fingerpuppet 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think between the three of us (which is a little small) there is a consenus that the term "Manchester" goes beyond the local authority boundaries - but inkeeping with other articles such as Birmingham and other such city-articles, we should keep consistency. And, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), should use the modern administrative (metropolitan bourough) boundaries as the primary geographic frame of reference.

I do agree however that the scope/conurbation should be mentioned in the Geography and administration section - but we need sources; "Is this conurbation called Manchester or Greater Manchester? What are its limits? Who uses this term? Is it controvertial and why?" These are questions that will be asked by skeptics and critical thinkers.

Finally, with regards to Manchester United, I understand this to be an old arguement previously debated. However given its origins were part of Manchester (Newton Heath) and its inextricable links (given the name) with Manchester, the phrase "connected" with Manchester was deemed permissable, and verifiable. Jhamez84 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Source this statement please

This statement: "Manchester is historically notable for being the world's first industrialised city,"

This is a bold statement however this is unsourced. Please source it to avoid any other future disputes over this. Thank you - Erebus555 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly controversial (though may need caveating as 'world's first industrialised major city' or similar), but I think you're right that a source should be found. Related to this, I'm not so sure that the 'central' in the second half of this sentence is the right word - 'major' seems less controversial while still acknowledging the large part played by the mills etc. Thoughts? Matthew 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does it need caveating to 'world's first industrialised major city' or similar? Is there a world's first industrialised minor city? If so what is it? ˜˜˜˜ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
That's pretty much my concern - what is it, exactly, to be an industrialised city? Would a small city with a factory count as more industrialised than a large one with five factories? It's probably not a concern (can only think of small towns, as opposed to cities, but perhaps this is a quirk of the way we differentiate the two in the UK) but inserting 'major' would stop it all from the outset. Matthew 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed a common assertion/well known fact that this is true; and alot of literature exists to back it up. I've provided two sources, one of which is from a quick google search, the other from an academic journal. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There is something amiss with your second ref. That volume of English Historical Review contains a review by David Nash of Fielding and Davies' book, but that is at p191, not 1323, and as far as I can tell, makes no reference to Manchester being the first industrialised city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

It's been resourced - like I say, there is a wealth of writing in the public domain that put that Manchester was the first industrialised city in the world. Urbis (a museum in Manchester about modern cities) was built in part as a testament to this. I'm not keen on internet sources, and will try to swap these to print sources if there are no objections. Jhamez84 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not some kind of citation from Urbis itself? It would be doubly beneficial, as it would be a citation from a pretty authoritative and neutral source, as opposed to from someone somewhere on the Interweb sharing what his particular thought on the matter is. Matthew 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Though it was a provisional source whilst I searched print material. I've found two more sources for this statement just from my own personal books alone - I'm sure there are hundreds. I must say that I'm presuming those users who seek the citation are not from Manchester, or indeed England, as I understood this to be taken as read. Anyway, hope the new references suffice.... now to the rest of the article.... Jhamez84 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Lonely Planet - should be a sufficiently neutral source free from any kind of marketing spin! NB I think that the original poster was being pedantic, but that's fine. Matthew 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Or a Pevsner Architectural Guide (same logic)? Matthew 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
My initial thought. However, I couldn't find anything so specific in the book. We do have "Ancoats ... was the world's first industrial suburb ..." (p5) "SE Lancashire and Manchester became the first industrial economy and society in the world ..." (p13) which is not quite the same thing. Mr Stephen 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject:Manchester

For those, if there is anyone, interested I have created a proposal for a Manchester WikiProject. I think a Wikiproject to co-ordinate work on articles about Manchester could be useful. Pit-yacker 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I've got no idea how one would go about doing this though! --Gavinio 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to post that the proposal details are posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Manchester. AFAICT, its not too difficult to start, but for it to work three needs to be enough people interested. Pit-yacker 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added my support eventhough I'm from Birmingham. You will probably ohnly find me editting buildings and structures articles though as that's the only thing I am really interested in on Wiki. - Erebus555 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There are now five editors interested - I think this is the minimum threshold for initiating such a project- though some interest is conditional on creating a Greater Manchester wide WikiProject. Jhamez84 02:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Shopping

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

Too historical?

I think that perhaps the information on nightlife is a little too historical, should this section not read more like a city guide for tourists etc?

No - that's what Wikitravel is for! Matthew 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester/Archive_3&oldid=1136985923"