Talk:Manchester/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

More peacock prose

Quite apart from the whole nicknames//Second City/Capital of the North issue, this article has a few WP:PEACOCK problems more generally. For a featured article this has far too much "wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information", and quite a lot of WP:Undue weight given certain cherry-picked "facts" from poor-quality or unreliable sources.

In particular, there are several major claims given significant prominence but referenced to throw-away lines in the city's own promotional material.

For example:

• "A report commissioned by Manchester Partnership, published in 2007, showed Manchester to be the "fastest-growing city" economically."

That Manchester is the "fastest growing city economically" is a huge claim, and one mentioned in the article three times, but supported by a single line in a city council press release written in highly marketing-driven prose (eg the report is "ground-breaking", the conclusion - "we know that Manchester is a great city, and we want more people share in its successes"). This single source has no explanation, analysis, citation or supporting data (Fastest growing city in what respect? Using what measure? Over what time period? Fastest in england? The UK? Europe? The world? The North west?).

• "Manchester today is a centre of the arts, the media, higher education and commerce."

This is obviously true, but it's true of almost any decent-sized city. Stoke-on-Trent, for example, could legitimately claim to be a centre of the arts, the media, higher education and commerce. It's just meaningless marketing fluff.

• "It is one of the largest financial centres in Europe with more than 15,000 people employed in banking and finance and more than 60 banking institutions."

How does a financial sector of 15,000 count as "one of the largest in Europe"? Surely the phrase "one of the largest financial centres in Europe" should mean it compares with London, Frankfurt, Milan, Paris etc, rather than being a bit smaller than Leeds and a bit bigger than Bristol? Again, this huge claim is referenced by a single line on a webpage designed to promote the city for the Commonwealth Games (in fact a large chunk of the "economy" section is derived from this inherently unreliable source).

• "Manchester is a focus for businesses which serve local, regional and international markets."

Again - meaningless marketing hype. Most cities have businesses which import and export as well as trading locally, no?

• "Manchester is home to the largest group of consuls in the UK outside London."

If you look at the Foreign Office's list of consulates outside London [1] this is clearly not even close to being the case - Edinburgh has far more, Birmingham arguably has a few more too (depending how you measure it).

• "it seemed a place where almost anything could happen"

There is no doubt that early Victorian Manchester was a remarkable place ("shock city of the age", in Asa Briggs' classic description), but this unreferenced sentence in the article makes it sound almost literally magical. Surely that's taking it a bit far? "Almost anything"? Really?

JimmyGuano (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consulates

I was never sure over the relevance of consulates to the article, but the claim is sourced. As are some of the other items you've listed (although the last point seems like a case of florid prose trying to be brilliant prose, and maybe a little over the top), unless you can provide sources refuting the claims please see WP:V which rates "verifiability" over "truth". Regardless, I will take a closer look at the issues raised once I have time. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point about the consulates, I haven't got the book but I wasn't suggesting that the reference was in any way fictional. The Foriegn Office ought to be fairly definitive in this matter I'd have thought though?

For the rest it was WP:RS that seemed the most relevant here. The fact that a sentence exists on the web doesn't necessarily make the substance of that sentence verifiable, particularly when the source cited is far from being independent of the subject matter.

JimmyGuano (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The consulates sentence is very subtle - note that it states "Manchester is home to the largest group of consuls in the UK outside London." - not that Manchester is home to the largest number of consuls in the UK outside London. If you do a little bit of digging, you'll find that there are consuls in, for instance, Chester and Leeds that are part of the group based in Manchester. As someone pointed out a couple of months ago, there are more consuls in Edinburgh. However, the Edinburgh group doesn't seem to be as large as the Manchester group. Matthew (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't do "subtle", I try and put sources into my own terms (some sentences defy my abilities). Try looking here. Perhaps Fox is an idiot or fantasist, or in the pay of some shadowy body? Mr Stephen (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he should read what the FCO has to say on the matter? His publisher may then wish to revise the website and perhaps also the book. :-) If you check the Manchester Consular Association's own website you'll of course note that a number of the consuls, while members of the group, are based in other cities. For instance, Hungary (Liverpool) or Germany (Leeds). Matthew (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You see no possibility that he knows his subject? Fair enough. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible ... but I'd rather rely on primary sources than secondary sources. Matthew (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is of course the academeically pure route to take, but wikipedia's policy states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources (emphasis on the actual policy page, not my adding). The idea is that we're not experts and can draw the wrong conclusions from primary sources, whereas secondary sources usually undergo some sort of vetting. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK and understood - but then we have the question of whether the opening paragraph from a minor publisher's website about one of its books (what I've seen so far), demonstrably factually wrong by reference to the primary sources, can be taken to be a reliable secondary source. The rest of that part of Wikipedia's policy does not prohibit the use of primary (or tertiary) sources for specific statements. This seems a fairly specific statement not supported by the relevant primary sources - pretty certain this doesn't count as OR. If, say, the BBC website showed that the city's population was 100,000, would we have that in the article in the face of evidence from the primary source (the ONS, presumably - I forget exactly who co-ordinates such things)? Anyway, all this is by the by - even that website says the 'largest consular corps', which isn't disputed. In fact, I'm not sure what is being disputed here any more. Mr Stephen, what was your objection (if there was one - I intepreted it as one) to my trying to clarify to JimmyGuano that it is accurate to write 'Manchester is home to the largest group of consuls in the UK outside London' in the article. Matthew (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Majabl's interpretation of the sources here - that Fox's claim is correct, but misleading if taken to suggest that Manchester actually has more consuls than other cities - seems pretty reasonable and is hardly a conspiracy theory. What is the alternative interpretation: that Fox knows lots of secret consulates than nobody had told the Foreign Office about?

I don't think there's any assuption of bad faith here, at worst the implication is one of WP:Undue weight.

JimmyGuano (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fastest growiing city"

(ec)"A report commissioned by Manchester Partnership, published in 2007, showed Manchester to be the "fastest-growing city" economically." That Manchester is the "fastest growing city economically" is a huge claim, and one mentioned in the article three times, but supported by a single line in a city council press release written in highly marketing-driven prose (eg the report is "ground-breaking", the conclusion - "we know that Manchester is a great city, and we want more people share in its successes"). This single source has no explanation, analysis, citation or supporting data (Fastest growing city in what respect? Using what measure? Over what time period? Fastest in england? The UK? Europe? The world? The North west?). The reference is a report, not a press release. I cannot find the phrase "ground-breaking" in it, but I do find "The report is intended for use by the Council, Manchester Partnership, public services, residents, schools and businesses. Its primary purpose is to raise awareness and provide a comprehensive evidence base to inform decisions and planning commitments to improve the city." With a Wiki-hat on I assume that means the data is reliable; with a common-sense hat on I think inventing data would be counterproductive. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a report though, it's a press release about a report. OK, it doesn't say "Press Release" at the top, but it's in the News section of the council website, it has a release date at the top and a Media Contact at the bottom - if it isn't a press release, what is it? The "groundbreaking" quote is accurately taken from the first paragraph, the "great city" similarly from the third from last.

There's no need to hunt for sentences on obscure sources like this for information about sub-regional economic growth - it is available authoritatively and definitively from the Office for National Statistics (see sheet NUTS 3_3 of this - [2]). As you can see, there is no evidence for Manchester's economic growth being in any way above average during the last decade. Although it grew strongly from 1995 to 1999, Greater Manchester South's economic output was 12% above the national average in 2000 and remained so in 2006 (the latest year for which figures are available). Over the same period Edinburgh's economic output increased from 50% above the national average to 62% above, Liverpool's from 12% below to 8% below, both thus growing much faster than Manchester (and, if you look at the figures year by year, pretty consistently so). The City Council may profess to being the fastest growing city in the UK, but in the absence of the slightest indication of how they've come to this conclusion, it's very hard to see how this should precedence over the standard data from the ONS, who don't have any agenda and whose entire purpose is to provide such information. Even if there is some pretext for the claim (I'm not suggesting they've made up any data - after all they haven't presented any data), then isn't it still a misleading one to make without qualification in the light of the offical figures?

JimmyGuano (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. The report is called Manchester's State of the City Report and it is here. It's one of the references. There is some vandalism in the article that you might want to sort out BTW. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a good reference, much better than the worthless PR guff cited for the "fastest growing" claim in the lead. It also makes it clear in sections 4.1 and 4.2 exactly what it's saying: that it's using slightly less up to date versions of the ONS data posted above, that it's talking about Greater Manchester South (probably fair enough for inclusion in this article, as data isn't available for Manchester on its own), and that it's talking about GVA growth specifically between 2003-2004. That doesn't really support the claims that "The city's economy ... as of 2007, is the fastest growing in the UK", but could probably support something like "Greater Manchester South had the fastest growing economy in the United Kingdom between 2003 and 2004". As another two years' statistics have been published since, showing other cities to be growing faster, it probably needs to make it clear that that year was an exception, though. Does that sound reasonable? JimmyGuano (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The most up to date GVA data from ONS is for 2007, which is available at NUTS3 (Manchester) and NUTS2 (Greater Manchester), and both show them to be virtually the same as both West Yorkshire and Leeds in terms of growth from 2006, or even 2005, and even then both Leeds and Manchester witnesssed GVA growth that is only fractionally higher than the other core cities. Even the State of the English Cities Report 2006 (which uses quite old data, 1999-2004 i believe) showed Leeds was the star performer in terms of growth. Although clearly sources that have extrapolated GMS data appears to shower higher growth. Razorlax (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Financial centre

There's a reliable comparison of Financial Services employment from the Office for National Statistics here - [3]. This makes the ridiculousness of the "one of the one of the largest financial centres in Europe" quote very obvious. How about changing it to something like "Manchester employs 92,700 (2007 figures) in banking, finance and insurance, making it the second largest financial centre in the North of England and the fifth largest in the United Kingdom outside London" JimmyGuano (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Not sure where we got to a few months ago, but here's my take on what should and shouldn't be listed as nicknames in the infobox!

Capital of the North - included. This seems to be citable, so I think it should be included, perhaps with reference to the fact that someone may also think of Leeds?

Cottonopolis - not included. This is cited as having been Manchester's nickname a century or more ago and could be mentioned in the history section. I don't think it counts as a contemporary nickname.

Gunchester - included. This is a verifiable nickname of Manchester - for instance, between the last discussion and this one, I saw this newspaper article: [4]. Note the headline! IMO if there is to be a nicknames section, the omission of this one is tantamount to peacockery.

Second City - not included. Manchester may nowadays be considered the second city, and there are surveys cited to this effect. However, 'Second City' as a nickname does not (yet?) refer to Manchester. As I've written previously, I may be considered male but that doesn't make 'Male' my nickname.

Warehouse City - not included. This is uncited and seems to come from nowhere. I've certainly never heard of it. Matthew (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See above, there's no point in splitting discussion over two threads. But before you go there, no one ever said these were contemporary nicknames. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we just remove all nicknames from the infobox? They cause so much of a problem because I agree not all are used as a nickname. For example you don't say "I'm going to the second city for some shopping." but they should remain in the lead and the rest of the article as they do give a good indicator as to the importance of the city. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this may be along the lines of the approach to take - a 'nicknames' section provides no context to them, whereas inclusion in the body text (where the nickname is verifiable as a nickname) should be fine. Matthew (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to 'Gunchester' I still stand by my stance that it is just media histeria. The Daily Mail has thrown the term 'Broken Britain' around to cause as much panic as they can but you don't see that included on the United Kingdom article as a nickname. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the result of citizen polls is notable. The article speaks for itself with regards to the importance of the city without requiring peacock terms and minor polls on popular opinion. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply the BBC is not a reliable source? There are more sources than just the BBC including The Times. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you can quote a piece of peacock prose from the web, or even from a poll, doesn't make it any less peacock prose. Here for example is the Independent newspaper reporting a survey showing that Leeds is the best place to live in the UK, here is the highly respected Conde Nast Traveller Magazine showing that Glasgow is by far the friendliest city in the UK. Both are just as well sourced as the Manchester's "Second City" and "Capital of the North" claims, and both would be just as inappropriate to the lead of their respective cities' encyclopedia articles.

The guidelines on what constitutes peacock prose are very clear - "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section."

"Second City" and "Capital of the North" seem very clear examples of terms that promote the subject without imparting any real information - they are meaningless, subjective, hype and thus exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided in the Lead.

Incidently, please can you stop editing your own preferred text into the article while a discussion is still taking place?

JimmyGuano (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So much for keeping things in one place... anyway, removing the nicknames from the infobox seems fair. The nicknames field in the infobox is a blunt tools for something more nuanced which can still be dealt with in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got a source for "Warehouse City" - it was as common, if not more so that Cottonopolis, but doesn't seem to have persisted quite as much. I believe the source is in the History section. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they should really stay in the history section as they are not in common usage these days but still important and should be in the article. I think we really should just abandon the nicknames field as it adds little except conflict. We can do the names better justice within the body of the text. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with editors who feel using "second city" as a nickname is extremely misleading, and only serves to make the article lose credibility. Every single person in the UK knows that manchester is not nicknamed "2nd city". "Hello, I'm of to second city today for some shopping" lol. As soon as people read this lie, they have little faith in the accuracy of the rest of the article. Yes, there certainly warrants a paragraph that is not in the lead which discusses the unofficial 2nd city of the UK, with an explanation that some people consider Manchester to be the 2nd city, whilst others consider Birmingham. Any further massaging of this becomes disingenuous. --Razorlax (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Gunchester, firstly it is actually a real nickname, that people do really use. I have heard people use the phrase "i'm staying in gunchester for the week', and there are many press articles and newspapers that have used the phrase. Yes, the name partially derives from media-hype and frenzy (although incidently Manchester does indeed have a very disproportionatly high murder rate from guns), however Wikipedia is here to report as people see it. If gunchester *is* a nickname that is known to be used, then, whether its nickname is warranted or desvered or not is irrelevant, it should be included. --Razorlax (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, with regards to the peacock terms..the Manchester article is pretty shocking, and would not receive FA if it was resubmitted now. I know of people here at university who have had to find information on cities, and have completely by-passed the Wiki Manchester article, (whilst still using wiki for other cities), because the lead reads like a fake advertising promotional advert, giving the reader little faith in the credibility of the rest of the article that is supposed to be an encylopedia. It's a shame, because the rest of the article is good. I appreciate that the small number of editors who have made this article read how it does today want to promote manchester in the best possible way, however people are not stupid, and the second something starts to read like a promo advert full of peacock terms and sentence after sentence that breaks Nuetral Point of View, the article stops being taken seriously. --Razorlax (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sports - football - 5 star stadium

Hi guys, came here for a few pointers on how a city's WP:FA Sports section should look (having a go at Cardiff at the moment) and noticed that you have Old Trafford as the only UEFA 5 star stadium in England. Well, the Millenium's a five star, so I thought (depending on how many Scottish/NI ones there are) I could say something like ' ... one of only three/four UEFA 5 star stadia in the UK'. Only when I looked at the list 1: Wembley is there too & 2: It seems that UEFA 5 star stadia have been replaced by UEFA Elite stadium (in 2006) see here. Thought you should know. Think I'll just leave it off the Cardiff article - far too confusing. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good spot. The UEFA classifications changed in 2006, but it wasn't public knowledge until quite some time after that. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird, huh? Makes you wonder why a public body would make a decision, then keep it secret. What did/do they have to hide? I tried to find a definitive statement explaining the new procedure, but failed and gave up. Perhaps some experts from the football pages could explain, if asked. Daicaregos (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually inhabit football pages, though I make no claim of being an expert. UEFA and FIFA aren't the most, um, transparent of bodies, but as Bernard Ingham would say, incompetence is more likely than secrecy. For ages our article on this was (unknowingly) wrong due to the lack of sources, and emailing UEFA asking to be pointed in the direction of a document containing the relevant information was fruitless. Then one day this pdf appeared on the UEFA website. Locally, this means Old Trafford and the City of Manchester Stadium used to have different grades (4/5 Star) but now have the same grade (Elite). Confused yet? Oldelpaso (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

'Shambles' just about covers it. I see the City of Manchester Stadium article has it as a UEFA 4 star stadium in the infobox. The Old Trafford article says 'It is one of two stadia in the country to have been given a five-star rating by UEFA.' Though I don't know which country they mean, as the reference they cite only has Old Trafford from England (it also has Ibrox, Hampden Park, and the Millennium from the rest of the UK). Hope you don't think I'm getting at Manchester. The Stamford Bridge (stadium) (I'm a Chelsea fan) article's infobox has 'UEFA' but doesn't quote any stars/elite at all (guess they gave up too). So, are we as likely to see a UEFA cup final at a (former) 4 star ground as a 5 now. If not, what would have been the point of changing the criteria? Looks like all the old 4/5 star grounds articles' need to be updated - but to what? As I say 'shambles' just about covers it. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

We currently give both a non-rhotic "UK" pronunciation and a rhotic "US" pronunciation: pronounced /ˈmæntʃɪstə/ , English pronunciation: /ˈmæntʃɛstər/.

If I'm right, the symbol /ɚ/ (for the final vowel) would eliminate the need to have both, since it indicates that the final schwa may be either rhotic or not, depending on the speaker's accent. This would reduce clutter, and would also avoid the misleading impression that US English has a peculiar way of pronouncing "Manchester", when the distinction is really between rhotic and non-rhotic, not US and UK. Lfh (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Demetrication?

I looked for information about the height of Manchester above sea level [5], found it was different from the figures given in the infobox and edited the infobox. However, the infobox automatically put the Imperial conversion before the metric original. Is there any reason for this? Michael Glass (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because imperial/metric is the default for {{Infobox settlement}}. There's a parameter (unit_pref) to switch to metric/imperial, but that would make the infobox inconsistent with the rest of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case for infoboxes for many counties in England. Is there any particular reason for Manchester being different? Michael Glass (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

There is a spelling error in the last line of the second paragraph: "boom, Mancehster was transformed from a township into a major..." 86.29.225.173 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Casino

The Redevelopment section in this article seems to devote a bit too much space to the issue of the casino, which doesn't feel relevant in an article about Manchester as a whole. By including so much detail it feels a bit like soapbox text. Does anyone disagree that this should be trimmed back to a couple of sentences? The information and citations could be moved to the Regional casino article where it would be more relevant. Wikidwitch (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture

Disappointingly, while this article covers a lot about music, there is very nothing about Manchester's wide range of museums, galleries, and other visitor attractions. Compared to articles about London or Edinburgh, this is quite a striking omission. As this is a heavily-discussed article, I'm proposing a new section before adding it - a paragaph under culture to highlight some of the attractions, retaining the link to the {{mainarticle}} Culture of Manchester for more detail. Any major objections before I proceed? Wikidwitch (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Think it's an excellent idea Wikidi - I'm gonna propose a new article on the history of Media in Manchester too, unless anyone objects etc. --Mapmark (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis done. I hope it isn't too long - kept it as concise as I could. I would suggest any expansion goes into Culture of Manchester, but I hope everyone likes it. 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in 'demographics' section

The demographics section states "Some parts of Manchester have been adversely affected by its recent rapid urbanisation, resulting in high levels of crime in areas such as Moss Side and Wythenshawe". This makes no sense as neither of these areas have recently undergone urbanisation - Moss Side has been an urban area since the 19th century, and Wythenshawe was mainly constructed between the 1920s and early 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.164.61 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, since the article does not claim that either Moss Side or Wythenshawe have undergone recent rapid urbanisation. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it to "Some parts of Manchester were adversely affected by its rapid urbanisation ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

2008 Mid year estimates

I note that Manchester's mid year popluation for 2008 is 464,000 according to this link [6] from Manchester Council, and Greater Manchester's poulation is up to 2.573 million. I wonder does anybody know where abouts on the ONS website I could find the information to verify these figures? GRB1972 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I get 464,200 from Nomis for the Manchester local authority data estimate for 2008, and 2,573,500 for Greater Manchester (via the query builder). As an aside, Greater Manchester is rather interestingly described as a "former metropolitan county" on Nomis. Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fingerpuppet, that's interesting, especially about GM, does that mean we can go back to Lancashire and Cheshire now I wonder? I hope so! GRB1972 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all part of the wierd do they/don't they dichotomy of the Metropolitan Counties, and the unclear wording of the 1972 LGA. It's interesting that it's from an official source, though. Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note...

Just a note that I made this change because of two reasons. 1) "largest city" could be interpretted as area, 2) London is a region of England, not a city; the City of London is a city; Birmingham is the most populous city in the UK. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No that's not true. London as a whole is a city as laid down by statute, including the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Which is why whenever the most populous cities in the UK are discussed, London is always first and never Birmingham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.116.125 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Respectfully, you have excemplified the very ignorance that sustains this nonsense. London is a government office region, one of the regions of England. The City of London is a specific territory that holds city status in the United Kingdom (the clue is in the title). Greater London is a ceremonial county of England. The Greater London Urban Area is a conurbation used for demography and statistical analysis. London is, of course, listed 1st by convention, but it is a convention only, and what that we do not have to perpetuate. It is better described as the most populous municipality in the UK, than city. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Everyone is perfectly aware that the 'City of London' has 'city status' but for all intents and purposes in this country, nobody in their right mind would say that Birmingham is the largest city in the United Kingdom, and if you think that's the case then you obviously don't live in the UK. Why do you think the Mayor of London's office is called 'City Hall' when it actually lies in Southwark? Can you really say that Wembley, Camden Town, Greenwich, etc. are not part of a city? Look at the article called "List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population" and you'll see that unlike all other British cities, London's population is given by its Greater London total - NOT by the City of London. London has unique status, and I admit is unusual, but to say that Birmingham is the UK's largest city is being ridiculously pedantic and giving false information on the reality of the situation. EVERYONE in the UK considers London as a whole as our capital city. If you're really keen to be pedantic on this then feel free to call Manchester the '9th most populous settlement', but certainly not the '8th largest city', because it gives an incredibly misleading impression. And for the record, the Birmingham article clearly states that it is the "most populous British city outside London".

Well, you say "London as a whole is a city as laid down by statute" and "EVERYONE in the UK considers London as a whole as our capital city.". Can you provide proof from a reliable source? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The convention is that London is the capital city of the United Kingdom. Do you have any offical evidence from a verifiable source that Birmingham is the UK's largest city?94.7.116.125 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time on it, but Regions of England and List of English districts by population gives you clues. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be about 'Manchester' or the 'City of Manchester'?

There seems to be lots of confusion and contradictions within the article as to whether this is supposed to be discussing strictly the 'City of Manchester' or 'Manchester' in the wider sense that most people would talk about in general conversation.

For example, the side box at the top of the article refers to the City of Manchester, and on various wiki articles about Manchester buildings you can get a link box at the bottom which is called 'Buildings and structures in Manchester, England' which only includes buildings in the City of Manchester. However, in the article, mentions are made of various institutions which most would consider 'Mancunian' but which actually lie OUTSIDE of the City of Manchester (eg. Manchester United, Media City, The Lowry), yet no mention is made of others (eg. the Trafford Centre, Salford University - it specifically says there are only TWO universities in Manchester, and all the photos in the article are of landmarks within the City of Manchester, nothing in Salford/Trafford).

The confusion is perhaps best summed up by the fact that the article says that there are only TWO universities in Manchester (so not including Salford University) but yet says the city has TWO Premiership football clubs (so including Manchester United which is in Trafford).

So either this is strictly about the 'City of Manchester', or it is about 'Manchester' in a more general sense and should therefore include information about important buildings/people in Salford, North Trafford, etc. Personally I think it should be the latter as I think that's what most people would expect from an article entitled 'Manchester'. If this is the case, then mentions of places like the Trafford Centre, Salford University in the 'education' section, photos of Old Trafford, etc. should be included.

And this confusion needs to be sorted out pretty much in all articles with 'Manchester' in the title as this problem occurs in others too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.116.125 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's about Manchester as can be verified from books etc, not a made-up area. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - whilst Manchester United do play outside the city, they name themselves after the city (and so are verifiably associated with it) and indeed were founded within the city. The Lowry Centre describes themselves (or at least used to) as being in "Salford, Manchester"; hence they self-associate with the city. Salford University and the Trafford Centre do not self-describe as belonging to Manchester. Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point about Manchester United but the Lowry has nothing to do with the City of Manchester at all and, in my opinion, shouldn't be mentioned in the article. The fact that they self-associate with Manchester is irrelevant. They probably do that because most people would know where Manchester is but maybe not Salford. Richerman (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Trafford Centre identifies itself as being in Manchester. The address it gives to contact on its website is 'The Trafford Centre, Manchester, M17 8AA'. So if you include references to The Lowry (which should be included), then references to the Trafford Centre should be included too.94.7.116.125 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not actually answering the question though. Some parts of the article seems to focus specifically on the City of Manchester, whilst others focus on a wider area. That's the confusion that needs to be sorted out.94.7.116.125 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the city of Manchester. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? Whenever something falls outside the tightly drawn boundaries of the city of Manchester proper, its location is mentioned. Just because they don't fall within the actual boundaries doesn't mean they can't be mentioned as part of Manchester. Even the tourism website for Manchester mentions the Trafford Centre and the Manchester United, and rightfully so. By this argument, the London page should only include everything that falls with the city of London proper. Tong22 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple - there are two separate articles, Greater Manchester and this one which, as it says at the top of the article, is about the smaller area which is the original city of Manchester, which was always called just "Manchester". Similarly "The City of London", is a small area of Greater London and they both have separate articles. Places that have had an effect on Manchester - such as the Manchester Ship Canal or Manchester United can be mentioned, but they are not actually in Manchester or "part of Manchester". The Manchester tourism website isn't just concerned with the city of Manchester - they want to attract tourists to the area and so mention all the attractions in Greater Manchester and beyond. Richerman (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Euromonitor international (visitor rankings)

I doubt my writing style is up the high-standard of eloquence in which the Manchester article is composed, however, I would suggest that something along the lines of "In 2008, Manchester was the 98th most internationally-visited city in the world" as per this. I found it the other day and realised it wasn't mentioned here, so I thought it may be of some use to the article and its portrayal of the city. 90.201.215.213 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's worth including that Manchester was the 98th most-visited city in the world? I'm a bit ambivalent as it doesn't seem very important, but it could be tagged in somewhere as a half sentence. Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Consulates

I'm moving the list of consulates (which I'm not sure is complete judging from this) as I don't think it's necessary; the important bit is the sourced statement that "Manchester is home to the largest group of consuls in the UK outside London". If anyone disagrees, I am of course happy for the information to be restored, but thought I'd leave a note here by way of explanation. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Consulate of Belgium Consulate of Brazil Consulate of Chile Consulate General of the People's Republic of China Consulate of Cyprus Consulate of the Czech Republic Trade Commission of Denmark Consulate of Finland Consulate of France Consulate of Iceland Consulate of Italy Consulate of Japan Consulate of Latvia Consulate of Monaco Consulate of the Netherlands Royal Norwegian Consulate Consulate General of India Consulate General of Pakistan Consulate General of Poland Consulate General of Portugal Consulate General of Spain Consulate of Sweden Consulate of Switzerland

I think that there were always two slightly different aspects to this. The first was about the consular group in Manchester, which is the largest outside of London; and the second was about the consuls physically located in Manchester. Not everything in the consular group is physically located in Manchester, which I think explains the discrepancy. (For instance, from your link, the German consulate is in Leeds and the Hungarian one is in Liverpool, but both belong to the Manchester group.) Matthew (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why change the first picture? (Manchester skyline) the one that had a series of photos was much better....every other major cities pages have them, so why not Manchester??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozzaboy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The inadequate Religion section has been entirely removed because it is unreferenced. "Manchester is home to many faiths and religions. Christianity is the largest religion followed by Islam. Cheetham Hill is home to the second largest Jewish community and Ancoats is home to a large Irish Catholic community. There are many churches, temples, mosques, syngogues and cathedrals through out the city." --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox to me seems to be a bit stretched down the page. Does the ethnicity section really need that much detail? Could it for example be like the ethnicity section in the infobox on the Birmingham article? -- Jack?! 00:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is overlong. Perhaps a shorter version could be substituted and I would suggest that the full information goes further down, but I cannot see where it would fit.--SabreBD (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned before, I feel the ethnicity section is very detailed here, and in turn, overlong. The demographics section has all this information. Perhaps this could be shortened? -- Jack?! 16:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can it be collapsed? Nev1 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they are only supposed to summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox. In particular, infobox templates may hide long columns of data inside collapsing tables, which means readers using assistive technology may miss their presence entirely." (from here) It seems to be discouraged here. Perhaps we should just remove the intricate detail? -- Jack?! 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on getting rid of the information altogether as the 2007 estimates are only in the infobox. The demography section is based on the 2001 census. The obvious solution would be to update the demography section with the 2007 stats, but I'm not too keen on that either. I don't think estimates should take precedent over original census data; it provides an interesting comparison but a census should be more accurate than an estimate. Although they're nearly a decade out of date, the article does make it clear that the figures are from 2001. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, is that how it should be? Perhaps we should stick with actual fact in the infobox, and leave the estimates to the demography section? What do you think about the length of the infobox Nev? -- Jack?! 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion from what I've read, the infobox should be an outline of solid fact. And so I suggest we remove the detail from the ethnicity section in the infobox, so for example South Asian is just South Asian, and doesnt have Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, in the infobox. That can all be seen in detail in the demographics section. -- Jack?! 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Its certainly handy to have that information there, but how about a compromise - delete the ethnicities that aren't bolded? Would that be worthwhile? Parrot of Doom 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely what I'd suggest personally. And the info won't be lost, it can be moved to the demography section. -- Jack?! 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've provisionally removed the ethnicity stuff from the infobox. Some decent reasons for not putting it so prominently have been put forward, and while my personal preference would be to keep it I think they're fair points. I also thing Parrot of Doom's suggestion is a good middle ground. Nev1 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think another suggestion would be to keep the ethnicities there, but only as White, (white British), South Asian, Mixed, Black and East Asian and Other. This way we keep the info, but grealy reduce the size taken by it. -- Jack?! 16:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented Parrot of Doom's idea. There's now a balance between up to date estimates and not overloading the reader with information and making the infobox too long. I think keeping only the figures previously in bold is the right way to go as the other figures were break-downs of the main stuff. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with Nev1's edit on the infobox, makes things still factual but doesn't drag the infobox on for ages. Good job, and this was a good discussion, progressive! -- Jack?! 17:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Photo

A few months ago, someone had made a montage of various landmarks in Manchester and used it as the photo for this wiki. I believe this was taken down because of lack of licensing information or something. Well I've attempted a new montage that you can see here and would like to recommend this as the new photo for the Manchester wiki. Thoughts? Tong22 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the images are poor. If there's a sunny day soon let me see if I can get into the town centre and replace them all. Parrot of Doom 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor as in low quality images, or bad locations? Tong22 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just all round bad photographs. I can improve upon them, I just need a decent sunny day. Parrot of Doom 09:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath! Would it not be quicker to make use of better images from Wikimedia Commons or decent ones from Flickr? I would be more than happy to seek permissions and put another montage together, with higher quality (and possibly fewer) photographs. Tong22 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The montage is good and better than just having the mini panorama of the city previously Stevo1000 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I've made a slight adjustment to the montage that is currently on display, and provide the link here. I again leave it to the community to decide whether it is suitable or not. Thanks. Tong22 (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deary me. I made an elementary licensing mistake with the original montage and used a copyrighted image that had previously been on Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, I've made the necessary change and hopefully covered all my tracks so again, community, I leave the latest rendition for you to choose or reject. Hopefully there will be no problems with this one. Thanks. Tong22 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As nice as the montage is, is a collection of photos of landmarks and one of a tram the best way to represent Manchester in a montage? The article isn't just about the buildings after all. How about some scenes of Manchester people, and something to illustrate the history and culture - wouldn't that be better? I'm not criticising, it's just occurred to me that this might be better. If many people agree, I don't mind giving it a shot myself. Um, and if there's much support would someone email me cos I'm a bit sporadic with Wikipedia editing! thomashiles@gmail.com cheers pomegranate (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about including maybe a street scene, but I also think buildings (essetially, landmarks) also figure highly in identifying a city. The pages of more globally prominent cities such as Paris, New York and Tokyo pretty much focus mainly on the buildings in the city, with the exception of the latter with a photo from the iconic street crossing at Shibuya. In terms of symbolising history and culture, I feel that some of the buildings present in the photograph are great examples of both features in Manchester -the town hall, cathedral and central library as main examples- and representing its affluent history. Of course, the montage should be far longer but it would be impractical to include and/or cover every single aspect! Bare in mind that other cities' montages typically contain far less images. After all, the main focus is really the text in the article- which extensively covers the cultural and historical aspects of the city- and the photograph a mere side addition to what is a sound encyclopaedic text! Just my two cents. Tong22 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

drive by edits changing images

I am going to revert recent changes by Karlos87 as I they don't necessarily improve the article. I think he is drive by editor Karl1587[[7]] who has done this to several articles.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Manchester University image (s)he used is certainly too big for that section of the article. Richerman (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the image is much too big.--SabreBD (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - New Article Barons of Manchester

Anyone out there wish to help create an article about the Barons of Manchester?

There is a secondary source that can be used as the basis of the article here:-

Mamecestre: being chapters from the early recorded history of the barony; the lordship or manor; the vill, borough, or town, of Manchester (1861)

Author: Harland, John, 1806-1868, ed Volume: 53 Publisher: [Manchester] Printed for the Chetham society Year: 1861 Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT Language: English Digitizing sponsor: Google Book from the collections of: unknown library Collection: americana

http://www.archive.org/details/mamecestrebeing01harlgoog

--PL.-Snr (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think an article on the barons would be useful, but I'm wondering if this edit which adds stuff on the barons to this article is a good idea. The article's already very long and I think further information really belongs in daughter articles such as history of Manchester. There's also the problem that although new information was added, no new sources were included. Does this mean all the relevant information there is derived from the books by Kidd and Hylton? It's a while since I've read them, and the stuff on the barons sounds familiar, but should something be added? In any case, I am thinking about pruning it back. Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the information to history of manchester maybe a good idea with a link in this article, this is a major wikipedia article of high importance, best to do edits with caution. I would suggest waiting for others to input first, the article relates to a city with a large population of potential editors --PL.-Snr (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nev1, too much detail for this article and unreferenced.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nev1 as well. An article on the Barons would be good, but this one is already teetering on the brink of being too long. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.213.126.153, 5 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Lord Mayor of Manchester is Mark Hackett, not Alison Firth any more.

90.213.126.153 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS 04:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, the change has been made. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Education

The reference to schools in this section is incredibly biased towards public schools - as if these were the only schools of any note in Manchester - when they are pretty much irrelevant to the majority of Manchester's population. Manchester has some great state schools. For instance why not mention other schools such as the Manchester Academy in Moss Side. Replacing the former Ducie High School, once termed 'the worst in the country' - it is now rated as'outstanding' by Ofsted. It was recently referred to by Richard Garner (education correspondant) in The Independent as a 'spectacular' and one of its sponsor's 'success stories', the best of its 17 academies, with star ratings from pupils aswell (Lessons learned: What can the successes – and failures – of the largest sponsor teach us about the academies programme? The Independent - 05.08.10). Its pupils have won or participated in the final stages of numerous national awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newwritings (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about protected status

I am concerned about the editorial limitations on this article. 'Mature' seems to refer rather to restricting its editing to a cabal with the perspective and leanings of the Daily Telegraph - what you might want to call a 'toast and marmalade' view of the city. This defies the whole point of Wikipedia. If this is how it is to progress - why not just have the Encyclopedia Britannica? I refer specifically to the writings on Education - complained about above. I don't wish to hammer home the point on this example in particular anymore, but having a section on education in Manchester which just mentions a few elitist schools is hardly an accurate or 'mature' representation of the city on any level. This is Manchester, not Cambridge, though I am sure Cambridge might have one or two comp's worth the mention. You could hardly believe this is the Manchester that has played a crucial part in the working class and liberal movements in this country.... I almost expect to see a banner with Jimmy Wales having his head in his hands! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newwritings (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the education section contains some information on notable schools, it doesn't really go into much detail about secondary education in the city as a whole. As such I've prepared something to add to the article, just a few sentences as it's already very long, but it might help balance the accusations of elitism.

In 2010, the Manchester Local Education Authority was ranked 147th out of 150 in the country – and last out of Greater Manchester's 10 LEAs – based on the percentage of pupils attaining at least five A*–C grades at General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) including maths and English (38.6 per cent compared with the national average of 50.7 per cent). The LEA also had the highest occurrence of absences, with 11.11 per cent of "half day sessions missed by pupils", above the national average of 5.8 per cent. Of the schools in the LEA with 30 or more pupils, four had 90 per cent or more pupils achieving at least five A*–C grades at GCSE including maths and English (Manchester High School for Girls, St Bede's College, Manchester Islamic High School for Girls, and The King David High School) while three managed 25 per cent or below (Plant Hill Arts College, North Manchester High School for Boys, Brookway High School and Sports College).

It just refers to GCSEs at the moment and may need to be expanded to include A-levels. Any thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd switch the "147th out of 150" and "last out of GM's 10 LEAs" around, but otherwise it reads fine to me. Parrot of Doom 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've provisionally added that although I'd like more input. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "cabal" - the article is semi-protected as it suffered a lot from vandalism from unregistered IPs. As soon as your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits to any wikipedia articles you are autoconfirmed and can make your own edits. In the meantime I've left a welcome message on your talk page. Richerman (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible error.

I am rather confused as to the Populations given for London and Manchester. The population of London is given as 7,556,900 The population of Manchester is given as 464,200. Why is this a mistake? well the population of London is recorded as Greater London and Manchester is just recorded as just the City of Manchester (464,200) not the city's greater area like London is. (2,547,700) Therefore the population of London should be 11,500. If the population of London is counted as 7,556,900 surely Manchester should be given the same treatment. They are the only two cities in England with a greater area and orbital motorways, in both areas the surrounding boroughs are considered London and Manchester boroughs, people from The City of Salford, Stockport, Trafford, Tameside and others consider themselves Mancunian as do people from The City of Westminster, Islington, Lambeth and Camden consider themselves to be Londoners. Also these Boroughs all come under the M postcode, they are all served by Greater Manchester Police, They all have an 0161 area code, the area's transport is covered solely by GMPTE (GREATER MANCHESTER PUBLIC TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE) Now to me that says that it is all one city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.59.119 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, totally wrong. People from outlying districts in Greater London may call themselves Londoners, but people from Greater Manchester (NOT Manchester) boroughs such as Stockport, for example, are very unlikely to claim such. As an Oldhamer with family based in Rochdale and Bolton boroughs I absolutely do not consider myself a Mancunian.

After a lot of discussion it was decided to split up the articles on Manchester and this one is just about the city of Manchester itself. This is explained in the note at the top of the article. The Greater Manchester article gives the population of the metropolitan county. Maybe that's one of the reasons why this is a featured article and London isn't. Richerman (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also confused by similar comparisons with Birmingham around population. If you look at the figures in the Birmingham article, Birmingham/West Midlands conurbation (equivalent to Greater Manchester) are all higher than those for Manchester, so possibly, the text around those figures should be changed to indicate that Manchester is 3rd most populous in England, or the figures on the Birmingham article revised. Buk77 (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.156.96.153, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} "Sunny City" should be removed from the nicknames in the infobox, and replaced with "Rainy City".

86.156.96.153 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cottonopolis:origin of the tag

It is stated all over the web that Manchester was commonly called Cottonpolis. Where is the evidence? McNeil and Nevell (2000) p7 confidently state that Manchester is called Cottonopolis, but don't cite a source, and having done a bit of writing it seems like what you do when you have a blank piece of paper in front of you and a large task ahead, and something that shouls have been challenged on the first copyedit. Websters on line- comes up with

• "His friends thought he would have preferred the busy life of Cottonopolis to the out-of-way county of Cornwall."- Newspaper paragraph, January, 1886. Source: Brewer's Dictionary.
• Other web references make a circular link back here
• Spinning the web- happily uses the term- but I cant find any references there

Personal experience- starting in 1951- suggests it is a fiction. I had a mother who was proudly Mancunian, and worked in the city at the head offices of the LCC- she would talk of life in the city in the 1930s- but never did she use the word. A grandfather whose profession was described as a Cotton warehouseman on his marriage certificate. A nonworking grandmother from Ashton-upon-Mersey, who talked about the days before she had made the mistake of buying the house on the wrong side of the railway in Heaton Chapel. Never once did they use Cottonopolis- it wasn't a concept. Where did it come from. We do need a notable source.What have I missed--ClemRutter (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the OED for 'Cottonopolis', and it has citations that go back as far as 1851. Matthew (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A double thanks for the source, and inspiring me to rejoin Mancheser Public Libraries where my membership lapsed in 1981.

I looked at the three references and remain unconvinced that they provide the evidence needed.

We have:

• 1851 E. L. Blanchard Diary 9 Aug. in Scott & Howard Life E.L.B. (1891) I. 74 Still in the ‘Cottonopolis’.

• • 1886 B. Quaritch Catal. of MSS. 3503 It‥deserves to be printed in Manchester‥as a memorial of the departed worthy who was one of the glories of Cottonopolis.
  • 1937 W. S. Churchill Great Contemp. 95 Cottonopolis was fixed in Lancashire.

In each the sobriquet could apply to any metropolis where cotton was traded.

And to that we can add

• Kendall (1900) The Origins and History of the Primitive Methodist Church [8]- who uses the term once describing a myth of a one legged preacher who would walk 36 miles each Sunday to preach in Manchester.

Do we have anything that is more substantial? --ClemRutter (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if it was used it was probably in the Victorian era. A word search of the old newspapers at the British Library here would settle it but unfortunately I don't have access anymore since my contract ran out at Salford University. If you have a library card you could try The Times archive. And what about this book printed in 1922 and Cottonopolis by William Gaskell 1852? Richerman (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Google books has a lot of references including

"COTTONOPOLIS. BY REV. JAMES LUMSDEN. Though historic records of Manchester date as far back as AD 70, ... The name Cottonopolis (familiar sobriquet for Manchester) plainly indicates the staple article of manufacture and trade. ..." from The Methodist Magazine Vol 34 1891 Richerman (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the digging.- so now we have it used by the Unitarians, the Methodists and Primitive Methodists - the plot thickens, was it then merely a part of protestant rhetoric- was it common but to a limited audience and invisible to most? It seems to be used purely in a critical sense- never used to express any pride in the achievements of the city- or indeed the achievements of the great Mancunian Unitarian mill owners who produced the wealth.

(I am going to be be offline most of next week so may have to put this one on hold for a while.)--ClemRutter (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an everyday source of the comment. It appears in "The Pride Of Manchester" (the history of the Manchester derby by Steve Cawley & Gary James published in 1991, ISBN 978-0951486214). On page 27 it quoted the Athletic News from September 1898 (reporting on the 10/09/1898 derby match): "...should provide a fine opening for the two socker (sic) clubs of Cottonopolis, and I think...." The phrase/expression was frequently used in the sporting press of the Victorian era.BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you want a modern source in Jewish welfare in Hamburg and Manchester, c. 1850-1914 By Rainer Liedtke (1998) on page 22 it says "its importance in the cotton trade, unrivalled through the 19th century, earned Manchester the sobriquet 'Cottonopolis'. Richerman (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Time to recede protected editorial status

Why is it that a national newspaper like the Guardian, which must be subject to continual editorial attack and revision has no such protected status? I fail to see how Manchester article needs to be protected when this is the case. Manchester is not a living person who can be libeled or defamed beyond reason. Protecting the Manchester article goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and does not trust editors to contribute or correct other users. If you are unhappy about people's contributions - change them - don't stop them contributing. Wikipedia should not be the exclusive preserve of a bunch of Wiki obsessives - it should be open to people who only wish to contribute occassionally, who may have really depth of knowledge to add, without recognising this Wikipedia will wither - this article is poor in some particular respects - a spirit of openness is needed for these defects to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelangel (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As the person responsible for protecting the article I am happy to explain my actions. Between 2 December 2010 and 25 January 2011, the last time the article was unprotected, there were exactly 100 edits to the article. The net change was pretty small, which means the vast majority of edits were vandalism. Some vandalism even fell through the cracks and went unchanged for days because there were so many edits to the page. The article is in a generally good state, so even the well-intentioned edits by IPs are likely to degrade the quality of the article. It just wasn't worth the effort of keeping the article open to everyone. Having all of Wikipedia is a noble idea that expects the best of people, but it is simply not practical in every single situation. Despite the page being semi-protected, the talk page is open to everyone and discussing how to improve the article is exactly the spirit of Wikipedia, so please if you feel the article is deficient in some way, point it out and we can work together to improve it. When you look at the page's source (where the edit tab usually is), you're encouraged to discuss changes on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose in Transport section

Regarding the passage 'The city's other main central railway station, Manchester Victoria, had many more platforms prior to the arrival of the Manchester Arena than it nowadays has. Mainly serving destinations to the north of the city, Victoria station is urgently in need of a major upgrade to bring it into the modern era.' I wonder if editors would agree that the final clause of that section strays dangerously close to opinion/prose (or other similar adjectives). Dajon (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Victoria station has the potential to be beautiful, but right now it's a dilapidated dump. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would. The above statement is all the more reason to modify the entry; it is too subjective. Stating that there are plans for refurbishing the station would be more neutral. Tong22 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Landmarks

"Designated" is misspelt in the section referring to Manchester's nature reserves. A registered user needs to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonthedrummer (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now you've registered a user name you can edit semi-protected articles after four days and ten edits. Richerman (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Metrolink

Does this "The 23 mi (37 km)-network consists of three lines with 37 stations (including five on-street tram stops in the centre)." need updating now that there is a line to Chorlton St Werburgh's Road (with 3 stops)?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Most probably. I'm not sure how many stations there are at the moment. By 2016, they'll be nearly 100 - so putting a figure on it whilst expansion is ongoing is difficult. On the Metrolink page, the current number of stations as of July 2011 is 42, but there is no ref to confirm this. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainline stations

"Greater Manchester has an extensive countywide railway network, and two mainline stations: Piccadilly and Victoria." These are not the only two railway stations on the mainlines: there is Wigan North Western railway station and Stockport at least. They are probably the largest terminal stations in the county.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what the sentence should say is, "Manchester is at the centre of an extensive countywide railway network with two mainline stations: Piccadilly and Victoria."--J3Mrs (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That is much better.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester's population and opening paragraph of the lead

In the 2011 UK Census, its population was recorded as 498,800.[3] Manchester lies within one of the UK's largest metropolitan areas; the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester had an estimated population of 2,629,400 in the 2011 UK census, the Greater Manchester Urban Area a population of 2,240,230 in 2001,[4] and the Larger Urban Zone around Manchester, the second-most-populous in the UK, had an estimated population in the 2004 Urban Audit of 2,539,100.

The above quote makes up half of the opening article's paragraph. I think it's throwing out too many statistics and new terms at the reader; Greater Manchester is pretty clear, but "Greater Manchester Urban Zone" and "Larger Urban Zone" are not terms most people will be familiar with and I think it's too much detail for the lead. Also, I'm slightly concerned that it distracts from the subject of the article, Manchester itself, and comes across as a bit of puffery I'd like to trim it slightly to something like:

In the 2011 UK Census, its population was recorded as 498,800.[3] Manchester lies within one of the UK's largest metropolitan areas; the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester had an estimated population of 2,629,400.

Any thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems a good idea in general, although I'd probably prefer something like "In the 2011 UK Census, its population was recorded as 498,800.[3] Manchester lies within one of the UK's largest metropolitan areas, the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, which has an estimated population of 2.6 million". Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And done. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Population - again

I do apologise if this has already been discussed but I can't be bothered trawling through the archives. This article seems to be contradictory; it says "The United Kingdom Census 2001 showed a total resident population for Manchester of 392,819" - but then the infobox next to it reads "441,000" - is this something to do with resident population and total or are they the same thing? It just seems confusing and I think for the article's sake it needs clarifying. Also the pop. graph that shows all Greater Manchester's borough populations from since the dawn of time seems to show it bellow 400,000 at 2001 - looks like 392,819. Patyo1994 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is the result of a hotchpotch of various data sets. The graph and prose of the demography section use 2001 census data for the population, but at some point someone updated the table to use a 2007 estimate without changing the labelling or adding a note so it still says "2001 census". And then the lead uses the 2011 census data (498,800) which I don't think has been fully released yet so the demography section can't be completely updated, while the infobox has a 2008 estimate (464,200). It's a bit of a mess. I'll try to sort it out tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Would anyone object to me removing the information relating to ISO 3166-2:GB, NUTS, and ONS coding system in the infobox? I think an infobox is supposed to provide a quick graphical aid, and this kind of information surely is not either widely enough understood for readers to find it important or significant enough to the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As there's been no objection yet, I've gone ahead and removed the fields from the infobox. Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Riots

I would like to write an article on here about the ongoing riots in manchester User:Aviation.expert 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In the fullness of time this article will need to be updated, but that is best done with some detachment to provide some perspective. In the meantime, there's an article on the riots at 2011 England riots. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I've removed the following statement from the article as it wasn't source:

Much like Liverpool and Glasgow Manchester has a large Catholic population due to Irish immigration.

Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please! Immigration in the distant past. We are very integrated AND there is a strong "indigenous" tradition of Catholicism, in NW England, anyway !!!The presumption that we all fit a nice mould is really offensive, and culturally insensitive! We do, however, have a higher than average RC population, like Liverpool and Glasgow. Unsure however where stats would be found! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.180.163 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also the majority of "Manchester" Jewish people, live in Salford and Bury Metro (Prestwich and Whitefield) ;very few now within the city's boundaries, as such, in the major "North Manchester" community! It forms one area but is within the three authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.180.163 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Twin cities and consulates

Manchester has formal twinning arrangements (or "friendship agreements") with several places. In addition, the British Council maintains a metropolitan centre in Manchester. Although not an official twin city, Tampere, Finland is known as "the Manchester of Finland" – or "Manse" for short. Similarly, Ahmedabad, India established itself as the centre of a booming textile industry, which earned it the nickname "the Manchester of the East".

	Country		Place		County / District / Region / State	Originally twinned with	Date
	Nicaragua		Bilwi		Atlántico Norte	City of Manchester
	Germany		Chemnitz		Sachsen	City of Manchester	1983
	India		Kanpur			City of Manchester	1970
	Spain		Córdoba		Andalusia	City of Manchester
	Israel		Rehovot		HaMerkaz	County Borough of Manchester
	Russia		Saint Petersburg		Sankt-Peterburg	County Borough of Manchester	1962
	China		Wuhan		Hubei	City of Manchester	1986
	Pakistan		Faisalabad		Punjab	City of Manchester	1997
	United States		Los Angeles		California	City of Manchester	2009

Manchester is home to the largest group of consuls in the UK outside London. The expansion of international trade links during the Industrial Revolution led to the introduction of the first consuls in the 1820s and since then over 800, from all parts of the world, have been based in Manchester. Manchester has remained (in consular terms at least) the second city of the UK for two centuries, and hosts consular services for most of the north of England. The reduction in the amount of local paperwork required for modern international trade is partly offset by the increased number of international travellers. Many pass through Manchester Airport, easily the UK’s biggest and busiest airport outside the London area. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have you copied this information here? Richerman (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a repair of the page, but when I try to save it, I get a server proxy error, so I saved it here.

quote:

Proxy Error

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request POST /wikipedia/en/w/index.php.

Reason: Error reading from remote server

Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) mod_fastcgi/2.4.6 PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.12wm1 with Suhosin-Patch mod_ssl/2.2.8 OpenSSL/0.9.8g Server at secure.wikimedia.org Port 443

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"City of Manchester" instead of "Manchester"

Many other cities on Wikipedia such as Leeds, Sunderland and Salford are titled as the "City of Leeds" for example. The "City of Manchester" would be a better title because it differentiates it from Greater Manchester. Whereas "Manchester" on its own suggests it could be "Greater Manchester". Does anyone feel the same about this? Stevo1000 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the settlement of Salford referred to as the City of Salford - that name belongs to the larger borough. I don't think there's such a thing as a City of Manchester, but there's a settlement called Manchester that happens to have city status. Parrot of Doom 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with PoD, I see no confusion between Manchester and Greater Manchester.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wading in late here, but the geography section's second paragraph states that the term 'Manchester' is sometimes applied to a wider area: "The name Manchester, though officially applied only to the metropolitan district of Greater Manchester, has been applied to other, wider divisions of land, particularly across much of the Greater Manchester county and urban area. The "Manchester City Zone", "Manchester post town" and the "Manchester Congestion Charge" are all examples of this. The economic geography of the Manchester City Region is used to define housing markets, business linkages, travel to work patterns, administrative areas etc." Because of this, for the sake of clarity, I agree with Stevo1000 that it may become necessary to give Manchester it's "City of..." title. Tong22 (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess you understand my point. That is my main argument too, "Manchester" has become too much of a synonym for Greater Manchester. The "City of Manchester" which forms part of Greater Manchester would differentiate this for clarity. It's important a differentiation is made as there is a big difference between the actual, proper City of Manchester which has 500,000 inhabitants and Greater Manchester which has 2.5 million inhabitants including Manchester's total. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Manchester is the common name for the city and I don't think we need further differentiation fro the Greater Manchester. If readers arrive at this article by mistake the hat note can direct them to where they want to be and of course the same is true if they arrive at the Greater Manchester article by mistake. Other articles such as City of Salford and Salford are there to disambiguate the settlement from the wider local authority, not a problem for this page as they are essentially co-terminus. While I agree some people do confuse Manchester with Greater Manchester, I think the current situation is clear enough. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Salford (ie Old Salford prior to the 1970's) did have city status from 1923!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.180.163 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)