Talk:Piccadilly Gardens

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maps

Both Google Maps and Google Earth still show the Piccadilly Gardens from about 10 years go before it was re-done, they still show bits destroyed by the bomb too.

Random boldening

Too many items are boldened. Skinnyweed 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first mention of "Piccadilly Gardens" should remain in bold I think, but having the name in bold everytime it is mentioned seems a little excessive. Road Wizard 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having each statue's name in bold doesn't serve much purpose. Road Wizard 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings Of Interest

This section seems very fuzzy, what do the numbers in bold refer to?.

It also looks a bit out of date. Barclays closed a couple of years ago, and it refers to doing things to Piccadilly Plaza as of 2005. It's been a while since I paid any attention to Piccadilly Gardens so maybe someone with a bit more knowledge could update it. mh. 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fuzziness needs clarifying -- there can't be two 'no. 1 Piccadilly' buildings. All the detail is available on the English Heritage Gateway and I am sure the City Council has it in more cogent form. Starting at Tib Street the odd numbers go from 1 to 61, then Newton St, then 63 etc. and the even numbers like the Hoyle Bldg opposite towards the railway station. The east side is Portland St, the south Parker St and the west Mosley St (one could even argue that Piccadilly Gardens is not a street name at all). I think it was invented by the bus companies to make the bus station sound nicer: then the gardens were got rid of.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City Tower Image Caption

Is there really any need to use alliteration for it's description? "The Towering City Tower" seems a little excessive and frankly childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.164.66 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102191202/http://manchestergazette.co.uk/new-years-fireworks-spectacular-at-piccadilly-gardens-manchester/ to http://manchestergazette.co.uk/new-years-fireworks-spectacular-at-piccadilly-gardens-manchester/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article revamp

I found the article was rather lacking in useful encyclopaedic content, with a lot of disordered and repetitive information. I've given it a major rewrite with additional historical background, references and images, and hopefully it's a more useful entry now. Cnbrb (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I shall infer from the silence adulatory gratitude for my endeavours. Cnbrb (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]