Jump to content

Talk:Manchester: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,639,006 edits
Adding RFC ID.
Line 358: Line 358:
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 11:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1644058872}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 11:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1644058872}}
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=F579981}} [[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 10:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=F579981}} [[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 10:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable re-evaluate the need to dismiss one aspect of population data included on the lead paragraph for several reasons :
1. The data is too old, when newer data is available
2. Other UK cities lead paragraphs use population data that takes into account the conurbation and not just the immediate city centre population
3. There is more than 6 different population stats to choose from when measuring the size of the city, so why choose this particular data set without a thorough discussion of the other available data given by the ONS?
4. Consensus was not achieved in previous edit disputes and unilateral action was taken.
5. There is evidence from the Birmingham article talk page that there is a minor edit war between Manchester and Birmingham articles and thus some editors maybe pandering to a covert bias by choosing certain population data over others for advantatious reasons.
[[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


== Climate table ==
== Climate table ==

Revision as of 11:04, 1 January 2022

Featured articleManchester is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 6, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey teams

Is ice hockey a sufficiently notable sport to warrant mention in this article? The city has two clubs - Manchester Storm and Manchester Phoenix, but neither are based in the city. Surely the actual geographical location of the stadia which the teams play out of is irrelevant? Both teams claim to represent the city - the clue is in their names? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Attention, vandals: Ratchester. Carlotm (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Can somebody fix the extra (disambiguation)? thx MarcusOfMichigan (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative pronunciations

Manchester (/ˈmæntʃɪstə/)--Oxford Dictionaries. "Manchester". Oxford University Press, 2013. Accessed 27 August 2013. An editor prefers |ər but has not provided an alternative reference. I think we should discuss which version we prefer. Educated speedh in Moston and Cheetham Hill would object to |æ| which is so terribly Auksford! Personally I have met so many different ways, separated by class, age and locallly I wouldn't trust my own opinion.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing brilliant work with all these fancy squiggles! I was alerted by two sensitivities- one a fact changed but the reference remained unchanged- and two- that anyone was trying to touch a major item on an FA-, hence the revert.
I have followed the reference you gave and I was almost convinced until I followed through to the line 'these have merged in UK English'. No. Where I live this is true but in Manchester with its remnants of an older English 'Northern vowels' it hasn't yet happened. Teaching EFL in Manchester we would correct Spanish students who pronounced it as is was written- and tell them it was more like Manchest- urgh! Salford- Oldham gave deeper problems when southern vowels were used- or the phonetic system used in secondary schools in Spain. And |æ| needs to be researched too.
Coming from a middle class Northern RP background I had a grandmother who would pick up any trace of 'that disgusting accent the poor boys speak'- and going to school on the bus I crossed at least three lingusitic fault lines- and lived in terror of getting roughed up because 'he spoke proper'. (off focus anecdote!)
If you do eventually decide to make a change I think you need to think about how this should be referenced because further comment is needed- I suggest we leave this open for further comment and then feel free to make the final decision. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your basic argument is. On WP, the protocol is to use IPA that is inclusive to as many World Englishes as possible; it has nothing to do with references (though you can easily see r-including pronunciations in various US dictionaries, for example). If you say a phrase like "Manchester is" is there not a linking "r" sound at least in that phrase? The historical R is an inherent part of the word. Again, I feel a great compromise (like on the current Melbourne page) is to have the more universal English IPA transcription as well as a local one. Wolfdog (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, I'm talking about the /ər/ and /ə/ vowels, as I think you understand. On WP, the /ər/ in /ˈmæntʃɪstər/ is what we're getting at: a sound that most Americans, Canadians, and Irish and West Country natives, for example, would pronounce something like [ɚ], most southern Britons (Londoners, Welsh folk, etc.) would pronounce [ə], northern English people would pronounce [ə] or [ɜ], and so on. Wikipedia's (based primarily on John C. Wells') way to universally represent that phoneme is /ər/. Is there some objection to this? Wolfdog (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: Even if there is, it must be raised on Help talk:IPA/English, not here. It's a misuse of the IPAc-en template, so I reverted it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Actually, you seem to be agreeing with me. Wolfdog (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: Did I say I wasn't? ;) I replied to the very last sentence of your message. EDIT: Oh, you mean the 'misuse' part. I was referring to transcribing the final sound(s) with /ə/ instead of /ər/. Perhaps I should've made that clearer. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Oh, duh! I completely misinterpreted your words. Sorry.... Carry on! Wolfdog (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't spell "Oxford" as "Auksford". /ɒ/ is not the same as /ɔ/ in British English. --94.217.102.134 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes...many there are

Per the Wikipedia guideline WP:HAT "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page." This article presently has a list of six different links, this seems excessive to me.
I think the numbers need to be trimmed down a bit to include the disambiguation page of [[Manchester (disambiguation)]], the [[2017 Manchester Arena incident]] article while it is a major news story (for the short-term) and perhaps the [[Manchester, New Hampshire]] article. I changed it to that configuration, it was reverted, so let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Arena incident hatnote since the 'recent news' template is taking care of that possible issue. Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grecoprofanity

Μάνχεστρο: shitty Manchester, when we support a non-Mancunian team versus a Mancunian

Why is there no link at the top half of the page that links to the England wiki page or the UK wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.250.248 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mamucium or Mancunium

The page mentions Mamucium or Mancunium. There is a wikipedia page with the name Mamucium so the mention in this page should be a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.62.77 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rossendale Valley mention?

Hi everyone, I would be very grateful if anyone here can please answer my query here regarding a mention of the Rossendale Valley (simplified as Rossendale hills) in the climate section in this article (and the Greater Manchester article)? One problem with this mention to me is that the Rossendale Valley is part of the Pennines (the Rossendale Valley article even states the region is part of the Pennines) and a separate mention basically implies that the area is separate to the Pennines and even though the article just gives mention to the Pennines alone and not any sub-ranges/areas earlier on, the Rossendale Valley appears out of nowhere in the climate section beside the already mentioned Pennines ("the Pennine and Rossendale hills that surround the city to its east and north receive more snow"). Another problem with this mention is that the Rossendale Valley does not extend to the city of Manchester itself, it just lies in the area north of Manchester and I believe its within Lancashire and if the Peak District and West Pennine Moors are not given mention in this article (even though they are arguably closer to Manchester than the Rossendale Valley) due to the fact that it would be off topic, I see no reason why the Rossendale Valley should even be mentioned at all here and if it is still given mention, the Peak District and West Pennine Moors might as well be mentioned too as it would be hypocritical in my opinion to say places like the Peak District or West Pennine Moors should not be mentioned when the Rossendale Valley is given mention here. I had actually removed it from this article earlier on last year but my change got reverted by another user so I thought I'd raise this point here before doing anything else. Please feel free to answer this query of mine, I will happily welcome any polite response. Thank you and Happy New Year. Broman178 (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed that part of the sentence. As far as I know there is no area known as the Rossendale hills and, as you say, that area is part of the Pennines. There is no mention of Rossendale in the article cited although there is a mention of Rosedale Abbey in north Yorkshire which someone may have confused with Rossendale, so if someone wants to put it back they will need another citation. Richerman (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for both your reply and for changing that sentence because I believe this issue needed to be solved. Like I said, I removed it myself from the sentence earlier last year but another user (J3Mrs) reverted my change on the basis that it apparently was an unhelpful edit to the article (to J3Mrs anyway). I'll make a similar change in the Greater Manchester article because the same issue is present in the climate section there. Broman178 (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City of Manchester?

Looking over the pages for several comparable cities in England, including Salford and Leeds, it appears a distinction is made between the actual settlement and the local government district of the same name. For example, Salford, Greater Manchester vs City of Salford, and Leeds vs City of Leeds. I have no strong opinion either way, but I just wanted to initiate a discussion on whether we should do the same for Manchester? It seems like some consistency in this regard would be a good idea. What are people's thoughts? 147.147.233.8 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Manchester city centre article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a blogger from San Francisco made of Manchester

Turns out there's a lot of drink. City review: Manchester, England. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World's first inter-city passenger railway station?

Surely neither Manchester Liverpool Road nor Liverpool Crown Street can claim to be the world's first inter-city passenger railway station (singular), as they both opened on the same day, and neither would have been much use without the other? 82.28.107.46 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Bombing at Ariana Grande concert not mentioned

I see no mention in this article about the Ariana Grande Concert Bombing. I've scoured the links from that article, and did not find anything that connects directly from here.

I could easily add it myself. But this seems to be so strange that there is no mention at all that there might be some kind of systemic problem with editors who might be removing that info for whatever reason. If that is what has been happening, then I would say that the best course of action right now is to highlight this here on the Talk page.

Ariana Grande is mentioned in this article one time, saying that she "became the first honorary citizen of Manchester". But that current statement gives no hint of the huge incident that preceded that. I've seen many strange things on Wikipedia. And this is the biggest of the strange ones that I've seen in recent years. I recommend that this gets fixed promptly.

One possibility is that she has loyal fans who hold a view that erasing the history might somehow make things better. If that is what has been happening ...and that is pure speculation on my part... it needs to be highlighted that such editing action goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Wikipedia is a bastion for verifiable facts. It does this with the view that dealing with an accurate understanding of reality, and the history that got us to where we are now, is the healthiest way to make progress into the future.--Wright Stuf (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for now I have added a link in the 'See also' section. It will be much better to have this info incorporated into the body of the article, at which time this link can be removed from the 'See also' section.--Wright Stuf (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some information to the History section under Since 2000. This needs to be added too (in a similar way to the 1996 bombing). Looking around I would say the coverage on the History of Manchester page should be improved also. As to why this is I would probably assume Hanlon's razor --Voello (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese, Arabs and Asians

In the 'Demography' section the pie chart captioned 'Racial structure, according to the 2011 census' shows Chinese, Arabs and Asians separately. However, Chinese are Asians, and so are many Arabs (from the Middle East, which is a part of Asia). Can someone explain what 'Asians' the chart is referring to, and shouldn't that be specified in the legend? JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the options presented on the ONS Census. White/British, Traveller/Gypsy, Black/Black British, Mixed, Other, then Asian/Asian British is broken down into sub categories: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Other. The Scottish census also breaks down Black into Black African or Black Caribbean sub categories. --WatcherZero (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't 'Chinese' be shown together with 'Asians' in the pie chart (in the same sector)? JACKINTHEBOX • TALK
What kind of 'Asian' is the census/chart referring to then? JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 06:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the lead section

There seems to be now a minor edit war over the lead section. The source provided for this latest revert is this one. While I’m sure David George, the Associate Director, Falconer Chester Hall, is perfectly entitled to his opinion and that he writes very clearly, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate source, published by "Insider Media”, to support the claim that Manchester "is frequently referred to as the United Kingdom's second city." It’s not even clear to me if George is referring to Manchester or to Greater Manchester Built-up Area. From where does he get his figure of 2,553,379? The info box currently gives a population of “547,627” with a rank of 5th. Also, I'd suggest that claims should not be added to the lead section that do not appear in the main body (which is where any sources should also appear). Unfortunately the repeated IP edits have made the article inconsistent and self-contradictory. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest IP revert here (the series now totalling six) has the edit summary: "Same advice to you. If you want to change this long established opening take it to discussion first and gain consesus rather than unilaterally changing it." But I don't see any evidence for it being a "long established opening" at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again another IP revert with no explanation or discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, it seems that the wording about being the UK's sixth largest city was added in May, prior to which the wording "lies within the United Kingdom's second largest urban area" had been relatively stable since at least 2013 with a similar wording being used in the 2007 version of the page that was promoted to Featured Article. I would advocate returning to the old consensus wording there, and dropping the "sixth largest city" part; if that is to be kept then there needs to be greater clarity that it is the metropolitan borough alone that ranks sixth, not the wider conurbation. The part about being second city seems unnecessary for the lead; it's covered sufficiently in the history section, and there's plenty of competition for the title. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that seems quite fair. But also: 1. Do you regard this as a good source? 2. In that source is George referring to Manchester or to Greater Manchester Built-up Area? 3. Shouldn't the lead section simply reflect what is described in the article main body? There seems to have been a slow edit war being played out here, by a series of IP editors with different geolocations, who seem to have a problem with the relative importance of Manchester and Birmingham, centred on a feud as to which of those two deserves to called “UK’s second city”. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester says this: “It lies within the United Kingdom's second-most populous built-up area, with a population of 3.2 million”.
Birmingham says this: “The wider Birmingham metropolitan area is the second largest in the United Kingdom with a population of over 4.3 million.”.
These can't both be right, can they? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (I am by no means an expert) is that it depends on what exactly is being measured, with Manchester claiming built-up area and Birmingham claiming metropolitan area. We have pages for List of urban areas in the United Kingdom and ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, which seem to back up both claims of being second. The actual population numbers are off, though; it would be good if someone who has the time and inclination could dive into the actual sources and try to verify the numbers. We also might have a problem of cherrypicking if both articles are choosing to emphasise the figure that makes them seem bigger and more important, though I'm honestly not nearly knowledgable enough to say which of the two metrics we might wish to standardise on. (There is also the possibility of ranking only the areas that have been granted city status, but that seems like a particularly poor metric to me.) Lowercaserho (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be good. I certainly don't want to risk making any more edits that are "disgraceful and shameful to the people of Manchester" or to risk "being exposed" as a result. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I thoroughly appreciate your efforts in helping Wikipedia become more accurate and reliable, but you repeatedly make claim to yourself not being an expert in population statistics and geographical data for Manchester. I am, however and have thus worded the initial section accordingly. Apologies for being blunt, but I would appreciate if you could actually wait for consensus on my edit, before reverting back to yours. Lastly, in the Birmingham article, in first sentence, the phrase "major city" is used but in Manchester's only "city" is used. This is surely not right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissair123 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Swiss", where did I repeatedly claim that, exactly? And which revert was that? But thanks for newly registering as an editor just to tell me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, where you make reference to the citation used for the sentence describing Manchester as the UK's second city, a fully accredited journal article or report is not needed as the second city issue is by no means a formal matter in British society. Rather an unofficial and informal title. Thus a blog post or news article should be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissair123 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no repeated claims (not that I'd want to). You just reverted someone else's edit. I think that's possibly one of the worst sources used in the lead section of any article on a UK city (and it shouldn't even be in the lead). Just my personal view, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Martin, I respect your opinion, so I can look to find another credible source for that information, of which there is plenty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.139.171 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is see that Birmingham has no fewer that four sources, together with an explanatory footnote. Perhaps the citations do need to appear in the lead, as per WP:LEADCITE, as they are contentious claims? I still think Lowercaserho's idea is better, to get rid altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the information is worth retaining within the main body of the articles but not in the leads. The Manchester article has a (decently sourced) paragraph at the very end of its history section, which I think is sufficient. I would support adding a similar paragraph to Birmingham's article, and removing anything about being "second city" from the lead of both articles.
I don't believe that any facts are in serious dispute here, only the presentation of said facts. I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that there is no formal title or criteria for second city, that many people consider and refer to Manchester that way but many others consider and refer to Birmingham that way. Our job is to present this information in a way that gives due weight and prominence. My position is that, as a completely informal epithet, the whole thing about being (or not being) second city is not sufficiently important to either article to warrant a position in the lead, and should be relegated to a brief paragraph within the article. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Swissair123: As a subject matter expert, you may wish to check out the advice given at Wikipedia:Expert editors and Help:Wikipedia editing for research scientists. I will not try to summarise them, since they do a better job of explaining our policies than I would do. It would also help if you could look at Help:Talk pages, which describes how you can indent threads with : and sign your comments with ~~~~. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, of course I may not be completely familiar with specific editing formalities. I too agree that the second city information should be absent from the lead paragraph, although Birmingham's lead paragraph is certainly much more scrupulous in it's exaggeration of Birmingham population statistics. It sounds as if the person who wrote it had the impression that people think of Birmingham as just a small village in the Midlands. Swissair123 (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Swissair123, if you are contemplating making any major changes to the Birmingham article, it would probably be best to make your suggestions at Talk:Birmingham and get consensus there first. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, One credible source should be enough to justify using that phrase second city in the lead paragraph. I do believe a small section within the article should be devoted to this topic. I feel it is in the public interest to comment on Manchester's second city status within the lead paragraph and I call on you to liaise with other editors to reach consensus, otherwise you could be accused of editor bias. 82.4.135.232 (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be still an ongoing "battle" between Manchester and Birmingham as to which is the UK's "second city". The relative size of a city versus a metropolitan borough is not clear to me. I'm also not sure your proposed sources are strong enough. I also think we'd need to agree on material to add to the main body before changing the lead section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate sources you have re-added seem to be about Glasgow? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source should do the trick : https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=T1vwhZQZnd0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=manchester+second+city&ots=tGz-64hVV4&sig=TlVGWQO4oyKITAgkkotxSQy13ig&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=manchester%20second%20city&f=falsehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=T1vwhZQZnd0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=manchester+second+city&ots=tGz-64hVV4&sig=TlVGWQO4oyKITAgkkotxSQy13ig&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=manchester%20second%20city&f=false 82.4.135.232 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources are very welcome, thanks; except that source above seems to be just a Google search result from a 2002 book. I have removed this claim "As a global centre of commerce, tourism and the arts, Manchester is now considered to be the United Kingdom's second city", from the lead section, as it does seem to accurately summarise the article content. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that source does so happen to be from a book. Martin, can you please explain why the Birmingham article is using 2001 population statistics to describe a city in the year 2020? I mean surely that's a joke right? In 2001 Birmingham was bigger than Manchester on every population indicator but not anymore. Manchester overtook Birmingham around 5 years ago by metropolitan population. 128.243.2.60 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of that book is relevant? Your link above does not make that clear. I think it's probably best to discuss the content and sources for the Birmingham article over at Talk:Birmingham. I wonder could you explain to me how a metropolitan area can be described as a "second city"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123. To answer your question as simply as possibly, let's think about Edgware (on the Northern line). You and me both know that it is in Barnet of which is part of the Greater London metropolitan urban area and not specifically the City of London (which by the way is smaller than Leeds). So if we were to think of cities the way you do (rather archaically) we wouldn't be taking into account several attributions of urban development in a temporal context including : sprawl and differential land usage. As cities are evolving and growing at higher rates than ever before, most geographers and statisticians tend to use the wider metropolitan area statistics over the central business district, to take into account contemporary urban development. Now having said that, if we use the 2011 census statistics for Manchester, we can clearly see that Greater Manchester as a administrative place, has a larger population than that of the West Midlands Urban area including Birmingham. In addition the Gross Value Added (GVA) of Manchester to the wider UK economy is much higher than that of Birmingham. It is not that I don't like Birmingham, I like most people have just come to accept the facts. Indeed we are no longer in the year 2001 but the year 2020 and thus I call on you as editor to reconsider your discourse positionality on this matter and eliminate any preexisting bias you may have had towards Birmingham. 82.4.135.232 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be making these judgements in the first place. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources rather than original research, so a claim that Manchester is the second city needs to be based on reliable, published sources that establish that. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth do you suppose that I "think of cities.. rather archaically"? The articles opens with this: "Manchester ... is a major city and metropolitan borough in Greater Manchester...." I'm thinking about "city" like this. So maybe that should be linked to the word city (just as it is at Birmingham)? I have no "preexisting bias towards Birmingham". I have no "preexisting bias towards Manchester" either. By all means go ahead an update the census data. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I looked at the book that was provided above as a possible source. I presume the IP is referring to page 108, but all that establishes is that in 1993, KPMG thought that Manchester had the opportunity to become the UK's second city by 2001. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for finding that. Hardly the most convincing evidence that "Manchester is now the UK's second city"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast, here is a source that makes a case for Manchester being the second city, but it also notes the problems with using populations based on wider metropolitan areas. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm not sure if Jonn Elledge in New Statesman counts as "academic scholarship", but I could not have found a better source to inform this current debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there's two sides to most arguments, including the topic of using population statistics from metropolitan urban areas. As the UK categorises most census data as part of the wider city and not just the immediate central city zone, it is more useful, analytically speaking to utilise the data from wider urban areas. You can't do much with data from 16,000 people like the City of London, but when you start talking millions from the suburbs, then there is a lot of data to be analysed there. 82.4.135.232 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Metrolink123 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be valuable re-evaluate the need to dismiss one aspect of population data included on the lead paragraph for several reasons : 1. The data is too old, when newer data is available 2. Other UK cities lead paragraphs use population data that takes into account the conurbation and not just the immediate city centre population 3. There is more than 6 different population stats to choose from when measuring the size of the city, so why choose this particular data set without a thorough discussion of the other available data given by the ONS? 4. Consensus was not achieved in previous edit disputes and unilateral action was taken. 5. There is evidence from the Birmingham article talk page that there is a minor edit war between Manchester and Birmingham articles and thus some editors maybe pandering to a covert bias by choosing certain population data over others for advantatious reasons. Metrolink123 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate table

I think it would be better to update the weather extremes — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS-216.1993 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurostat source

The lead section claims:

"....and second most populous metropolitan area, with a population of 3.3 million.[1]

Does that source work for anyone else? I just get a constant "Loading...The navigation tree is loading..." message. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me, but I would suggest that we don't lead either of the Birmingham or Manchester articles with the metropolitan region stats from Eurostat. The Manchester metropolitan region in the source stretches from Greater Manchester, over all of Derbyshire and wraps around Derby and Nottingham itself. Hardly a real world reflection of any meaningful population, so I'd suggest leading with the stats from this source has the potential to mislead. Would assume this is the intention of some of the editors here. I'd prefer to keep the stats in the infobox - city and urban area populations are much more useful as an introduction and mean more. Sammich28 (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Database – Eurostat". ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 24 July 2019. Retrieved 2019-07-29.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of uniformity of economic data

The city's GDP is stated as US$ 113.3 billion, having been taken from data from the Brookings institute. Other UK cities' figures are stated in GBP. Are there not GBP figures that can be used for better and more relevant comparison for entities within the UK? -- Ohc revolution of our times 16:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ONS Regional Gross domestic product (Table five in the excel file linked to by the page) has GDP for the city of Manchester and for the rest of the county. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/regionalgrossdomesticproductallnutslevelregions WatcherZero (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester&oldid=1063128529"