Talk:Manchester

Archives

Archives

---

1. Box1 (including long-running debate on "second city" status)
2. Box2 24 September 2005 - 27 October 2005
3. Box3 28 October 2005 - 28 February 2007
4. Box4 4 March 2007 - 31 May 2007
5. Box5 June 2007 (Infobox Image and GA discussion)
6. Box6 September 2007 (Vandalism debates and 2nd/3rd city "discussion")
7. Box7 September 2007 - August 2008

From City of Manchester

• Talk:City of Manchester/Archive01 Archive 1 (16-Oct-2005 to 01-Nov-2005):

  Initial discussions

  Focus on article improvement

  Requested move

---

Manchester Wiki

I'm not very well established with this whole wikipedia thing so apologies if I'm placing this suggestion in the wrong place. Just thought I'd suggest to the editor of this article the addition of a link at the bottom of the page? A wiki for Manchester has just been launched called Manclopedia. There's not much on there at the moment but I suppose, as with every wiki, all these pojects start out slow; I just thought it was worth a mention. You can find it at www.manclopedia.co.uk [1] (Good name as well.) Wikinekkid (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, there's a bit of info about the wiki here. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the text used in Salford Quays is familliar. However, there could be some mutual benefit. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, some promising images but no copyright information. If we could get the user to upload some to commons that'd be good. I wouldn't be suprised if Manclopedia copied a lot of our articles. Nev1 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And I think they're entitled to, although it seems a bit of a waste of time to duplicate stuff. They may as well mirror it. :S

Do we think this would be a suitable external link for the Manchester and Greater Manchester articles? Chester links the Chesterwiki. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the Chester wiki and Chester can or should be used as a justification: the matter became acrimonious, and it still crops up from time to time. The decision was that as a special case, it could be added to Chester, but no other articles, and part of the reasoning was intervention by other editors who just seemed to act so as to cool things down by letting it get added to one article. There is still scope for it to be removed from Chester. If the Manchester wiki contains derivative material to wikpedia itself, then surely it is not suitable; if it contains images with no clear copyright permissions, then perhaps that is also a cause for concern. Careful and detailed application of the material found in WP:EL perhaps needs to be done.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) My instinct is to say no, but I wouldn't object too much if a link was added. I asked Ddstrech for his opinion as he was involved in the discussion about the Chester wiki, and he doesn't think the Chester wiki should be used as a precedent. Under the external links we can add to an article, it says "sites that contain neutral and accurate material...[should be included]". The Manchester wiki doesn't satisfy WP:RS, however it could be allowed under "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources...[may be considered for inclusion]".

IMO at the moment a link shouldn't be included as the wiki is still in its infancy. It may improve to the stage where it is a useful and informative source, but I don't think it is at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

These are good points. Regarding "neutral and accurate", the wiki is "owned and operated by Hive Magazine" and so, as a stakeholder, is likely to be non-neutral about certain aspects. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get a few more opinions, but it looks like consensus is heading towards not including the link. It will be worth keeping tabs on though and perhaps making efforts to contact them and see if we can get those images on commons. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I was working in the Beetham Tower today and took a few shots from the top. If anyone would like to use them, let me know and I'll put them in wiki commons.

http://flickr.com/photos/soundman/2764939261/ - there are others in my profile besides that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I never knew that was your account (I have spotted it before!)! Defo candidates for commons if you ask me! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I came across this book on Google, which if you click 'more' on the 'selected pages' section, reveals plenty of drawings of old buildings around Manchester. Given the book is 1839, I would imagine they're all out of copyright. I've already used one on the Bridgewater Canal article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

There are no citations to back up 'Capital of the North'. This term should be deleted immediately as the term is used to refer to both Leeds and Manchester. Currently, putting that phrase there sparks dispute, particularly when no-one in the general public refers to any city as the Capital of the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.243.1 (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yorkshirian, trying to stir up trouble again? You have been here long enough to know not to do that. You have also been here long enough to know how to move pages without screwing it up and making work for others. But you make no effort to keep the encyclopedia 'clean', and you show no consideration for people reading pages that don't relate to your field of editing.

You have been banned by ARBCOM. You are going to have to realise that you and all your contributions are unwanted at Wikipedia. You are persona non grata. You are a pariah, a social outcast. Please find another hobby. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule - getting out of hand. Why not discuss the issue here, instead of just reverting eachother's edits? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy discussing alterations here and I'm happy to go with an agreement. The line that Majabi keeps reverting without any discussion is only two words that Joshii added. Majabi seems very keen to dampen down anything that places Manchester second only to London. Indeed a look at the comments on his contributions pages speaks volumes - "I should work for BCC" is probably the highlight and he's not wrong. He seems to edit the Manchester page simply to talk it down whilst hell bent on proving Birmingham is the second city. My view is that the additional two words that Joshii added did not weaken the article. Moreover I am just very wary that Majabi's intentions are not to make the Manchester article better but simply to weaken it. GRB1972 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Woah, tiger - easy on the paranoia! Saying that somewhere is the 'second-best place to do business in the UK after London' implies that it is actually third-best in the UK, and that there is another place that is the best in the UK after London. This is not true, because Cushman & Wakefield ranks Manchester as the second-best place in the whole of the UK, not in the whole of the UK excluding London. It's a fairly straightforward grammatical point. And to any interested reader, the place C&W rated top (ie, London) is both in the title of the source and also contained in the source itself. Do you follow now? Matthew (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that the joke behind my 'I could work for BCC ;-)' edit was entirely lost on you! I changed the picture at the top of the Birmingham article to that of Birmingham, Alabama after reading [2] - quite clearly am I 'hell bent'! ;-) Matthew (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, I couldn't care less! The fact is how it reads now Matthew/ Majabi or whoever else you go by is pretty much how it read after my initial update. I was simply of the opinion that Joshii's contribution did not detract from the article and I remain of that opinion, as I do about your general intention re. Manchester. Then again my point is probably entirely lost on you. GRB1972 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Metro Population

Hey guys, just writing to find something out and I'm not very good on wikipedia so I thought this was the best way of asking. How is the Metro population of Manchester 4,209,132? Where is the official reference for that please?

--Tubs uk (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Capital of the North

I'll admit I'm not from Manchester, but I am from the North. I am also aware that there isn't a particular capital of the North. Leeds is equally fitting to be the capital of the North, as is Sheffield. In the nicest way possible, Manchester doesn't really have a right to say it is. No city does until it is officially named as such. If you have some sort of official reference for it can you please show me? --Tubs uk (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You've had long enough to respond to me now. These issues will be reported unless someone shows me reliable evidence of the Metro Population and the Capital of the North. --Tubs uk (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats are not welcome here. The article already includes references. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but they do have a point about the Metropolitan Area population, as the ONS don't publish any metropolitan area data. Where does that figure come from? Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this rant. It is not clear what you are trying to say, if anything. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive

At 167k and over a year of talking, should much of this page not be archived? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Give me a few minutes ... Mr Stephen (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Mr Stephen (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it only took one drag of my finger on the touchpad to get here, rather than 10 :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RehovotLogo.jpg

The image Image:RehovotLogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Name Origins and the Founding of Manchester

I see in the discussion archive there was questioning of the Roman history. I would like to know if people think the name Mancenion, the "place of tents", should be included and reference to the building of the first fort by the Brigantes, a century before the Romans. For this I am citing Wheeler in 1836 (Manchester: It's Political, Social and Commercial History, Ancient and Modern), who amongst others cites Hollingworth in 1646 (Mancuniensis; Or, an History of the Towne of Manchester, and what is Most Memorable Concerning it). Here is a modern example of reference to this original name, predating the Roman Mancunium: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/place_page.jsp?p_id=791 Does anyone know more about this and if it is worth including please? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the accepted early history and derivation of the name has changed since then. Ordinarily, there's no reason why you shouldn't include the earlier attempts at finding the source of the name. However, this article is already ranked at 545 (out of 2 million plus) in the Hall of Verbosity. Perhaps History of Manchester or Mamucium would be a suitable home? Mr Stephen (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern accademic opinion is that "The name Mamucium is thought to derive from the Celtic meaning "breast shaped hill", referring to the sandstone bluff the fort stood on; this later evolved into the name Manchester" (Mills [2003]). The vision of Britain page is a 1887 gazeteer, generally modern works take precedent over older ones as they have access to wider sources. I don't think there's any need to add each derivation historians and antiquarians have thought up, otherwise this article will become too cluttered. I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for the Mamucium (Roman Manchester) article either, if it were to be included it should go in the history of Manchester aticle, however I'm not convinced it's worth including. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the etymology, did you see this? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't, I'm not happy with that edit to be honest. The fort is on a hill, ableit rather obscured by modern developments. I'll check out my sources and see if I have anything conclusive. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What concerned me was the way it was phrased, as if the new theory was correct and the previous one was false. And what really set alarm bells ringing was the statement that the is no hill! I've made this edit, toning it down slightly. Ideally, I'd like to remove it (perhaps an etymology section should be added to the history of Manchester article) to prevent proliferation of other theories: IMO we should stick to the mainstream one. Unfortunately I can't find the Gregory book I used when writing the Mamucium article which is more recent than the 2004 theory, and all my other sources are pre-2004. Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call I think. TBH, I dont think the mamma=mother theory is in the least bit new. My memory is that Ekwall makes reference to it somewhere, probably in his Place-names of Lancashire. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources I have quoted are for the celtic name, which is different in meaning to the roman name, as it refers to the area and not the later fort. The latin name seems to have been invented by the Romans. There is a lot of early evidence for the name I have quoted as being the first, and nothing has yet been quoted that goes against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC) The Romans Building a Fort at Mancenion: The building of the fort, to be found now in Manchester's Castlefield, by British slaves under Agricola - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Town_Hall http://www.yourdictionary.com/mancunian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) The Romans Build the Fort at Mancenion (Mamuciam) - AD 80 http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/buildings/town-hall/madox-brown-murals.html Alexander Royle (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of that information is wrong, Manchester2002, wikipedia, and yourdictionary are not considered reliable sources. For information on the fort and first settlement in Manchester, please read the article on Mamucium which is fully referenced. Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From The Ancient Name of Manchester by Henry Bradley (Jul., 1900) in 'The English Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 59': "A Celtic consonant-stem man- is not only unknown, but unlikely to have existed". Later on: "...this would give us Mammium, or, in Celtic form, Mamtmion, as the original name; a derivative, perhaps, of mamma, 'mother'". Therefore the theory that Manchester has something to do with "mother" is not new. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've been getting myself distracted by the additions by User:Anthony Appleyard, sorry about that. Alexander Royle, you want Mancenion mentioned in the article, which means the "place of tents". Hylton in A History of Manchester (2003) states that the name derives from the Celtic meaning a breast shaped hill on page 6. Unfortunately, the sources you've supplied are either very old or fail WP:RS. You also mentioned "the building of the first fort by the Brigantes, a century before the Romans". I have not come across anything mentioning a "fort", Celtic or otherwise, prior to the 79AD phase in Manchester. Paraphrased from page 181 of Gregory (2007), although there is no evidence of prehistoric settlement, there is evidence of activity in the area. A Neolithic scraper, two Mesolithic flints and a flint flake have been discovered, as well as a shard of late Bronze Age pottery; however these were mostly not found in situ. Do you have any sources refuting this? Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When I return home after the weekend I will quote the sources on the pre-roman settlement and then fort, and about the name "Mancenion". Some online sources say things like "The place where Manchester is situated today was found by the Romans who built a fort from which there were roads in all directions (Blakeley). The Romans called the area Mamucium: meaning breast-shaped hill (Schofield 2003:16, Moss, wwwa). But there are also other spellings to be found: Mancunium, Mameceaster, Mamecestre, Mamcestre (Farrer & Brownbill). When the Romans left the country and the Saxons came along, they altered the name: Mam became Man and ceaster was the result of a twist from the Latin word castrum, meaning fort, army camp (Schofield et al 2003:16, Odenstedt 2000:71, McCrum et al 1992:52)." http://dspace.hh.se/dspace/handle/2082/2131 This is fine if you ignore the Brigantes. As the sources I have cited and other historians, painters etc called the pre Roman area Mancenion, and that is still the name for Manchester in Welsh, I don't see how the latin is a translation. These Celts are from York and Durham a century before the Romans, so not the very ancient times you quote about Nev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the Anglo Saxon chronicles state that in 921AD King Edward of Mercia recognised the name Mancenion for the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The entry for Manchester in the Anlgo Saxon Chronicle is very brief, only a sentence, and refers to the settlement as Mameceaster, not Mancenion (Hylton [2003]). Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know these aren't great extra sources yet, but I'm just trying to prove it is recognised there was a name for Manchester before the Romans showed up, without my books etc to hand. "In the year 79 the town was conquered by Agricola, who changed its British name of Mancenion to MANCUNIUM" http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LAN/Gazetteer/M.htm "An early name for Manchester "Mancenion" is believed to have been taken from that of a Celtic settlement on the site, known as "the place of tents". When the Romans invaded England they called their new colony "Britannia". They built major cities like London and Chester. One of the principal Roman roads from Chester northward passed through Manchester, which was called by them "Mancunium". A part of this Roman road is still known as "Watling street". In AD 79 the Romans built a fort in Manchester..." http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PD3g_Nvv_NgJ:www.ekg.gp.bw.schule.de/projekte/city_gb/manchester.htm+Mancenion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to Mameceaster. There's no mad rush, you know, we'll all still be here in a few days :) Mr Stephen (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah joy, your ref gives "MANCHESTER, (N. lat. 53º 25" W. long. 2º 10".) the second town in the kingdom ..." but let's not go there tonight. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We can save that can of worms for another day. I don't remember where but I thought WP:GM had decided genuki does not fit WP:RS? Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In Britain, prehistory is anything before the Roman invasion, so when there is no evidence of prehistoric settlement, that means 100BC as well as the Bronze Age. There are certain inconsistencies, according to Gregory's reports on the excavations around the Roman fort (2007), there is no evidence of a settlement before the Romans arrived, and the Romans are generally regarded as having founded the first Manchester (Hylton [2003], Gregory [2007], Nevell [2008]) so there was no "town" for the Romans to conquer. If a reliable source could be found saying the Celts called the area Mancenion before the Roman arrived that'd be great, but it's unlikely as there is very little documentary evidence and it's not even certain if the area was controlled by a sub-tribe of the Brigantines or the Brigantines themselves. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to find evidence of the Brigands in the Roman fort. "MANCHESTER, ancient British name Mancenion, or Manceinion. This metropolis of the north can boast of the most remote antiquity. Its name would indicate a Celtic origin, for " man " is undoubtedly the W. man, a place ; but the meaning of the latter part of the name has given rise to some controversy. Dr. Whitaker says, after Baxter, that the word means " the place of tents*," but " cenion " in Welsh means " skins," and the secondary meaning of " tents " is purely a conjecture. In Spurrell's W. Dictionary the Celtic name is written Manceinion, and " ceinion " is the W. word for "ornaments" or "delicacies." It is scarcely possible to determine more than that the name is Celtic. In this instance, as in many others, the Saxon conquerors retained * Hist, of Manchester, vol. i. p. 5." http://www.archive.org/stream/transact185500philuoft/transact185500philuoft_djvu.txt You are ofc right about the ASC, sorry about that "þe he þær sæt gefaran Mameceaster on Norþhymbrum" "Brigantes who called it Mancenion" http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/S_MANCHESTER.HTM "the city appeared on the place of the former Celt settlement Mancenion" http://www.articlealley.com/article_50207_29.html "In 79 AD the Roman legions arrived in Mancenion, a place of tents" http://pac-its.psu.edu/pub/organization/education.abroad/Brochures/Manchester —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think despite the fact that many historians of note over the centuries, and to this day, have referred to the original Celtic name of Manchester as Mancenion, and it remains in the Welsh language, there is insufficient evidence to be sure about it. However, it is almost certain that there was a Celtic name, and it does not look likely that the Roman version is a translation, but a similarly sounding renaming that had a different meaning based on their original presence in the area. Thanks for discussing. I'm glad the Brigante stronghold is mentioned, and if anyone feels "Mancenion" deserves a mention in the History Of page, I would think it is worthwhile. Alexander Royle (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An etymology section has been added to the History of Manchester article, feel free to add something there with reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Population Ranking

"Manchester has the second largest urban zone in the UK and the fourteenth most populated in Europe."

This sentence has a link in it to a page that lists Manchester as the 16th most populated urban zone in Europe. Is there another source on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ankara is in Asia, and Istanbul is split between Europe and Asia. That might be the thinking. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly right. When I initially added the link Manchester was 14th on the list but as Mr Stephen asserts, since then the two Turkish cities have been added to the list. It is debateable whether Ankara is in Europe, Istanbul may be but I'm not sure. Perhaps just saying Manhcester is the 14th most populated urban zone in the EU might resolve it?GRB1972 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'LUZ' figure is ridiculous and should be removed, as it is simply another way to use a 'Greater Manchester' figure for 'Manchester', and bolster the cities population vs other cities in the UK. If you visit List_of_United_Kingdom_cities_by_population, which plainly lists the population of the UK's major cities, you will see that Manchester is 9th largest. The introduction should accurately show the population of the city, not use a figure which is purely promotional, and clearly refers more to Greater Manchester than Manchester. This is especially important considering this article is a FA. 78.109.182.8 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester's position within Greater Manchester is clearly notably though. Much of Manchester's (inter-)national reputation owes itself to being central to a major metropolitan area. Indeed, why do you think they called it Greater Manchester? The City of London addresses the issue in a simillar way also. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This point has been debated at length before but in addition to the comments by Jza84, LUZs are defined by the Eurostat, the EU's own statistical agency, a credible and oft. referred to statistical body. They were created in an effort to harmonise definitions of urbanisation in the European Union and in countries outside the European Union (such as Turkey). These definitions were agreed between Eurostat and the National Statistics Offices of the different countries of the European Union at the occasion of the European Commission's Urban Audit of 2004. Populations given by them are not necessarily just based on the metropolitan data e.g Birmingham has an LUZ population of 2.35m and an area of 1598km2 where as the West Midlands has 2.6m and an area of 902 km2.GRB1972 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so - LUZs are not just another way of expressing conurbations, but are designed as a form of Metropolitan Area, "best fit" to local authority areas. The Manchester LUZ just happens to cover the same area as the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County, though it's a different area to the Greater Manchester Urban Area. As mentioned by GRB1972, the Birmingham LUZ is not the same as the West Midlands county - both Wolverhampton and Coventry have their own LUZs, and the Birmingham LUZ includes areas from Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is worded in a way to make it seem like the urban zone is all Manchester. 'Manchester has the second largest...' - but the area is a 'LUZ' by definition (an urban zone and not just Manchester). Should this not be replaced with something along the lines of 'Manchester is the 9th largest city in the UK'. Surely this is a more accurate statement, as nobody considers Salford etc to be part of the city of Manchester? It seems like this article only mentions the LUZ because it makes Manchester the second largest after London, reinforcing the long debate about its second city status? 78.109.182.8 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The article already states that the popluation of the city of Manchester is 458,100 much smaller than that of the city of Birmingham so relax! There is a link to verify all the data regarding LUZs. Other cities on Wikipedia e.g New York City (which has FA status), Atlanta, Barcelona etc provide a city proper population and that of the wider area so this is not inconsistent with Wikipedia practise. I suspect had Birmingham a larger LUZ you would be less concerned. GRB1972 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll have you know that I didn't even mention Birmingham, that was Fingerpuppet. I suspect that if you were impartial then you would see what I mean, and if all of the editors of this article weren't so defensive they would simply reword it. 78.109.182.8 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You brought up the second city argument Fingerpuppet didn't - he simply validated the point I had made. Solid reasons have been given above why the introduction to the article reads as it does. The editors of this page and all others relating to Greater Manchester work tirelessly to maintain high standards and work entirely within Wikipedia guidelines which is why I am proud to be a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Despite your concerns I have every confidence that far from being defensive - contributors to Manchester and its related articles will continue to question, and where we are able to, improve all articles. GRB1972 (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there is little consistency to what figures are used. If all articles used 'LUZ' figures and it was widely regarded as a 'standard' then it would be fine, and most people would probably accept Manchester is bigger. I just think that the wording is very confusing, and makes it seem like the City of Manchester itself is the second largest and not the 'urban zone' extension which is not solely Manchester. Also, the population ranking in the infobox is somewhat hidden, whilst the LUZ ranking is given pride of place in the introduction. Surely someone can see where I'm coming from here? It just seems like only promotional figures are used.

To illustrate my point: Why is Manchester's population stated as 458,100, but not stated to be the 9th biggest city, when the LUZ is stated simply as 'second largest', and not quantified (2,539,100)?

P.S. it's probably best to keep Birmingham out of this, and I only mentioned the second city status in relation to London. 78.109.182.8 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You only mentioned the second city status in relation to London? London is significantly bigger and inarguably more important than all other British cities so I'm not sure why Manchester's LUZ is of any concern to London's position. The second city debate should and does take place elsewhere. I think we are in danger of going round in circles here - despite your concerns to the contrary, Manchester has FA status and with good reason - the article is very well written, verified and clear. GRB1972 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you completely ignore my question? FA articles are not perfect, and just because it is an FA does not automatically dismiss my concerns. Stop trying to make out that I'm some kind of impartial Birmingham-lover who cannot ask sensible questions. I think you'll find it is you who keeps bringing up the second city argument, and not me. 78.109.182.8 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A glance at the comments above shows that actually it was you who brought it up. I have explained above why the intro to this article reads as it does and my previous comments more than answer your questions. You are absolutely correct that FA articles are not always perfect and your comments on this article and any other are very welcome, respectfully though I suspect we just won't agree. GRB1972 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'd argue that all LUZs (and the relevant conurbations, and Travel to Work Areas) should be mentioned in the city articles in an appropriate format. I'm not a Mancunian (though I have lived in the city), and I don't have a problem with it being mentioned here. Indeed, I've recently encouraged editors over at Talk:Leeds to add LUZ and TTWA data to that article. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point to that? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some things are best ignored. Like tramps shouting in the streets. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The LUZ figures are pretty obscure to be fair. It is just a case of using the figure which makes the city look the best. Dare we link to the list that puts Manchester at ninth, oh no. 78.109.182.8 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Take this prescription for a chill pill. Take it with water and get some sleep. Dr Nev (waiting room) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Ok, so I'm a little behind with this (hey, I've been away for a year!)...

Well done on the Featured Article status. This article came a long was from when I reviewed it for GA Status over a year ago. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an important article for the Greater Manchester project, and not just because it's one of our main articles. The project gained momentum from here and the editors involved took some valuable lessons from the process; now the project has 29 FAs and FLs combined and 30 GAs! Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi- I have mentioned this before but the IPA for Manchester is incorrect. It would only be pronounced with /r/ at the end by someone with say, a west country accent. It's been changed before but looks like someone's changed it back to the incorrect version again. Any chance someone could correct this? Cheers.Jetsetradio (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation guide indicates a trans-dialectal transcription, not just the local pronunciation. See Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Distinction between British, American and Australian pronunciation and WP:IPA for English. "ər" is defined simply as the final sound of "runner" and "mercer", however any given English speaker happens to pronounce it. That means that for non-rhotic speakers "ər" is equivalent to [ə], while for rhotic speakers it's equivalent to [ɚ]. After all, Scots, Irish people, Canadians, and Americans talk about Manchester too, and their pronunciation is just as valid as local Mancunians' pronunciation. —Angr 06:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've studied phonetics as part of my degree and there's a big difference between [ə] and [əɹ], but I see your point- best to keep things simple. --Jetsetradio (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it was pronounced "mankisher", is it totally off the wall?--200.138.44.205 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Manc Accent

Due to my previous attempt and failure, as it was deleted, to create a page dedicated to the Manc accent I have tried again and kept it short, sweet and simple and have references. This time instead of criticising it could people contribute to it as the accent of Manchester is just as distinctive and famous as the Cockney, Scouse and Geordie accents and I believe the accent should have a seperate page. I am no Wikipedia expert so please if people could contribute it and give me any pointers it would be very much appreciated. Peace!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salfordsredarmy (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

36 namesakes

Someone might like to add to the text Manchester's 36 namesakes on two continents. "London, which has spread to 46 settlements on six continents, is second on the list, followed by Oxford (41 on three continents) and Manchester (36 on two continents). Bristol is fifth, equal to Wellington, with 35." (Jack Malvern. Richmond, in Surrey, is the most widely copied British place name worldwide, timesonline 2008-12-29. The original byline for the article in The Times of the same day was "The 55 corners of foreign fields that will be for ever ... Richmond" (page 9). Cites The Times Universal Atlas of the World.) PBS (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence

I've been accused of being inconsistent in being a member of the GM project, yet not correcting the wording of the second sentence, even though I changed it on Leeds. The accusation is silly, because membership of a project does not imply that one agrees with or monitors every article in that project, but the issue is perhaps worth raising here. The figures given in the second sentence are for an estimated population size, and not a figure arrived at, however imperfectly, by means of a census. Is there any use in qualifying the figure in the second sentence at all, so that instead of reading "It has a population of 458,100..." it reads something like "It was estimated to have a population of 458,100 in 2007...", because it is useful to distinguish in the text between the two different kinds of methods and sources used to arrive at the figures for 2001 and 2007?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "According to estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the 2007 population of Manchester was 458,100"? Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks more like the editor blamed you for editing the page, not being a member of WP:GM (which you aren't). Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right! I think I used to be, and if so I must have removed myself when I was doing a periodic clean out of groups I don't really contribute to much, and then forgot I did this. Oh well.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the context of the sentence, I think using 2001 figures would be more appropriate. In my opinion, estimates should be treated with caution because they are just estimates. Plus, the figure given for the population of Greater Manchester in the same sentence is from 2001 and should not be used for comparison in its current state. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the matter of using estimates can be quite problematic, and especially if one doesn't flag them up for what they are, as it doesn't help people avoid making somewhat false comparison in the way you suggested.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find the estimate is a lot more accurate than the census ... The same reference gives the estimate for Greater Manchester, BTW. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Strike that last bit, the estimate in the ref is for the county, wheras the article refers to the "Larger Urban Zone" (God save us). Oops. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So, that would mean that a comparison would still be a bit tricky, because the relative precisions would be the other way round to what might have been thought to be the case. Do you have any comment about the ones used for Leeds (found by trawling through the history for that article)? Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as accuracy goes, I don't know about the Leeds figures. For style I think variations on a theme of "Leeds has a population of X (2007 est.)" work well enough. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) User:Fingerpuppet is fantastic with demographic statistics for the UK, might be worth giving him a nudge? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've asked him.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a couple of comments to make. Firstly, there is, as someone says, a mismatch between the figures given, and their sources. It helps to remember that annual estimates are given for local authorities, and Urban Areas are census-only data.

The first figure given is for the Manchester local government district, and is from the 2007 estimated data, whilst the second figure is from the GMUA, and the most recent data available is from 2001. This contrasts with the Leeds article, which gives the Urban data (2001) and the County data (2007). Both articles therefore compare "apples and oranges" data.

I would suggest that the information is split slightly differently, with the 2007 estimates for the Manchester district and the GM County given initially, with that notation, whilst the GM Urban Area (and possibly the Urban subdivision of Manchester) is given secondly with a note that they are exact data (well, as exact as the slightly dodgy post-correction figures!) from the 2001 census. Meanwhile Leeds should have the Urban Subdivision data compared with the West Yorkshire Urban Area data, rather than the West Yorkshire County.

In 2007, the population of the Manchester local government district was estimated to be 458,100, whilst the surrounding Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester has an estimated population of 2,562,200. Manchester itself lies at the centre of the wider Greater Manchester Urban Area, which at 2001 census was shown to have a population of 2,240,230 (of which 394,269 lived within the Manchester subdivision), and it was the United Kingdom's third largest conurbation at that census. Manchester has the second most populous Larger Urban Zone (LUZ) in the UK with a population of 2,562,200 and the fourteenth most populated in Europe.

As for the Larger Urban Zone, well, the Manchester LUZ = Greater Manchester County so that data is from 2007 estimates too. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I'm a tiny bit concerned that although it is perhaps admirable to have unprotected the Manchester article (after its long spell of semi-protection), the fresh wave of edits have added nothing of value to the page, with pretty much every single ip edit having been an unfavourable one. Every day this article is vandalised. Going forwards, what do we envisage happening here? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be a target, although the most recent vandalism was actually reverted by an IP address. When you say "unfavourable" do you mean vandalism in its strictest sense? I supose the question is what percentage of IP edits are vandalism, as opposed to good faith. LevenBoy (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The vandalism hasn't been as bad as I had expected, and while we've been able to stay on top of it, we're still looking at a few unhelpful edits a day. The article has changed since semi-protection was lifted, a reference updated, a paragraph rewritten, but this was stuff discussed here and done by established editors. I don't like going against wikipedia's principle that everyone can edit, but I would support semi-protection. That does not mean IP and new users are not allowed to contribute, that's what this talk page is for.

I don't want to see the article protected indefinitely, perhaps for 3 or 6 months. The problem won't go away in that time, but I'd like to review the situation periodically, even if it means renewing protecting every 3/6 months. Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In response, firstly to LevenBoy: most has been vandalism (about 95% at a guess) with the rest being unsourced stuff about Manchester United fans or else something about London holding the Olympics.

To Nev1, I think we can hold back for another week or so and review the situation. I'm not quite sure that we need to semi-protect just yet, but I'm confident that no positive edits will be made by ips or new accounts between now and say next week. I wanted to test the water here. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It's a pity, but it does seem that semi-protection could be needed. I don't think semi-protection is justified to combat unsourced statements; it should really be reserved for straight vandalism. Maybe in a week or so a disinterested admin could weigh up the situation; maybe no more than a couple of months semi-protection? LevenBoy (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This stuck for an hour and a half. If that is indicative of the state of rc patrol, then it looks like protection is in order. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We're getting ip edits distrupting the long standing consensus about 2nd city status. It's been a further week and still we're getting silly edits, what do we think about a 1/2/3 month protection? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for 3 months. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jza84 |  Talk  00:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame it was necessary, but it clearly was. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well looking at the circumstances I would say it perhaps wasn't. Two points: according to the policy semi protection is for vandalism by IPs. I see no recent vandalism, just a content dispute. Semi protection here has been used expressly to exclude IP editing - not in line with policy. Secondly, the user Jza is not independent in this matter, but he has protected the article, and worse, he seems to have done this to, amongst other things, exclude an IP with whom he was in an edit war. Recommendation: unprotect this article immediately and put your arguments to the appropriate forum where a disinterested admin can assess the case. LevenBoy (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

--There was an abundance of ip vandalism! I'm not listing all of them (they're clear to see in the edit history), but this, this and this are not indicative of an edit war, but rather are open-and-shut pointless ip vandalism. So my recommendation is review the matter with some vigour before assuming bad faith please. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Levenboy, I am new to Wikipedia and cannot add anything to this article. I am from Manchester but the clear bias from the "editors" involved has astounded me, this is a content issue as you say as to whether Manchester is 2nd city or not, that aside the IP address wasn't even directly spoke to, a more experienced wikipedian whom I know has recommended that if the protection isn't lifted it should get taken further. As a newbie is very disconcerting that I cannot edit my OWN city because of clear bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mancunianboy (talk • contribs)

Mancunianboy: you can edit the page. What did you have in mind? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mancunainboy, isn't your OWN city Birmingham, as attested by your edit history? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I studied image consultancy & business in Birmingham yes but I was raised in Whalley Range and now live in Green Quarter Apartments, what do want my birth certificate??? Maybe if I had been able to edit Manchester then more edits wouldn't have been of other articles. This protection should be lifted, I am convinced if vandalism occurs (which I can see it has) then the user/IP address should be dealt with directly. Either way Jza from my understanding "personal attacks" don't go down to well on here, so touche my friend. Thanks Mr Stephen, my edit was with regards to Manchester being placed in top 100 cities to live, I need to find out the reasearch but I believe Manchester is something like 34th best city, pretty good out of a 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mancunianboy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jza84, you said above "We're getting ip edits distrupting the long standing consensus about 2nd city status". This is not a valid reason for semi-protection. I take your point about the earlier vandalism, but in recent days it has not been excessive. My main point is, however, that as an interested admin editor you should not be protecting this article. The cicumstances of the protection leave a lot to be desired. What are you going to do about it? LevenBoy (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done. The issue was open to discussion here and the consensus was to protect, in fact Jza was reluctant to protect the page but consensus was for it. The issue here is not Manchester's status as second city or otherwise, but vandalism. You insist it has decreased recently, but from the days immediately preceding the protection of the page we have this [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The semi-protection will prevent this sort of vandalism, but does not present discussion about improving the article and the second city issue from taking place here; which is, after all, what talk pages are for. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I note the vandalism, but Jza protected it for another reason - he said as much (see quote). In future I suggest Jza does not semi-protect articles in which he is heavily involved as a contributor. It just doesn't look good. LevenBoy (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He raised the issue before IPs started raising the second city issue, it was a secondary factor rather than the main cause. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most people here agree with his action. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the action carried out was quite justified.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been advised Levenboy to take this further, I have a friend who is involved in Arbritration, I believe if it does'nt get unprotected after you have put your points to the admin/editor you can take it there, and Nev1 it seems there was a "discussion" just not an open one, 3 admin/editors agreeing it hmm, not what I would call open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mancunianboy (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this why I can't edit this page? It's crazy to stop the fun of editing for everyone based on a few vandals, isn't this against wiki's policy. I can understand them protecting George W Bush/Tony Blair, but protecting the page over the 2nd city status which is debatable, I don't agree it should be lifted like now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladydiesel (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I was the "IP" that added the word debated about 2nd city status which is true, there is no definition of 2nd city status, I did not vandal the article and you will see from my history that I don't vandal things. I started off in a edit war ages ago when I started looking here but I don't vandalize. If you look at the previous edits, they were vandalism, mine wasn't. Mr Stephen advised people to take it to talk. But then it was protected, my advise Mancunian & Leven take it to dispute process unless they unprotect the page. This is Blatant editorial bias, someone who has no interest in this article needs to make a decision. I would pursue this, its wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.220.150 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Once again: the page was not protected because of the second city dispute. If you want to talk about the second city, open a new section here; you will be referred back to long-closed discussions that led to the current position. (If you really want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the debate, go and fix Second city of the United Kingdom) You will find that Arbcom have no appetite for this trivia. The first stage in dispute resolution is discussion here, and that stage has a long way to go yet. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that Arbcom will look at this in whatever way they want, but I would still support any pursue of getting this protection lifted, Is it going to be lifted?