Talk:Greater Manchester/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

no reference to the areas effected dismissal of the term 'greater manchester'

Having been born and brought up in Oldham since 1970, i know of no one who at any level uses the term oldham, greater manchester. It is alien to the vast majority of oldhamers and i'm sure of the other towns in south east lancashire and north cheshire.I have not seen one comment on wikipedia that mentions the fact that the term 'greater manchester' is not recognised in the actual towns like oldham and they still refer to themselves as lancastrians. I have also read several discussions from politicians who have openly stated that 'greater manchester' as a county does not exist but is used only in administrational purposes only, yet, when people try to correct the mistake of this site and try to change the location of oldham from the non existant county of greater manchester to the very real and true county of lancashire of which it belongs, this site e mails them back telling them that that person is wrong. I suggest you get in contact with the relevant office in government who will be more than willing to show you the errs of your ways. I don't think you realise the offence you cause by bracketing oldham into manchester or a 'greater manchester'. I hope you give this great thought and at least mention that 'greater manchester' is not a term used within most, if not all the effected towns —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial argument. Wikipedia's guidelines are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources that contradict the stance on this matter currently taken by editors, then please supply them. Otherwise your argument isn't really meritorious. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always found it extraordinary that the name Greater Manchester was acceptable in the first place to people in places like Bolton, Wigan, Oldham etc. It is like calling West Yorkshire Greater Leeds or West Midlands Greater Birmingham or South Yorkshire Greater Sheffield. Wasn't there any objections at the time? How did it come to be accepted?( (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Come on, it is only those diehard wannabe Lancastrians or Cheshire folk, who deny they are in Greater Manchester. Oldham,Wigan etc are only in the historic county of Lancashire as Stockport is in the historic county of Cheshire.They CAN be what they want to be, but I sure do not live in Lancashire!!! For me it has a small minded, mill town mentality. We are urban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For a hundred years before GM was formed Wigan was a County Borough, independent of the County of Lancashire anyway. WatcherZero (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Metropolitan Boroughs

Take a look at this discussion going on here Talk:Metropolitan borough (scroll down to: 'Requested move')--Mapmark (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

2008 population estimates

Nat Office of Stats is showing a 6000 growth in pop of Gtr Manchester ( Have added this into the main box but not sure if this si the correct etiquette for such new figs. Apols if not and advice appreciated. --Mapmark (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Film "Body of Lies" scenes in Greater Manchester

User Malleus Fatuorum reverted after about three minutes an edit by me in which I added this sentence: "In fact, the region so epitomized squalor that the 2008 movie "Body of Lies" which has scenes named "Terrible Neighborhood" and "Terrible Flat," set those scenes in Greater Manchester." This line I ref'd to here: Says Malleus Fatorum: "this is an FA, we can't rely on opinions from IMDB." What opinions? The film is in fact set for those scenes in Greater Manchester. "Terrible Neighborhood" and "Terrible Flat" are the scene names used on the DVD menu for the film. One can also watch the scenes and look at the lettering on uniforms, vehicles, and such. The IMDB ref is just to also back up that assertion with a check-able reference. I'm not going to comment further or revert the revert ---leave it to admins to shake this out. Cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam

Oh, must add one thing. Further chat re IMDB reliability is here: My ref was not to one of the freeform IMDB forum boards, but rather to an (I-think-reliable) IMDB trivia page.

Cramyourspam (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam

IMDB isn't a reliable source. If you add it again I'll revert it again. Content disputes are nothing to do with administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City Region: Many questions

I've just made this change on the basis of no reference provided. Stuff like this keeps appearing in related articles now.

However, much of it rings true, if not verifiable.

There are many questions that need answering before we proceed I think: How does the Manchester City Region now fit in for Greater Manchester? Do we mention it in the lead? Do we merge the articles? Do we split the history into a "1974-2009" and "2009+" subsection format? What is the name of the region? How does it function? Does it sit above or below the metropolitan county? Is it unitary? Is it even a district/region in the conventional sense, or just the pooling of existing resources? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try and answer a couple of your questions. Manchester was awarded city region pilot status last year together with Leeds, If it goes ahead (individual council ratifications are going on at the moment though Stockport and Trafford might not ratify it, it could proceed without them or not) It sits above the met boroughs and performs some similar pooled functions of the disestablished GM county council, its not directly elected but commitees will be made up of a pool of just over 30 councillors from the met boroughs in the formula: Manchester 5, Salford and Wigan 4, Bury 2, rest 3 (roughly one for every 75,000 people) while the ruling board will have 1 member 1 vote. It exists seperatly to the county and is probably best dealt with on its own page with perhaps a paragraph introduction here. It will have very specific powers on Transport, regeneration, skills, waste, planning, decicions would be by a majority vote (7/10) with no chairman casting vote. Day to day administration will continue to be with the boroughs. Its a legal regional government entity similar to londons without being directly elected capable of holding whatever powers the councils decide to vest in it, intially its main responsibility besides planning will be a £1bn/y Skills budget devolved from central goverment and the merger with the current GMITA/GMPTE to form Transport for Greater Manchester Executive and Transport for Greater Manchester Commitee ( TfGME/TfGMC) its envisioned Transport powers over highways and railways will eventually be devolved down to it (after its proven itself capable). Your correct at its simplest its a pooling of resources and joined up cross border planning formalising what has been going on informally since the county council was dissolved through organisations like AGMA, GMWDA and GMITA. WatcherZero (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is good stuff. So, on the understanding we can reference it, naturally, how would the following sit:
  1. Expand the Manchester City Region page with the material above.
  2. Make amendments to the lead of this article so that it mentions the Manchester City Region
  3. Mention at the latter part of the History section about the pilot scheme as a city region (last few sentences may need a rejig for flow)
  4. Amend and expand the Governance section with the new system of governance (voting formula, areas of shared responsbility, strategies, comparisons with London).
Some issues I think we need to have consensus on first:
  1. I'm told that the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 is the enabler for Greater Manchester to become a Statutory City Region (<< this being the 'Official' appellation it seems, as opposed to City Region?). Can we verify this?
  2. Is the Manchester City Region the right title for that article (Do we want "Greater Manchester City Region" as per more official sources?)
  3. Do we have a disambiguation link at the top of this article, to the city region?
  4. What the name of the executive/authority for the Manchester City Region? Are AGMA etc now part of that authority, or departments of that authority?
  5. The city region is a pilot. When is the pilot testing phase over and what are the potential (verifiable) consequences for the future?
--Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. yes
  4. No, I think governance is best left to a city region page
  5. Yes, also the Darling Budget speech last year was where Leeds and Manchester were officially awarded the status.
  6. Combined Authority (CA) is the technical description being used and Manchester City Region Authority (MCRA) seems to be the official title, they arent using Greater Manchester City Region because its distinct form the county and may expand later, the initial setup was decided to be the county borders for conveniance and formalisation of existing AGMA. The city region (economic area) extends geographically beyond those borders but the Combined Authority wont for the time being. I think Manchester City Region is the best layman title but their is the possible confusion between the legal entity and the economic area.
  7. I dont think we need a disambiguation, City region and county are quite different terms.
  8. AGMA/GMITA are to be formally disbanded and absorbed, I believe the GMWDA will continue to exist seperatly for the time being.
  9. There is no end phase for the pilot, if Leeds and Manchester work and the trial is dubbed a success then more city region governments will be created, they may also devolve more powers to the city regions as it seems to be the working English Devoloution strategy after the failure of the regional government initiative.
  10. Couple more links for you:
WatcherZero (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff. Things are becoming clearer to me. Regarding point number 6, I was referring to the divison of land rather than the authority (the council/assembly/administration that is to run it), but the finding of the term "Combined Authority (CA)" is helpful. However, it seems that Tameside and Bolton only agreed to the CA, in part, because of the requirement to change the Manchester City Region Authority (MCRA) to the Greater Manchester City Region Authority (GMCRA):

"d.the proposed naming of the Combined Authority and the joint transport committee as the Greater Manchester City Region Authority (GMCRA) and the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee (TfGMC) respectively given the Council has previously argued that any city region should be inclusive of its districts and include ‘Greater’.

...although this, dated 19 Feb 2010 (a week later) seems to suggest that no name has yet been chosen (but points to "Greater" being a must). Confusing. As a source it does seem to verify everything that requires it however, including the voting system. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This Bolton News article here may be of interest - Town 'will benefit from city region' (Tuesday, 16 March 2010). In it the article mentions that the name has been changed from the Greater Manchester City Region to the City Region Combined Authority (CRCA). Although I'm not sure if it means it is now just the "City Region Combined Authority" or the "Greater Manchester City Region Combined Authority". HLE (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Good find. It seems we're still in a period of transision and flux on the city region; all the detail appears to be agreed upon, but now the thorny matter of names... --Jza84 |  Talk  01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, its also perhaps too current at the moment to easily write about. Theirs a final draft agreement, individual councils are voting to accept the draft or not this week and next week, they may try and attach more conditions and once councils have agreed then a final text has to be agreed between the council heads at an AGMA meeting, finally that text has to be given to the Government and signed by Minister of State. WatcherZero (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom

Don't know if any of you are aware of this but there's been some silly Wiki natter on this rather odd list of List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom - my contention, as you will read, is that the base list cited is outdated and poorly calculated. If any of you have the time to read/wade in on the debate it might be helpful.Mapmark (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


This article is incredibly biased,and however has wrote it,is obviously from Manchester,and pretending that greater manchester is just Manchester.i have not read anything as stupid in my life,there was no mention of creating greater manchester in the 1930s,so i dont know where you ve got this from.Greater Manchester was created in 1974,40 years after the 30s,and when greater manchester was created 40 years later in 1974 it was made clear that it was not a county,and is an amalgamation of historic counties such as lancashire,cheshire and yorkshire.greater manchester was then abolished in 1986,and so now no longer exists,apart from police and fire services,although there is now a combined authority,it means nothing,get used to it manks,all you own is the city of manchester and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just after the passage concerned you will see a reference mark which looks like this:[25]. If you click on that it will show you where the information came from. Also, my reading of this passage is not that GM was created in the 1930s, but that a proposal was made in the 1930s. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

why call yourself,redrose64 if you agree with greater manchester,greater manchester was just a bad accident towns such as Bolton,Bury,Rochdale,Oldham and Wigan are completely different to Manchester,salford,trafford,stockport and tameside are near enough manchester,but bolton,bury,rochdale,oldham and wigan are definitly not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think I agree? I'm trying to explain how Wikipedia operates: we don't report personal opinion, but information already published, all the time maintaining our core policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutrality. Face it: the Heath government made a lot of people angry (me included), but we're not in a position to turn the clock back. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the world as it exists. Not as you or I might like it to exist. Fact is the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester does still legally exist and the outlying towns such as Bolton, Bury, Wigan, etc are still legally part of it. Until such time as a government decides to scrap the Metropolitan county, Wikipedia should report it as such and not pretend it falsely represent it as not existing just to preserve some sense of history. Unfortunately, or otherwise, the current direction of travel appears to be the opposite of scrapping the county. The boroughs are actually moving closer together through necessity of saving money given the present round of cuts and incentives that working together makes it easier to get cash out of Whitehall.

Even within the M60 the boundaries between boroughs are somewhat arbitrary. On a <5 min stretch of my short 10-15min drive to work I cross the boundary between Manchester and Trafford at least 4 times. It seems somewhat daft to me. However, that doesn't give me the right to pretend that the distinction doesn't exist. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

PRESTWICH is part of BURY Borough, but just 3 miles or so from Manchester centre AND very much Manchester suburbia. Get used to it ! WE are a large conurbation!I too cross boundaries many, many times daily. The MANCHESTER brand is big. Ask most young people, in any of the 10 parts of GM, where they are from and they associate with "Manchester", which IS so much more than the oddly shaped city alone!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Rochdale and Oldham have similar areas to Prestwich, which are more part of Manchester than the rest of their borough. Bolton merges with Salford, which itself merges with Manchester. Only Wigan is a little out on a limb, but the area between it and Bolton is getting built up. Called porogress!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


why has it not been mentioned that most people in especially The Northern parts of it,such as Bolton,Bury and Rochdale most people consider themselves to be Lancastrians,as i live in the area i should know,however there is no mention what so ever in this article,could someone please edit this article,and mention these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources stating as such, it may be added; but only with references. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I tell you what,it sounds daft but when your out and about around them towns,why not do a survey asking residents if they consider them as lancashire and youll find out that they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of conducting surveys. However, if such survey has been conducted independently, and reported in something like the Bolton Evening News, we may mention its findings. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Give us a break.... MOST of what is NOW Greater Manchester WAS in Lancashire, but has NOT been for years!! Stockport etc have Cheshire addressess, BUT are still in GM. We know what is what.Some have such a small (mill) town mentailty!!There is a difference between the old counties and the new. Time places like Bolton woke up!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

When will this nonsense subside? Wikipedians strive for objective entries. If I were to say that most people that I know from “the northern parts” identify with Greater Manchester, does that make it any more valid? No it doesn't. The point is, the article is concerned with the legally defined county and to a lesser extent, those who reside within. Matters of identity are far too fluid a concept to assert a single position. Very much a case of flogging a dead horse, this “Lancashire” talk... Tong22 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Hi all, I added a subsection on flora and fauna - I felt this was missing from the article. As a consequence I've nabbed a couple of lines from elsewhere to avoid repetition, and included two paragraphs and a pic. Ta! --Jza84 |  Talk  08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


I'm doing a bit of formatting cleanup on the references and am having trouble figuring out what the desired formatting is. Should shortened citations be {{Harvnb}} or plain text? Should access dates be formatted by the templates or by hand? Should books include publisher locations or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No publisher locations, {{sfn}}, and access dates formatted by one of the cite/citation templates. If I remember correctly, the reason some of the access dates are outside the citation templates is something to do with the way that date autoformatting used to work. Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)