Talk:List of streets and roads in Manchester

Clean up

Some of these streets arent really very notable. I think this article should only attempt to record the more notable ones. For example, Dover Street is basically a side street at the University. Pit-yacker 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's something of note on all these streets, if one looks hard enough. Cheshire Set 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Three years later, I've removed all the red-linked and no-linked pages from this list. If we must have this article, it should definitely record only the most notable of streets, and not any old random selection based on somebody's own criteria. Aiken ♫ 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lugnuts, an editor who voted to keep this unreferenced, nn list at the recent AFD undid my edit with the cryptic "undo Pointy edit" and then proceeded to add yet more unsourced information. I think keeping the blue links only is reasonable - otherwise, we are suggesting that non-existent articles are notable, but with no proof. Basically, a vio of WP:OR. Everything on the article must be sourced, per WP:V. It's not optional. I'll have a go at referencing some of the facts which I tagged yesterday and I don't expect to be rudely reverted. Aiken ♫ 13:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you had actually read the articles that are linked to, I believe you will find much of the information IS referenced in the Street's Article. "undo Pointy edit" was not cryptic at all when you consider that you loaded the page with fact tags and stripped out every unlinked streetname after the close of the AFD did not go your way. If you still find it cryptic please read about what consensus believes is considered Pointy. The only way to see if there is an Article for the now removed streets is now to readd them 1 at a time and see if they are red or blue. You are wrong in your assumption that "it should definitely record only the most notable of streets", you are (in essence) conducting Original Research in your 'scoreing' of "the most notable". The concept that Notability is permanent and not fleeting is a longstanding fundamental of WP:N. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I already explained to you - it's insufficient to reference facts elsewhere. That's the point of WP:V. I actually removed all the unlinked names, and the redlinked names. The reason for this should be clear - if they aren't linked, they probably don't have an article, which therefore means they probably aren't notable. If it was notable it would have an article, and until an entry has an article we can only assume it's not. That's why this list is so problematic - there's no limit to what might be included, unlike, say, List of French monarchs, where there is obvious criteria, and we could include red linked entries (if there were any) because we know they definitely belong on that list. Not so with this list.

The relevant policy, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, is irrelevant here. Nothing was disrupted - I simply removed nn entries from the article. If that's disruptive, then most things must be. As for proving a point, if any point was being proven, it's that the article is a mess and probably always will be.

Are you seriously suggesting we should add non-notable streets to this list too? If you are, I'm strongly opposed to the idea. It's bad enough as it is without nn entries there - it's already looking directory like as it is. Aiken ♫ 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This list should include notable roads; notable in the Wikipedia sense. In which case, the roads should either be blue links or be eligible to have an article about them. To prove this, any red linked road would have to come with references to avoid being removed. As Aiken says, even in the case of blue links, references are required per WP:V. Removing a huge chunk of unreferenced material in line with policy doesn't seem disruptive. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great compromise, Nev1! It seems fine to add red-linked streets, as long as there is sufficient evidence to back up the notability. I just don't want this list to languish - to clean up a list (which some of the keep voters at the AFD even admitted was in a poor state), it sometimes requires a bold action. Bold, but definitely not pointy. I don't really agree with this list, but I accepted the outcome of the AFD regardless. Many people would just move on to another article, but I'm here trying to make it better. You should be pleased ;) Aiken ♫ 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Squares

Should we include squares in this list too? If so the page will need renaming. I'm not really for or against the idea but the title ought to reflect the contents. Aiken ♫ 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If squares were to be included, what would the article title be changed to? List of places in Manchester? No, squares are not streets, and neither are roads. Like you, I don't really see the point of this article, but if it exists, and the consensus appears to be that it should, then it ought not to be a dog's dinner. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I always considered streets and roads to be the same thing actually, just synonyms. The apparent precedent for putting squares and streets together is this article. Aiken ♫ 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As it was pointed out to you in the AFD you opened, Squares are fine. It was a non-issue. not a single opinion there was in favor of removing squares from this list. Dont belabor the point and WP:FORUMSHOP, that is against policy. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ps that is NOT the presedent ... try a WP search for "List of streets and squares in"

Exit, just because other articles (poor articles, I should say) exist, doesn't mean that it's right. It seems, ironically, that instead of all the "keep" voters on the AFD, I am the only one actually bothering to clean up this article. I will continue to bring up issues if they appear. I'm not the only person who thinks this way, as can be seen. As for forum shopping, if someone makes false accusations of disrupting Wikipedia against me, I'm not going to sit here on my own to be beaten up for trying to fix an article I really don't care about. I asked Nev1 because he posted here before. You were refusing to listen to me so getting a third opinion is a completely appropriate way to go about things. Aiken ♫ 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions expressed in the AfD are irrelevant to this article's development; they simply justify its existence. So far as roads and streets are concerned, look at the example of the A5103 road. Is that in Manchester? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, but why treat streets and squares together? Are they considered particularly similar? Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are. As can plainly be seen from this cite edit [1], they are somewhat interchangeable. They are not an necessarily open green space like most N. Americans would think. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

King Street's not a square, so I don't really see what that diff has to do with Wikipedia treating streets and squares as a natural grouping. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was named a square. It was renamed a street, the terms are somewhat interchangeable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When it's just a name it could be included. But when it's a town square it should not. Aiken ♫ 22:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Then by all mean, look at Exchange square [2] and tell me how that possibly equates to a Town square. I believe you are putting a square peg in a round hole by trying to equate it with anything in the group of List_of_city_squares#United_Kingdom, they are not similar in any sense of the term. It has more in common with items on this Article, and so it should be here. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You've linked me to the wrong place for a start. And it's exactly what I'd call a town square. See this for a clearer idea of how it's a square. Aiken ♫ 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If going by Wikipedia's definition of a town square ("an open public space commonly found in the heart of a traditional town used for community gatherings") Exchange Square is a public space, has been used for community gatherings, and could be argued to be a focal point of the city. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what the problem is! I consider "the Triangle" (and several other buildings) as part of the square as well, so seemingly does the Exchange Square article. That would make the Square mostly Private property (although freely accessible to the public) and outside the definition of a town square. It then becomes a shopping centers (with history) with a small open space out front that has some simple street furniture, all of which just so happens to have the word Square in its usual name of reference. Question: Is "the Triangle" part of the Square to you? or Does "the Triangle" lay outside of the Square to you? FYI: The Triangle's address says they are in it.[3] (and I do mean "just so happens to have the word Square in its usual name of reference", notice the nearby St. Anns Square, it is defiantly a road/street. I am treating this the same. _{Sorry about the bad link before, bad cashe baaad.} Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Refuge Assurance & Haçienda

Have removed the Refuge as it is in Oxford Street; the former Haçienda is in Whitworth Street West.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

More roads

Even from the city centre several major roads are missing, e.g. St Mary's Gate, Peter Street, Oxford Street, Cross Street, High Street, Liverpool Road, Great Ancoats Street. Of the major routes through the suburbs only Kingsway and Wilmslow Road are included here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)