Talk:Manchester/Archive 2

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

One of the biggest

I'm sure i was told Manchester has the biggest student population in europe. Anyone know of any bigger ones? Plugwash 23:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I can only find anecdotal evidence for this - even though I've often heard it myself. It's also been going around for a while as evidenced by Ian Brown in 1998 [1]. I reckon if we include this it should be prefaced by a "reputedly" or "allegedly", as I've seen newspapers do [2] (even though the Times didn't [3]). But to answer your question, other cities with large student populations include Rome, Barcelona, Paris, London, Milan, Naples and Cologne - no definitive stats yet but this page is useful. Cormaggio @ 10:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Users have been warring over this page so it has been temporarily protected. Please discuss where the redirect should go on Talk:City of Manchester and leave me a message when that is resolved. Thank you. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

not to mention someone needs to clean up the copypaste move of manchester to city of manchester. Plugwash 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here?

Why has some new user steamed in, removed the extensive page on Manchester, redirected it to Greater Manchester and taken the Manchester page to "City of Manchester"?!

What a fucking mess. 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it back seem as this mess seems to have been created by one user without asking anyone. And there appears to be consensus for this bizarre move to City of Manchester, and it is totally inconsistant with every other city article. G-Man 21:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well if you acknowledge that there is consensus then how can you justify going ahead and changing it to suit your own agenda? EarlyBird 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back home, Manchester! Hope you enjoyed your little trip. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


There are many inaccuracies throughout the article. Please check. --Litherland 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, or do we have any reason to believe this isn't more of the same vandalism we had a few weeks ago? Cormaggio @ 14:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This guy's been trolling all day. David 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

"As with the conurbation around London, many people have come to regard Manchester as a city in its own right, despite the fact that neither officially has City status."

On the City Status article, Manchester and London are both in the list of cities, but this paragraph says they arent?

I don't really know much about this, but surely thats wrong?

In the UK official city status is given to local authorities not the entire city. London and Manchester each have two local authorities with city status. I think this paragraph is bit weasely - Manchester and London are cities, it doesn't need to be explained in terms of "many people regard". MRSC 19:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree on the weaselyness of the paragraph in question but it certainly makes sense. The City of London is an administrative area with a population of 7,000 at the heart of the London conurbation. Likewise, The City of Westminster is another area with City status, but has a population of just over 200,000. Both of these official Cities are obviously not representative of the entire city of London, which is obviously to all the conurbation occupying most of greater London and beyond, with its' roughly 8 million inhabitants.
The paragraph doesn't say that London and Manchester aren't cities therefore, it points out that the City of London and the City of Manchester are only small central parts of 'London' or 'Manchester'.
note - my use of lower and upper case 'c' and 'C's are intentional, and may help to clarify my reply.Mr ed 20:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Breach of policy

Having done some research, this article as it currently stands is in clear breach of the No original research policy, which clearly states that editors are not allowed to invent their own definitions of a subject, based upon original research. G-Man 20:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nobody, as I understand it, who is inventing definitions here. It is perfectly well recognised that the term 'Manchester' is used to describe the conurbation. Examples range from the obvious - There are few who would describe Manchester United FC as being in Trafford for example, to the less obvious, such as the central commercial district of Manchester lies partly in Salford. If it is an invention that this is true, then likewise the page entitled 'London', whilst reffering to the London conurbation, would also be an 'invention' and would have to be removed.

Please read through the detailed discussions in the City of Manchester talk page.Mr ed 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, no such an official definition of Manchester exists, there are three officially defined entities with the name 'Manchester'. the city of Manchester, the 'Greater Manchester Urban Area' and 'Greater Manchester'. Nowhere is 'Manchester' defined officially as refering to the conurbation, this is a definition of the term which has been invented by User:EarlyBird and is therefore in clear breach of the policy.
The official definition of the Government Office Region covering London (the same area of Greater London) is simply 'London' therefore the London article is correct. G-Man 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The language throughout does supports this. All references are to "City of Manchester" with "Manchester" used occasionally and clearly as shorthand for the City of Manchester. Where an area bigger than just the City of Manchester is discussed the term "Greater Manchester" but never "Manchester" is used suggesting that Manchester and City of Manchester are one and the same. MRSC 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
What do you suggest as a course of action? MRSC 20:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think this is a NPOV issue.
That "The entire Greater Manchester Urban Area is "Manchester"" is clearly POV - some people agree, some people disagree. Which one is the majority POV is irrelevant - it's still POV.
Conversely, that "Everywhere outside the "strictly defined City of Manchester" is NOT "Manchester"" is, in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent, also POV.
As these are both POV statements, it is important that Wikipedia does not implicitly or explicitly assert either of them as fact (in the Wikipedia sense - By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation).
IMO, in titling an article about the conurbation "Manchester", Wikipedia is implicitly asserting the first of these POV positions, and this would therefore be a clear breach of NPOV. The current state of affairs is therefore clearly unacceptable and should be reverted.
What is less clear is whether, in titling the "City" (in the strict sense) article "Manchester" as it was previously, Wikipedia would be implicitly accepting the second of the two POV statements above.
It is my opinion that it wouldn't be for two reasons:
- It is a fact (ie "there is no serious dispute") that the strictly-defined-city area is "Manchester", just not that it is exclusively "Manchester". The strictly-defined-city is the one area for which asserting "Manchester-ness" is not contentious, as long as it isn't done exclusively.
- It is possible to state clearly in the introductions to relevant articles (including Manchester, Greater Manchester, Trafford, Salford etc) something along the lines of "many people consider area x to be apart of Manchester, even though it is part of a separate local authority". (the precise wording would obviously need to be discussed and agreed upon). Wikipedia would then be recognising and explaining, without asserting, this POV.

BUT, if it was widely felt that titling the "City" article "Manchester" rather than "City of Manchester" would be asserting the second POV statement as fact then it would clearly be better to leave it as "City of Manchester". Under those circumstances this should be carried out consistently across all UK cities, though, as Manchester's restricted borders aren't unique and shouldn't be treated as such. There would be problems with labelling all UK city articles "City of...", because important words such as Manchester and Liverpool would then have to lead to disambig pages, but these problems would be preferable to breaking the NPOV rule, if that was the only alternative.
JimmyGuano 22:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable. Thinking about the impact of this I think it would be minimal as in the UK the local authorities tend to be bigger than the towns and cities they cover such that the city article is written in the style of being a district of that authority - Brighton, Brighton and Hove; Croydon, London Borough of Croydon; Basildon, Basildon (district) etc. Where the local authority covers the same area of the town there is one article e.g. Harlow.
On this basis I suggest an article called Manchester written about the local authority area with City of Manchester redirected to Manchester and the names and status of the local authority clearly explained. The infobox would give the full name "City of Manchester". MRSC 06:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me. There would obviously need to be a sensible degree of discretion shown on both sides in what was and wasn't considered relevant to mention in the Manchester article.
JimmyGuano 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

City of Manchester Talk page

A more full and detailed discussion regarding this matter is currently taking place on the City of Manchester talk page. I think all would agree that trying to engage in a lenghty discussion across two pages is at best confusing and at worst disadvantageous to the expression of the points raised by everyone.

As I did above, I refer everybody to the discussion on the City of Manchester:Talk page.Mr ed 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Please add suggestions at Talk:City_of_Manchester#Definitions about which Manchester-related articles we should have and what each of them should contain. Cormaggio @ 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hijacked For Propoganda Purposes

The article is referring to Manchester as a Conurbation. This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham. There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. --BigBriton 12:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly G-Man 20:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think making wild accusations like this is helpful. There is a genuine and legitimate disagreement here, and it would be appropriate of both sides to acknowledge this. Morwen - Talk 15:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:City of Manchester

Initial discussions


This page has been temporarily protected so that disputes about where the redirects should be can be discussed rather than warred over. Please discuss and leave a message for me when a solution has been reached. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Right then. I believe Manchester should carry the main content, City of Manchester should redirect to Manchester and Greater Manchester should be left as it is. It does not really matter if Manchester or City of Manchester carries the main content, but the one which doesn't should redirect to the one that does and not to Greater Manchester (if that makes sense). That is my opinion. FireFox 15:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with FireFox entirely. It seems that it's only EarlyBird who thinks that Greater Manchester is somehow "Manchester". It is NOT the same as City of London and London. David 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that Manchester should redirect to Greater Manchester. People see "Manchester" as hosting Champions League finals, international sporting events and see it on TV, yet when they go to the Manchester article they see half the things they "expect", for example Old Trafford, Manchester Docks (Salford Quays and Trafford Wharf), the Manchester Regiment and the like missing. Even if you look at things like Manchester's development agency it includes all of Greater Manchester. The Champions League final was said to be held in Manchester. It was actually held in Trafford, but the award ceremony took place at Manchester town hall. The Lonely Planet guide to Manchester discusses our many tourist sites, many of which aren't even in the City of Manchester. It's quite obvious that many people around the world refer to Manchester and mean the conurbation as a whole. EarlyBird 15:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with EarlyBird 15:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Possibly make Manchester a disambig page to Greater Manchester and City of Manchester - but on second thoughts maybe "Manchester" is too important a word to be a disambig. FireFox 15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Could we not use my system, redirect to Greater Manchester and have a notice of some kind at the top saying something like "For the city proper please see City of Manchester."? EarlyBird 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Both of these suggestions are completely wrong imo. The "city proper" is called Manchester, the county is called "Greater Manchester". Someone who wants to look up the city will type "Manchester" , and someone who wants to look up the county will type "Greater Manchester". Simple as. I've never heard of anyone referring to the whole county as "Manchester" and I've spent over 20 years living here. I don't even see why City of Manchester is needed, and if it is you could make a case for redirecting it to the stadium rather than the city. We could have a disambiguation sentence at the start of the two articles saying "This article is about the UK city. For the county of Greater Manchester, refer to Greater Manchester" at the top of Manchester and "This article is about the county. For the UK city called Manchester, refer to Manchester" at the top of Greater Manchester. Sound reasonable? CTOAGN 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally I don't think this does sound reasonable. Was the Champions League final, international football and international cricket held in Trafford? Technically yes, but all the media said "Manchester". Was X Factor held in Salford? Technically yes, but ITV said "Manchester". Do you think Kylie was talking about Salford as her driver took her into the Lowry Hotel after her concert at the MEN Arena? How about Tameside Council at an event in New York which markets Manchester as a place to do business. They're not in New York at an event for Tameside are they?
Personal opinion, but I think on reflection that Manchester should be an article in it's own right, describing the conurbation much like London does. I don't think it should refer to the local authority (City of Manchester) or the County (Greater Manchester).
Sound reasonable? EarlyBird 16:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, it looks as if I may have been a little harsh on you. Having had a quick look at your talk page, it looks like you did a good job before when people were insisting only Birmingham was referred to as "second city". Apologies for treating you like a bit of a newbie.
Anyway, a couple of questions:
  • Do you want to add a third article, so we have one on the city, one on the county and one on the conurbation?
  • What are you suggesting that the scope of each article should be? If we add a third article, how much of articles like Salford, Stockport and City of Manchester should it contain? Should it just mention the towns that are considered part of the conurbation and link to them or go into detail? If there's no third article, do you want City of Manchester and Salford to duplicate info on the Lowry, or were you thinking of merging the articles of the satellite towns into Manchester (not a good idea imo)? CTOAGN 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi again. In answer to your first question, that's precisely what I was wanting to do. I simply wanted the Manchester article to contain what people commonly refer to as Manchester. As you will have seen, the City of Manchester article (copied from the old Manchester one) has become a bit of a mess, with information about the population of the local authority, closely followed by information about shopping in the conurbation.
I basically want to remove references to Trafford Centre, Old Trafford, etc from the City of Manchester article and put them instead in the new Manchester one. This way we could have a clean article talking about the authority, it's leaders and it's history (and buildings in it, etc.) and the Greater Manchester article could have nothing but information about the metropolitan county as a whole, talking about the agencies (MIDAS, GMPTE, GM Police, etc.) and history.
Does that make sense? EarlyBird 23:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Firefox's first suggestion above is the best - keep Manchester and Greater Manchester separate, and redirect City to Manchester. It will leave out some of the things that people associate with Manchester in the Manchester article, but we can make that clear in the introduction. Greater Manchester can then include all the areas/towns/cities in its conurbation. Cormaggio @ 16:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with this, though, is that your Manchester article is then not describing what people refer to as Manchester. When people say Manchester they usually mean the whole conurbation. Maybe we should have a completely seperate "Manchester" article which has the conurbation, but excludes places like Wigan. This would be like London, which has articles for London, City of London and Greater London with different things in each. EarlyBird 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've lived in Manchester my entire life and in my experience people generally do refer to much of the urban area as 'Manchester' not 'Greater Manchester'. People from Trafford and Salford in particular. I think having seperate articles is necessary, come on, if someone wants to find out about the area around MUFC, they will type 'Manchester' and not 'Trafford'. 16:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Its pretty widely considered nowadays that all of Greater Manchester IS Manchester, especially Salford, Trafford and Tameside. Even the younger people in places like Bolton and Oldham are calling themselves Mancunian now. Accura
Look, whatever happens, there still needs to be a City of Manchester page for the metropolitan borough of Manchester. David 17:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
David, that is why I placed it under "City of Manchester" and amended the links in GM that pointed to "Manchester" so that they instead point to "City of Manchester". Do you agree that having the three articles for City of Manchester, Manchester and Greater Manchester, with Manchester refering to the central conurbation, is a workable solution? EarlyBird 17:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Very well, but it must be made clear on the City of Manchester and Greater Manchester pages what's what. I have altered the Greater Manchester page so it reflects things a bit more clearly. David 17:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I live in Trafford but everyone who lives here dosent call it that. If I go somewhere are someone asks where are you from I say Manchester. If they say what part I'll say Sale and they'll oh ye. If you said Trafford to them they would be like "wheres that?". (unsigned comment by

Right, having looked at the comments above, would I be right in saying that this is the genral consensus here for the articles about Manchester?

A note at the top saying for the county, see x and for the city officale, see y.
Description of the connurbation in general terms and mentioning the landmarks like Old Trafford.
City of Manchester
A note at the top saying for the county, see x and for the connurbation, see y.
Description of the city officiale.
Greater Manchester
A note at the top saying for the city officiale, see x and for the connurbation, see y.
Description of the county as a whole. Some duplication of the Manchester article.

Is that right? If so, is someone willing to make the article on the connurbation? If so, ten call on me again and I'll unprotect. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Celestianpower, from my understanding that was what myself, David and other users who posted on here appeared to be saying, until Smileyrepublic posted. I am willing to do some editing work, creating an article on Manchester the conurbation and I will also remove items like "Shopping" from the local authority article as many parts appear to have gone off-topic. The old Manchester article seems to have got very confused, discussing the city proper in parts (population 400,000) and discussing urban area in other parts. I think this would help clarify things a lot. As I said earlier, it would be the same situation we already have with London and it's articles. EarlyBird 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you can't even spell "conurbation". How are you in a position to judge what goes up and what doesn't? Smileyrepublic 19:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

EarlyBird's pedantic posturing over exact borough names makes me wonder if he is either:

  • a Scouser
  • a local government jobsworth.

The Manchester article (as it was yesterday) encompassed most of what people thought of when they thought Manchester. Replacing it with a load of articles about arbitrarily-defined metropolitan boroughs strikes me as the work of someone with too much time on their hands, and only a tenuous grasp on the real world that (most of) the rest of us are living in. EarlyBird has steamed in here, trashed the place with clumsy copy-and-paste page moves and redirects - and meanwhile, the entire Wikipedia article space on our city is paralysed by protected pages. Change it back to how it was immediately. 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - This comment was by me, but the god-awful, slow software this site runs is logging me out every few minutes. Smileyrepublic 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personally attacking other users. We are trying to reach a consensus here and attacks do not help. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
For a start, it's two T's. And secondly - anyone who thinks they can just stroll in here and completely decimate articles that many users have spent years building up deserves all they get! 19:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for my typographical error - it is now fixed. That is not the policy of Wikipedia. Please view the policies here, here and here. Also, that is the reason we are having this discussion. If your statement was correct then this dispute would be over in seconds. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Smileyrepublic, nothing has been decimated. You can find the original content from the "Manchester" article in the newly-created "City of Manchester" article. I'm merely trying to distinguish between the city proper and the conurbation (as has been done with London) to make them more accurate. After all, a thread about the local authority of Manchester, talking about a population of 400,000 but then continuing to discuss Old Trafford and the Trafford Centre is rather ridiculous. My personal opinion is that we should have an article for each of our arbitrary boundaries (both local authority and metropolitan county), the authorities operating them and their history, with a more in-depth article about the conurbation which goes into detail about shopping, sport, the history of the area as a whole and the like. EarlyBird 20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, i live in salford, i am a mancunian. I have yet to meet one person in my entire existence from salford that doesn't consider them self a resident of Manchester. Please carry out the proposed changes. Thankyou, kids in the riot. 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)# 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

FAO Celestianpower

Created a separate bit for this as it's getting cluttered up there:

There isn't a consensus at present. My opinions are:

  • The county is notable on its own and deserves its own article, which it has. Nobody refers to the county as Manchester so Manchester should definitely not redirect to that article.
  • The city of Manchester and each of the nearby towns/cities (Salford, Bolton etc) should have their own separate articles.
  • People sometimes refer to the smaller towns near Manchester in order to give a place name that others have heard of. While there are strong links between Manchester and these towns (plenty of commuting from one to the other etc.) it doesn't mean that we should pretend that they are part of the city of Manchester.
  • We could have an article about the conurbation of Manchester, but I'm not sure how easy it is to define (there's bound to be plenty of argument on what should and shouldn't be included). It might be easier just to have the Manchester article say things like "Manchester United's stadium is located in nearby Trafford". People wanting to read more about the area around the stadium can then just click the link.

I'm open to suggestions on it, but unless what we can define exactly what the conurbation of Manchester is, and what should go in Stockport/Manchester/Tameside etc and what would belong in Conurbation of Manchester, we should leave things as they were.

I also think the articles should be reverted the way they were for now (Manchester not being a redirect, City of Manchester being a redirect) and that any move should go on Wikipedia:Requested moves for voting. This page has had too many editors and too much debate to allow one person to decide to move it without first getting a consensus. CTOAGN 20:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

CTOAGN, this has already been done for us. The Office for National Statistics has produced a document detailing the Manchester Urban Area. It is as follows:

D90200 Greater Manchester Urban Area

 D90250 Altrincham
 D90237 Ashton-under-Lyne
 D90224 Atherton
 D90241 Audenshaw
 D90206 Bolton
 D90251 Bowdon
 D90249 Bredbury and Romiley
 D90248 Brinnington
 D90207 Bromley Cross/Bradshaw
 D90209 Bury
 D90218 Chadderton
 D90253 Cheadle and Gatley
 D90243 Denton (Tameside)
 D90236 Droylsden
 D90242 Dukinfield
 D90233 Eccles
 D90230 Failsworth
 D90213 Farnworth
 D90252 Hale
 D90254 Hazel Grove and Bramhall
 D90261 Helsby
 D90210 Heywood
 D90222 Hindley
 D90205 Horwich
 D90244 Hyde
 D90258 Irlam
 D90227 Kearsley
 D90223 Leigh
 D90204 Littleborough
 D90214 Little Lever
 D90245 Longdendale
 D90235 Manchester
 D90217 Middleton
 D90212 Milnrow
 D90221 Oldham
 D90259 Partington
 D90256 Poynton
 D90229 Prestwich
 D90215 Radcliffe
 D90201 Ramsbottom
 D90211 Rochdale
 D90219 Royton
 D90246 Sale
 D90234 Salford
 D90220 Shaw
 D90238 Stalybridge
 D90247 Stockport
 D90240 Stretford
 D90228 Swinton and Pendlebury
 D90208 Tottington
 D90225 Tyldesley
 D90239 Urmston
 D90226 Walkden
 D90203 Wardle
 D90216 Whitefield
 D90202 Whitworth
 D90255 Wilmslow/Alderley Edge

Note, this doesn't include outlying places like Wigan, which have their own urban areas. Total population of this area is 2,244,931.


EarlyBird 20:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It says at the top "Greater Manchester Urban Area", so it looks to me like it's defining that rather than the conurbation. I don't think that places like Ramsbottom and Poynton could fit into the scope of either the city of Manchester or its conurbation. CTOAGN 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it says Greater Manchester Urban Area. That is because it is the urban area within the county of Greater Manchester. That is precisely what the Manchester conurbation is. This is the same definition used for London, which is listed as the Greater London Urban Area. The Greater London Urban Area (London) is larger than Greater London. The Greater Manchester Urban Area (Manchester) is smaller than Greater Manchester. This does not stop them being the same thing. Both are top-level urban areas by ONS definition. EarlyBird 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks to me like it is a list of urban areas within the county. Here's a map showing Horwich, which is included on your list. It's separate from any other urban areas, so there's no way it could be considered part of Manchester's conurbation (you can see Manchester's ring road in the bottom right corner 15 miles away). So there's no way that that list defines the conurbation - it's just showing every urban area in the county, whether it's linked to Manchester or not. You may have a case for creating an article on the area including Manchester, Sale, Stockport etc., although I'm still not convinced it's worth the trouble, but this list isn't useful for defining what that area would be.
You've got to be joking, right? The only gaps in the urban area are golf courses or parks! I mean how can you say that it looks like a list of urban areas within the county when 1. it specifically states that it is an urban area and 2. it lists all the other parts as urban subdivisions? The population density, which is how they define an urban area, never falls below the ONS minimum for an urban area. Also, if they are all individual urban areas as you say, why would Manchester and Salford be listed? This image demonstrates the point. The buildings to the left are in Salford whilst those to the right are Manchester. The white building in the middle is in Salford. Hardly two different urban areas are they?
The Greater Manchester Urban Area (Manchester) is smaller than Greater Manchester. This does not stop them being the same thing.
It implies that Greater Manchester includes something that Greater Manchester Urban Area does not, therefore they are not the same thing. Perhaps what you want to do is create an article on the GMEA? I don't see why not I suppose, but redirecting Manchester to it wouldn't go down well. CTOAGN 21:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I never said that the urban area WAS the same as Greater Manchester. I said it was the same as London's urban area, which has an article entitled London.
What I (and others who have posted in here) want is three articles. I would like a "City of Manchester" article which focuses on the local authority, it's leaders and it's history. I would also like a "Greater Manchester" article, which focuses on the metropolitan country, it's organisations (GMPTE, police, airport, etc). Thirdly I would like a "Manchester" article, which would focus on the urban area that people call Manchester, talking about it's history, it's amenities, transport, food, the arts, etc. This is much the same as London has, with it's "City of London", "Greater London" and "London" articles.
From this discussion I would say it's pretty obvious I'm not alone in this. EarlyBird 21:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any reason for implementing the change in the current state of the redirects before the consensus is reached here? Could someone give a good arguement for it?
By the way, what does FAO mean? --Celestianpower hablamé 20:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
"For the attention of". You know you've spent too long in a corporate environment when you start to talk like that :-) I'll try not to in future. CTOAGN 21:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Manchester article

I live in Sale, Trafford, I consider myself to be a Mancunian, from Manchester, as does everyone else I know.

In my opinion, what essentially are political boundaries are not representative, in the slightest, of what is considered to be Manchester.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned I think there should be three articles, firstly one for the area of land, where people live and pay council tax to Manchester city council - the City of Manchester page - I think we all agree on that???

There should also be a page that refers to Greater Manchester, and should be an article similar to that for, say the West Midlands.

However, since neither of these articles gets close to describing what most of the locals actually understand to be Manchester, I believe that there should be a third article, essentially describing the urban area that surrounds the area described in the City of Manchester page. This would include all the areas listed in Earlybirds earlier posting.

Otherwise, the area you are describing in the other articles do not relate to the reality of what people undestand Manchester to be - isn't that the whole idea of an encyclopedia, to reflect reality? I think the first line should read something like... 'The urban area that spans the Greater Manchester boroughs of... is commonly known as Manchester', otherwise, the articles do not reflect what people actually understand Manchester to be.

Fo example, looking at the following image from Multimap...

the people who live south of St Georges are, in reality, living in the same city as those who live just to the north (Trafford - south and Mancheseter - north).

So in short, 3 articles, City of Manchester, Greater Manchester and Manchester (the urban bit of Greater Manchester) otherwise, you are not reflecting what people understand to be Manchester.

To show how people see the urban area as Manchester have a look at how the Chamions League final was described...

says "who lifted the trophy in Manchester"

says "Italian fans travelled to England in their thousands for the European champions league final in Manchester in the north of England today."

Even the Italians see it all as Manchester...

There are plenty more examples like this, that show that people in general describe the urban area as Manchester, and do not simply relate to the part that pays council tax to the city of Manchester council - not to reflect this would surely be a mistake.

By the way, UEFA always hold a ceromony outside the town hall for the local city to show off the trophy, when the final was held in Manchester in 2003, that ceromony took place outside the Manchester town hall, and NOT the Trafford one.

I agree with everything EB has said, everything. Manchester or at least what Mancunians see as Manchester is a whole lot bigger than just the central core of the City, People in Sale, Prestwich, Whitefield, Broughton, Stretford etc,(all outside MCC control) all justs say they live in Manchester. The suburbs stretch out for miles and the urban area is a hell of a lot bigger than just the centre of town. Im inclined to go along whole heartedly with everything EB has suggested. 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Roly

In short we need 3 articles City of Manchester(Council/History stuff etc) Greater Manchester describing the conurbation as a whole, including any places of interest such as Old Trafford stadium The Quays etc, then Manchester which could describe the WHOLE urban area and not just the centre of town or MCC controlled places. I've never met anyone in my entire life (36 yrs)who comes from any part of GM that doesn't just say they live in Manchester no matter if they live in Sale, Salford, where ever, it needs to be addressed IMO.Why is it different for London?

Accuracy and the London Issue

This is madness. The job of wikipedia is to be accurate and to state what is true, not to state what some people assume to be true. There is a city/metropolitan district called "Manchester" with a population of around 400,000, and a county called "Greater Manchester" with a population around 2 1/2 million. Both should have articles with their correct names that describe them accurately and describe their relationship to each other and the surrounding areas. If somebody thinks that the "Greater Manchester Urban Area" deserves an article (doubtful IMO) then write one and call it the "Greater Manchester Urban Area".

If most people in Trafford think of themselves as Mancunians then the Trafford article should say "most people in Trafford think of themselves as Mancunians". It should NOT say "Trafford is part of Manchester" because that would be inaccurate - Trafford and Manchester are separate boroughs in Greater Manchester (it could of course say "most of Trafford forms part of the urban area around Manchester", because that would be true).

Look at other cities that are also parts of larger conurbations - does the Boston article say "Cambridge is part of Boston", does the Newcastle article say "North Shields is part of Newcastle", does the San Fransisco article say "Silicon Valley is part of San Fransisco"? No? Why not? Because it wouldn't be true. San francisco isn't the same as the Bay Area, Newcastle isn't the same as Tyneside and by the same token Manchester isn't the same as Greater Manchester.

The London comparison is wrong too. There is an article about the region called "London", one about the administrative area called "Greater London" (which has the same borders as the region called "London") and one about the much smaller "City of London". All are titled accurately and refer to their subjects accurately. There is no article called "London" that refers to all of London's conurbation, so this is no justification for doing this for Manchester's conurbation either. Manchester should follow the same rule - accurate articles accurately titled. JimmyGuano 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect here. The article about London specifically states
"Defining London
Today, "London" usually refers to the conurbation known as Greater London, which is divided into thirty-two London Boroughs and the City of London. Historically, "London" referred to the square mile of the City of London at the conurbation's heart, from which the city grew. Between 1889 and 1965 it referred to the former County of London which covered the area now known as Inner London."
This is the same as we are doing for Manchester. It is actually Greater London that is a region of England (though this is also called London) as well as being a metropolitan county. The article in Wikipedia about the region and county of Greater London is the Greater London article. The London article is about the conurbation.
As I said, I simply want Manchester to be able to follow the same rule as London. EarlyBird 23:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the 10 regions of England are listed on the Office for National Statistics website. The one that covers London is called "London". "London" and "Greater London" cover the same area, but they are different - one is a region (like the "North West") and one is an administrative area broadly comparable to a county (like "Greater Manchester"). That is why they have separate articles.
JimmyGuano 23:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The first bit of what you say is true. Unfortunately, if you read the articles it becomes obvious that it is not the reason why there are two articles. The Greater London article specifically states "Greater London is the top level administrative subdivision covering London, England. It is one of the nine regions of England.". The London article states "London is the largest city in the European Union." and "Today, 'London' usually refers to the conurbation known as Greater London". EarlyBird 00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Also note, the London article even goes so far as to say "London is the capital city of the United Kingdom and of England.", even though in actuality it isn't even a city.
True, that bit of text should probably be corrected to say "capital" (but still link through to the "capital city" article). Doesn't make redirecting "Manchester" away from the article about "Manchester" to the article about "Greater Manchester" any less inaccurate, though.
JimmyGuano 23:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
But we do not want the Manchester article redirected to the Greater Manchester one. This was a mistake I made. I and others actually want a new article about the urban area of Manchester, with the city itself contained in the City of Manchester article. EarlyBird 00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The perception of people is what defines the truth as regards this situation. The definition of a city in the UK is a township granted a charter by the monarch, yet there is no actual official definition of the boundaries of a township. EarlyBird 23:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
No the truth is what defines the truth. Wikipedia is not there to record innaccurate perceptions, it is there to record fact.
But as regards UK cities there is no official definition that accurately defines their boundaries. Nowhere does any Government document say that a local authority is actually a city. The actual cities are defined by common perception. That is why people call London a city. EarlyBird 00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Most people in the UK refer to "Great Britain" and "The United Kingdom" interchangably, but Wikipedia does not redirect "Great Britain" to "United Kingdom", because they're different. "Manchester" should not redirect to "Greater Manchester" for the same reason.
JimmyGuano 23:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
When complete, though, the Manchester article will not redirect to Greater Manchester. It will be a new article in it's own right discussing the Manchester urban area. EarlyBird 00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW its not so much what you did that i object to, its how it was done (i saw what certainly appeared to be a copypaste move though it now seems messier than that) and the fact that an admin protected the results of unilateral edits! Plugwash 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User:JimmyGuano has decided to take it upon himself to edit the London article to support his views here which is not helpful. Justinc 00:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If somebody points out an inaccuracy on another article, should it not be corrected?
JimmyGuano 00:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
We're trying to determine if it is an inaccuracy or not right now though. At the end of the day, the term London does refer to the conurbation as a whole. Also, according to the dictionary definition of a city, the conurbation of London could be described as one. It is not a black and white situation, as we are realising, so maybe we need to reach a consensus about what constitutes a city as well as the original problem of whether or not the Manchester article should be about the conurbation rather than the city proper. EarlyBird 00:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does need to have articles treating cities consistently though. Are you suggesting that every article about a city should redirect to one about its urban area? Should San Fransisco redirect to San Francisco Bay Area, Newcastle upon Tyne to Tyneside, Birmingham to West Midlands conurbation?
But we aren't doing that. The Manchester article will be about the conurbation, which is different to Greater Manchester. The reason for this is quite simple. Even if we assume that the British definition of a city refers to a local authority, which is not cut and dried, and we assume that the British definition (rather than the dictionary one) is what should be used, which is again not cut and dried, you end up with a situation where a single city centre exists for Manchester, Salford and Trafford, parts of which are in all three local authorities. This is much like London, whose city centre is also in multiple local authorities. Other cities, for example San Francisco, Birmingham and Newcastle which you named, all have their entire city centres contained within their actual "city" boundary. As I said, it's not black and white. So maybe yes, it's possible that for the purposes of clarity all articles about cities should use a pre-defined definition which covers the urban area as a whole. This is, after all, the dictionary definition of a city. EarlyBird 00:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
(grr, edit conflict) Please discuss it in Talk:London. There are many people who have opinions on this sort of matter, and the current wording has been the one that has been decided as the consensus at the moment. Discussion is welcome, but these definitions are not just something taken lightly - after all the whole subject of the article would have to be changed if the consensus changed, so you cant just change the wording in the first line. Discuss it first. Justinc 00:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Popular usage varies from one country to another - when I lived in Cambridge, MA this was considered a seperate city from Boston, although in UK terms it would not be. Anyway, to User:JimmyGuano stop editing until a consensus is reached; maybe this isnt the best place, perhaps uk wikipedians notice board or somewhere might be better. These issues have been thrashed out in the past though. Justinc 00:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, this seems more to be about a discussion about what a city is, some are claiming it is the area within a political boundaries, whilst others claim it to be an urban area - I'd suggest that until we agree on this we will not be able to decide on what 'Manchester' is, i.e. is it the city of Manchester (the bit over which Manchester city council control the refuse collection for) or the urban area, like myself and Earlybird?

So, we need to decide what a city is, using the Wikipedia definition i.e.

"A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core, but in the United States many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, or a suburban or even mostly rural character, are designated as cities. City can also be a synonym for "downtown" or a "city centre".

Then it is obvious that the urban area is the correct way for defining a city (this Encylopedia needs to be consistent if nothing else).

The problem I have with having cities defined by political boundaries (especially on an internet based global encyclopedia) is that your definition of a city does not transpose well to other cultures.

For example, if you are defining a city as having local political boundaries, are you claiming communist countries such as North Korea that may not have similar authorities, do not have any cities?

Until we decide on what a city is, then this discussion is pointless - I suggest instead of agruing about the Manchester definition, those unhappy about a city being described as an urban area put forward a sensible way of defining a city, that will work internationally (since we are on the www), and uses local political boundaries.

So are you in favour of having three articles, one for "City Proper" City of Manchester, one for the urban area Manchester and one for the Metropolitan County Greater Manchester? EarlyBird 10:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Started writing my last response before this was in here. I suggest we have Manchester (as it was), Greater Manchester (as it was), third article (Manchester (something)), and discuss moves when the third article is of a reasonable length. There might also be a consistent policy on other UK cities by then, which would help. CTOAGN 11:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem I see with this is that the City of Manchester article, what was the old Manchester one, contains a lot of information about things that have nothing to do with the local authority area. Do you agree that the majority of people refer to the urban area as a whole as Manchester? EarlyBird 11:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Consistent naming convention

It seems to be accepted by both sides of the argument that consistency is important. As there is already a project looking to establish consistent naming conventions for articles on UK subdivisions (including cities) at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions, shouldn't this debate be continued there, with the Manchester articles conforming to the existing convention until a new one is established, and any new convention can be used consistently across the UK? JimmyGuano 09:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, when you look at what they're suggesting for Leeds (a local authority article, an urban area article and a metropolitan county article) I'd say that combined with what the majority of people in here have said we seem to have an overwhelming number of people asking for this, such that some might consider it to be a consensus. EarlyBird 10:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I still not convinced that we need a third article, but don't see any reason why you shouldn't start one. If you do though, I'd like to see it go at something like Manchester (conurbation) or Manchester (urban area) or whatever you think appropriate. Manchester and City of Manchester should go back to how they were for now. Moving an article as prominent as Manchester to make way for one that doesn't exist yet is wrong, and having Manchester point to a short stub (which the new article would presumably start out as) would make the encyclopedia look bad. So, can we agree to put things back to how they were (we all seem to agree that having Manchester redirect to the county is wrong), then decide on naming conventions once the third article exists and is of a decent standard?
Also, EB, your definition of "overwhelming" is a little different to mine, and I can't help noticing that most of the people who agree with you have few, if any, edits anywhere else, and that Manchester Kurt has a style of writing that's remarkably similar to yours.
So in short: what objections, if any, do people have to fixing the c&p move, putting things back the way they were and letting EB start off an article on Manchester (something) with a view to voting on moving the pages at a later date if a consensus is reached?
I'm busy today and out tonight, so I might not be able to reply to anything until tomorrow. CTOAGN 11:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The objections that I, and others earlier, have made to this are that
1. We should not be referring to Manchester (which is a city) by any definition other than wikipedia's own definition of a city. Wikipedia says a city is an urban area.
2. When people refer to Manchester they do not think of the local authority. Manchester United advertise themselves as a Manchester team, the Imperial War Museum North and Lowry Art Gallery address themselves as being in Salford, Manchester. The Lowry Hotel is listed as Salford, Manchester. Companies in Trafford Park (including the Trafford Centre) are addressed as being in Manchester. Houses for sale in Denton and Droylsden (both in Tameside) put Manchester in their addresses. The list is endless.
3. The existing City of Manchester article has become bloated. It contains information which has nothing to do with the local authority. People would, however, expect to see this on a page entitled Manchester.
This is why I (and the others who posted) feel that the three-tier solution is the best on offer right now. We could have clear and concise definitions of City of Manchester, Manchester and Greater Manchester, and we would also be able to ensure that all information in the articles was applicable to that subject. EarlyBird 11:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


(Keep It Simple Stupid)

I think we should keep things as simple as possible. There should be only two "Manchester" articles - City of Manchester and Greater Manchester. The debate should be whether the article Manchester redirects to the City of Manchester (like it did pre-EarlyBird) or to the Greater Manchester article. I can't really decide which. David 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

KISS is the whole point of the edit. City of Manchester is a local authority, so it's pretty irrelevant talking about stuff like the Trafford Centre and Old Trafford in it. These things are not in the City of Manchester, but are in the conurbation of Manchester. That is why I feel we need both. EarlyBird 11:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
In that case put the connurbation stuff in the Greater Manchester page and direct Manchester to that. I guess that was your original plan? David 11:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
That was my original plan, but on reflection I don't feel it's a good idea. Wigan, though in Greater Manchester, is not part of the conurbation of Manchester, as aren't a few smaller towns on the fringes and I don't feel they should be referred to as such. EarlyBird 11:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this insistence that a city ends when a local political authorities remit ends - I can find no web sites that define a city in such a way, e.g.

says amongst others...

cit·y Audio pronunciation of "city" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st) n. pl. cit·ies

  1. A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance.



n 1: a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts;

This web site itself describes a city as being an urban area and NOT a political authority.

If you are going to insist on describing Manchester in the same manner as the city of Manchester, then you are going to have to alter your article on since it will be wrongn as it describes a city as...

"A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core, but in the United States many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, or a suburban or even mostly rural character, are designated as cities. City can also be a synonym for"

and does not mention political authorities.

Also, since no one has come up with a decent way of defining a city, other than the one that we already have, that will work internationally, I suggest we stick with the definition of city that we have, we have a "city of Manchester" article that describes the local plot of land that MCC control, a "Greater Manchester" one for the 10 bourghs, and a "Manchester" one, for the area that is defined by the definition of a city i.e. the urban area. Manchester Kurt 13:06 17th October

Here is another one...

It is entitled "Marvellous Manchester" and discusses what Manchester has to offer. Lets look at some of the places it mentions.

Salford Quays
Imperial War Museum
The Lowry
Manchester United

None of these are within the City of Manchester boundary.

EarlyBird 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Another example, the Manchester food and drink festival - look at the locations for the events...

Seems that the organisers don't use political boundaries to relate to where they are describing Manchester.

Where has this idea that a city is defined by political boundaries come from? It is not a dictionary definition as far as I call tell, and certainly not one that could be held consistently across international boarders.

Manchester Kurt 14:15, 17 October 2005

I take it from the lack of response from those saying that a city is defined by it's political boundaries we may be getting somewhere?

If we have agreed (I presume by the silence) that a city if NOT defined by the area over which a council controls, but rather an urban area (as defined in both Wikipedia and then the 'city of Manchester' artcile is no where near what 'Manchester' really is???

Surely, the only logical conclusion is the have an article called 'City of Manchester' - the area controlled by the council, one called 'Greater Manchester' for all 10 boroughs, and one call 'Manchester' which refers to Manchester as defined by a dictionary and this web site itself.

Manchester Kurt 08:51, 18 October 2005

I don't think we are getting anywhere. I'm not convinced by your definitions: cities often join into one another: sometimes they officially merge (Brooklyn, Manhattan, New York City), other times they don't (Manchester, Salford). Start another article if you want, but the only way I can see the pages being moved is if you go through Wikipedia:Requested page moves and get a consensus on there.
EarlyBird left a message on User talk:Celestianpower that was relevant to this, so I've replied to it there. CTOAGN 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
CTOAGN, the simple fact of the matter is that London isn't officially merged either! Based on the Wikipedia definition of a city, the urban area is what is actually a city. This is why we have a City of London article (for city proper), a London article for the city (urban area) and a Greater London article for the Metropolitan County and Region. If one city is defined in this way then all cities should. Personally, I find it ridiculous that suggestions made to do this way back in 2004 have been completely ignored in another discussion and people like yourself appear to be ignoring what is fast becoming a consensus in here in favour of the status quo. I see only three or four people arguing against the change, with one waivering, whilst there are at least a dozen people in favour. The simple fact of the matter is that the definition of a city you are applying is not legitimate. EarlyBird 18:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Small point, but they are not my definitions, but the definitons of a dictionary and this web site - the one we need to be consistent with.

Small point, but they are not my definitions, but the definitons of a dictionary and this web site - the one we need to be consistent with. Manchester Kurt

Local government anorak

It seems that our friend EarlyBird is a bit of a local government anorak. In the real world our lives don't stop at the arbitrary boundaries set by our political leaders - we live in a city, and that city is as one. It'd be nice if he'd asked before messing up the article and killing its long edit history. 15:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should try reading. "Local Government anoraks" are precisely what I'm sick of and are the reason I made the change. The original "Manchester" article said Manchester has a population of 400,000. This is as much of a joke as someone saying London has a population of 8,000 (despite that being the City of London's population). London has a "London" article about the conurbation and a "City of London" article about the local authority so I, and others, thought it appropriate that Manchester should have this too. If you note, the Manchester article specifically points out that many regard it to be a city like London, despite the fact neither is officially a city. Remember, a City is not the same as a city.
Also, I did ask. Please read this thread. Yourself and three other people said no to the change (one of whom was waivering on the verge of agreeing), whilst about a dozen people agreed with the change. EarlyBird 17:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


I am going to move these pages back to their original positions. Seem as this mess has been created by one user without any consultation or agreement. EarlyBird I suggest that if you want to move it back again then you take the issue to Wikipedia: Requested page moves. If you try changing things back again without the correct proceedures I will request these pages to be blocked. G-Man 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

G-Man, Celestianpower specifically said that the changes could be made with a simple majority. There is a simple majority in favour here. The changes were then made. If you change the articles despite this I will request that your changes be undone and the threads locked. Please stop forcing your opinions on others. EarlyBird 18:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact, G-Man, have you noticed that the pages you are simply moving about have been heavily edited since they were moved? You aren't simply reverting my changes you know. EarlyBird 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
EarlyBird please stop deluding yourself and trying to fool me that you have 'consensus'. You dont have anything of the sort. I'm not stupid you know. I can see a sockpuppet when I see one. Now as I have said If you wish to move the page, take it through the correct channels, which I have outlined above. Until then LEAVE IT ALONE. Cutting and pasting is against the rules. G-Man 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should sort this out in a sensible manner on this page. If you continue to revert each others edits then you may be blocked as per the three revert rule. FireFox 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am merely reverting EarlyBird's cut& paste jobs which are clearly not allowed. All I want is for this matter to be taken through the correct channels rather than being forced upon us by one editor through brute force. I have given EarlyBird the chance to take this through the correct channels. G-Man 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
G-Man, unfortunately I'm relatively new to all this and I do not yet know how to move articles about in the correct manner. I was simply trying to return the articles to the way they were this morning. A majority of people in this discussion have agreed to this system which is why I changed it in the first place and too many edits have taken place since for you to simply rename them. This is why I was trying to get you to discuss the issues. As for "a single editor forcing it upon you by brute force", I see a number of people agreeing with me and the only person I see editing without discussing is yourself, despite pleas from myself in your talk page for you to do precisely this. EarlyBird 19:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Firefox, that's precisely what I've been asking G-man to do on his talk page but he is continuing to ignore me. I'm trying to return the articles to the status quo from this morning, before G-Man came along and started moving stuff. At the end of the day, the articles have been to heavily edited for him to just rename them like this. EarlyBird 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
G-man: Whatever you may be doing, there is no cause for leaving messages which may be seen to be abusive to EarlyBird. As I am not an admin, if either of you revert the page once more I will contact an admin to have you blocked for 24 hours if they see fit. FireFox 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Abusive??? would you like to point out any abusive comments. If they are seen as abusive it was not intentional. G-Man 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the sockpuppet comment, which incidentally I did find quite offensive. Now please try discussing the issues instead of reverting and moving. EarlyBird 19:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Er excuse me, it was you who came from nowhere and suddenly decided to move and split up what had been perfectly good articles without asking anyone. As I have said repeatedly if you want to move major articles around then take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. G-Man 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I discussed the issue in this talk page. I asked Celestianpower what was needed in order for the change to be made and he informed me that a simple majority was enough. That simple majority is there and so when the articles were unlocked the changes were made. I then spent a long time editing the articles to ensure that the local authority article only mentioned things related to the local authority. After this a number of edits and improvements to those articles were made. You then came back, decided you didn't like it and proceeded to start moving things, regardless of the discussions in here and the edits in the articles. Could you not have come in here and discussed these things? EarlyBird 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I said that as a very last resort. I also refered you to Wikipedia:Consensus. Please everyone try to compromise and reach an agreement that perhaps yopu don't like per say but can live with. No consensus or even majority, in my eyes, has been formed but perhaps the straw poll below will help clear up the muddyness of the water. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Earlybirds says hes got consensus but it came from here [blacklisted links removed] (he deleted this from the Manchester discussion which why its blank)

Erm, I didn't delete anything. Your comments are in the talk page for Manchester (city)
EarlyBird 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the poll


Can we revert back to how these articles were before this began and then have this conversation? I am not opposed to having 3 articles but I can't vote to keep the mess we have now. The quality of the Manchester article was far greater than the two we have now and should be reinstated and used as a starting point for any future split - the details of which should be discussed first. MRSC 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I tried to do earlier but to no avail.
I'm sorry but this is farcical, if rather amusing. Of course I'm not suggesting anything here, but isn't it a bit odd that these anonymous IP's suddenly appear from nowhere, which have hardly ever made any edits before. Isn't there a rule somewhere that only users who have made at least 50 edits should have their votes counted. + +
P.s I have created a page about the conurbation at Greater Manchester Urban Area which seems to remove the need for seperate pages. G-Man 21:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That defeats the whole purpose of these articles. What people want is for the Manchester article to correctly reflect what a majority of people consider Manchester to be. Manchester referring to the local authority, with a Greater Manchester Urban Area page does not do this. EarlyBird 21:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What people want is for the Manchester article to correctly reflect what a majority of people consider Manchester to be. Manchester Would you like to provide evidence about what the majority of people think Manchester is. Do you have any surveys to prove this?. This is pure conjecture withou any evidence. There is only one official entity called Manchester. I know people who live in Ashton-under-Lyne who most definately do not consider themselves to live in Manchester, likewise people who live in Salford, yet according to you they do. It should perhaps be noted that people informally use 'Manchester' to refer to the urban area, but that is about all. Informal usage is not good enough reason to go splitting up encyclopedia articles.

Of course if this is split up, then for consistancy sake we would have to move Birmingham to West Midlands conurbation because some people informally refer to the entire area as 'Birmingham'. And we would also have to move Liverpool to Merseyside. And Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Tyneside. This is a can of worms. G-Man 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As for your first point, we have provided web pages showing people referring to the urban area as "Manchester". Also try going to the Imperial War Museum North web site. Or the Manchester United web site. Or the Lowry Hotel web site. The list is endless of the places that refer to themselves as being in "Manchester" when in fact they are outside the official city limits.
Next, your comment about Ashton-Under-Lyne, well it's funny but I live in Ashton-Under-Lyne and I would contradict the claim. Try checking the Tameside Business Directory, run by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council:
Note how it says "The comprehensive directory of Business in Tameside, Manchester, UK."?
Next for your claim about having to change other cities. Yes, I believe they should have their main article about their urban area, but that urban area should be whatever the area is referred to as, not just the city name by default. For example, is there any evidence, like that provided above, that the people of Wolverhampton ever refer to themselves as being from Birmingham? If there is then the change should be made. EarlyBird 22:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps. I do not accept the votes made my all these anonymous IP's as valid, unless they have made at least 100 edits see here G-Man 21:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with this. Just looking at the accounts you can tell they are not sock puppets. Now the claim could be made that they were meat puppets, but then as in this situation there is no possible conflict of interest I do not see your objection. EarlyBird 22:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

I dont know exactly where this majority you talk of is. Well lets put this to the test then shall we and hold a vote.

  • In favour of returning Manchester page to its previous unsplit state, with City of Manchester being a redirect to Manchester
  1. G-Man 20:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Don't mind a third article in principle, but not at Manchester. CTOAGN 22:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. josh 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Andreww 09:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Bob Matthews 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Boy what a mess
  6. Smileyrepublic 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Statsfan 11:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. MRSC 12:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Having considered things I've come round to this.
  9. Cormaggio @ 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Me too

  • In favour of Manchester and City of Manchester being split
  1. EarlyBird 20:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. I am now in favour of this proposal, so long as the Manchester and City of Manchester pages clearly state what's going on. David 21:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support if and only if there are people prepared to take the time and do the split well. Plugwash 21:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. There is no solution to this that is going to leave everybody happy it seems, but we cannot have a page with the City of Manchester's statistics and demographics either claiming to represent Manchester in it's entirety, or including articles on Old Trafford etc. , simply because the administrative boundaries are no longer relevant to the wider, living city. There has to be acknowledgement, of the wider city of Manchester, an extended urban area as defined by wikipedia's very own definition. I believe this acknowledgement should come in the form of a dedicated page to the wider city.Mr_ed 21:30, 20 October 2005

I now vote for this, on the basis that "City of Manchester" and "Greater Manchester" are fundamentally political constructs (like Salford, Bolton, Rusholme), whereas "Manchester" is a socio-cultural one. Cormaggio @ 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Discounted votes

Against split

  1. Tang1 21.45, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (user has no contibutions!!!)

For split

  1. 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Users first and only edit)
  2. 21:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Users first and only edit)
  3. 21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Users first and only edit)
  4. 21:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Users first and only edit)
  5. 22:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Users first and only edit)
  6. I am in favour of this proposal.[user:mez]20 october 2005 (No such user exists)
  7. I'm also in favour. It's ridiculous that "Manchester" ends 400m from the town hall.[user:farsight]20 ocotber 2005 (note: this post was made by so this vote should probablly be considered with care unless farsight confirms it really was him). (No such user exists.)
  8. Accura 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (3rd article edited)
  9. Skit_uk 20:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (user has no contibutions)
  10. 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User has 3 contributions - two to this page and one to Manchester United FC)
  11. 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User has 2 contributions, both to this page)
  12. 21:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Users first and only edit)
  13. Anthony Timberlake 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (1 article edited)


Looking above it seems this poll was instigated to prove/disprove there is a majority who want the Manchster article split.

There is clearly not a majority who wanted change so I suggest we revert now to the original content while we continue this conversation as I fear it might drag on a bit and divert us from any improvement work. MRSC 13:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should do this. 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC) that is Andreww 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected from page moves

I've protected this article from page moves. It was apparently moved to Manchester (city) and then a clone was pasted in its place. --Tony Sidaway[[User talk:Tony

Calm down and be reasonable

Woke up this mornin', feelin' fine - then I read the history of the City of Manchester page. Can people please calm down with the redirecting until a clear consensus emerges? The straw poll above is pretty vague when you take out the anonymous votes (and where are they all coming from all of a sudden?) Cormaggio @ 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

They're coming from here (quoted from above):
Earlybirds says hes got consensus but it came from here [blacklisted links removed]. CTOAGN 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
COTAGN, who cares where they came from? I posted information about the link in a section about Manchester on a forum that I frequent. There is no rule against this. What this shows is that people who live in the city agree with me. Most of these people use Wikipedia, though many may not actually edit the wikis. EarlyBird 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Cormaggio, presumably, seeing as he asked. It's amazing that you don't seem to realise that starting a poll here, then advertising for people on another site to come here and vote on your side isn't a problem. You also haven't apologised for making countless messy page moves, wasting several people's time. You've done it again as well: [blacklisted link removed]. I strongly recommend that you have a look through some of the Wikipedia guidelines before getting involved in controversial issues, as you're repeatedly annoying people without knowing why. There should be a rule against what you've been doing, although I don't know where to find it off the top of my head, but we generally don't count votes from people who have very few other contributions to prevent exactly the kind of thing you're doing. CTOAGN 18:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
So you are implying that the views of legitimate people with an interest in urban issues are less important than yours, despite the fact your interests obviously lie in football rather than urbanity, simply because you have more edits than them? Ridiculous. EarlyBird 18:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that when we put something to a vote on Wikipedia we don't find a message board where people are likely to be sympathetic to our cause and tell them to come and vote on our side. Normally, we try and resolve disputes by discussing them rather than voting on them (otherwise you just end up going with a majority regardless of whether their views are accurate or not), and this is where such guidelines as writing with a neutral point of view and citing sources are useful. It's not about trying to make (INSERT CITY NAME HERE) look as good as possible because you live there, it's about producing articles that are accurate. When we work within the guidelines, we usually manage to produce something worth reading, and if you don't agree with any of them, you can say so on their talk pages and maybe get them changed. Nobody on here is going to take the result of a vote seriously when it's obvious that someone's been campaigning for votes as blatantly as you have. Can you imagine what our articles on subjects like Tibet, Palestine and Al-Qaeda would look like if we resolved all disputes on a majority vote? CTOAGN 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm with CTAOGN on this. If you notice, the votes in the top half of the poll are long-time Wikipedians with user-pages and edits to their names. The ones in the bottom half are red names: anon IPs or newly-created users; ie. EarlyBird's mates from the skyscraper forum. This can't be right. Smileyrepublic 18:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This is all very sad and a complete lack of co-operation. What are these links supposed to prove? How can they prove consensus? We'd all have to trawl through every bulliten board on the internet just in case there might be a discussion about an article in the wiki we have an interest in for these to be valid. Can we please abandon the poll? That is just a joke now. What will consensus either way prove? It won't change the fact we have 2 badly written and schizophrenic articles when we used to have one good one. Restoring what worked and then moving forward is a better plan that to counter-edit already crappy articles. MRSC 12:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Consensus either way will prove that people consider the word Manchester to be the conurbation, just like London is. If you aren't willing to read the discussion to see what people have said then how can you contribute? Also, most people think the original article was poor. It was about a local authority with a population of 400,000 yet somehow discussed at least a dozen places which are outside it's boundary! The old article was awful because there was no consensus about what Manchester actually was. EarlyBird 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have read this page in it's entirety and so that I am not restating previous arguments, I will have to say simply that I agree entirely with EarlyBird's position on this matter. It is quite obviously a ridiculous position to me that a page on 'Manchester' should concern itself only with the administrative boundaries of the borough of the City of Manchester, although I appreciate and indeed support the need for a smaller page concerned only with this borough. This then, puts me in the school of supporting three seperate pages, for City of Manchester, Manchester, and Greater Manchester. Mr_ed
Why are so many people who have never edited before coming directly to this page and commenting? MRSC 21:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Follow the links near the top of this section. CTOAGN 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem in this, is it not the essence of wikipedia that anybody can contribute? Mr_ed

Is there any official definition of manchester as refering the urban area, I dont think so. The fact that many people confuse manchester and greater manchester is no justification for creating daft duplicate articles. An encyclopedia is here to give facts not cement them in their ignorance. Bob Matthews 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Bob, there is. The Office of National Statistics has compiled a list entitled 'Key studies for Urban areas', in which it lists the 'Greater Manchester Urban Area' as having a population of 2.2 million. It does not include all of greater Manchester, it is a seperate area defined by the ONS. [4]

It is entirely sensible that there should be a page entitled Manchester dealing with the conurbation, due to the reasons discussed above.Mr ed 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is called the 'Greater Manchester Urban Area' which has its own article it is not called 'Manchester'. If people belive things like "Salford is in Manchester" then they are wrong, pure and simple. Salford is indeed part of Greater Manchester and is part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area but it is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN part of any entity called "Manchester". To state that it is is a simple factual innacuracy. G-Man 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
No G-man, I am afraid you must have either misunderstood me or not read my post thoroughly. The 'Greater Manchester Urban Area' does not have its' own page - the Greater Manchester Metropolitan Borough does. As I state in the above, the Greater Manchester Urban Area, as defined by the Office of National Statistics, does not include all of Greater Manchester Metropolitan Borough and indeed includes places outside of this region.Mr ed 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Ok, this talk page is currently running at 72k, all generated in the heat of the last 4/5 days - I suggest we nail it. We now have four Manchester-related articles - clearly this is too many. So why don't we define exactly what should and (where relevant) should not go in each article, and whether one article should redirect to another:


  • Includes:
    • This should be the main article - about the defined local authority area with clear definition of status, name and "City of Manchester" in infobox. i.e. should be reverted to this content: Original content of Manchester article MRSC 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Support G-Man 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Disagree - should not be called 'Manchester' when dealing only with LA as this is clearly an ambiguous term.Mr ed 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Return this to its original state, encompassing the whole of the area commonly regarded to be Manchester. Smileyrepublic 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree - but only in the sense that there should be a page encompassing the whole area which van be regarded ManchesterMr ed 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Excludes:
  • The larger conurbation which is correctly known as Greater Manchester G-Man 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • ^POV, the conurbation is not correctly known as Greater Manchester, this is an administrative region onlyMr ed 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposals to merge/redirect:

City of Manchester

  • Includes:
    • An overview of the city council area alone, including details of the local government area and its boundaries. Smileyrepublic 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • supportMr ed 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Excludes:
    • Any mention of anything not inside of the Local Authority boundary.Mr ed 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposals to merge/redirect:
    • Redirect to Manchester
      • Strongly Disagree-Wikipedia should not suggest the POV that 'Manchester' is exclusively the 'City of Manchester'Mr ed 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Greater Manchester

  • Includes:
  • Excludes:
  • Proposals to merge/redirect:

Greater Manchester Urban Area

  • Includes:
  • Excludes:
  • Proposals to merge/redirect:
  1. Merge with Greater Manchester, redirect to that article - absolutely pointless to have two articles, and technicalities can be explained in one article. Cormaggio @ 00:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with previous comment. MRSC 06:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Redirect to Manchester. Smileyrepublic 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Disagree, The GMUA is defined differently from the county of Greater Manchester. G-Man 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Disagree, for the same reason as G-ManMr ed 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Several Problems

I have several problems with the above proposal. Whilst I have no reservation regarding a page dealing with the Local Authority area of the City of Manchester, it is not right to call this page Manchester, and have it discussing facts concerning the wider city at all, regardless of whether the technicalities are pointed out. If people concede that it is useful to have an article on the wider Manchester ( the conurbation ), either because they would like to mention attractions such as the world famous football team, or because they would like to include links to, for instance, Manchester International Airport, then they are conceding that a page on Manchester should deal with the wider conurbation. This cannot be left to a page dedicated to Greater Manchester, as people with an interest on facts regarding Manchester will look at the Manchester page.
It is not appropriate to have a 'one size fits all' page combining Greater Manchester, and the Greater Manchester Urban Area, as defined by the ONS. These are differing defintions including different areas. For instance, Greater Manchester includes Wigan, whilst the Urban area as defined by the ONS does not. Greater Manchester is a political and administrative boundary, whilst the ONS definition is a socio-economic study.
What would not be contentous, would be to drop the combined Manchester page, and have pages for City of Manchester, City of Salford, Trafford etc, however these pages would not be able to concern themselves with things outside of their own boundary, it would only be acceptable to have links to 'other boroughs of Greater Manchester' on this page. However, this would not construct the proper, combined and informative overview of the wider city that we should have on Wikipedia.
Whether one cares to accept it or not, somebody looking for information on Manchester would expect a page detailing all the relavent information, including that which pertains to the other boroughs. In the worlds eyes, most know of Manchester as the home of MUFC. Some know more in varying degrees, and would likewise expect to find information on, say, the Imperial war museum North and other such information on an overall page of Manchester. Whether one cares to accept it, it is fact that worldwide, people take the definition Manchester to include much more than just the local authority, arbitrary, administrative boundary.
A city is defined by Wikipedia itself as an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world, cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core. If we have a main Manchester page concerning itself with just the LA area, we are going against this definition. If we revert back to the way things were, we must change the wikipedia definition, as people looking for Manchester will be looking for information on the wider, whole city [as defined by wikipedia]. Conversely, on a larger scale Manchester page, as we have now, we can meticulously point out the technical details to make sure that everything is factual. It is not only, not an NPOV to consider Manchester as limited to the LA boundaries, it is also unfactual to disregard the existence of the wider city. [city as defined by Wikipedia]
Many have pointed out that the problems highlighted here are the same for many UK cities, and that Manchester is not a special case. In response to this I have two points
  1. If these problems are present in regard to other cities, then they should be changed also
  2. Manchester is, in some respects, a special case. Some examples have been highlighted above, others are :
  • that 'Manchester International airport' lies both outside the LA of Manchester, and Greater Manchester (It does however lie withing the greater Manchester Urban area as defined by the ONS), and is owned by the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester
  • parts of the city centre itself lie within Salford!
Finally, but not exhaustively, there has been a straw poll conducted on this matter and the results are conclusive. I reject the notion that this is somehow 'not valid'. Mr ed 18:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
City and conurbation are two different things. The conurbation is properly known as 'Greater Manchester' and has never been called simply 'Manchester', to state that it is is a simple factual innacuracy. Secondly Manchester isn't unique Birmingham International Airport is actually within the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull and not within Birmingham's city boundaries.
Thirdly the job of an encyclopedia is to inform people of correct facts, not simply to confirm people in their ignorant beliefs. If people believe that Salford is in 'Manchester' for example then they are wrong pure and simple. Salford is indeed part of Greater Manchester and the GMUA, but has never been part of any entity called 'Manchester'. And it is our job to put them right, an incorrect belief is still incorrect no matter how many people believe them.
I have no problem with pointing out that many people refer to 'Manchester' informally when they really mean Greater Manchester, in fact I think I put something like that in the Manchester article myself. G-Man 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. I did not suggest that City and conurbation are the same things.
  2. The conurbation is not known as Greater Manchester, Greater Manchester is an administrative area. The conurbation is defined by the Office of National Statistics as lying mostly within greater Manchester. I'll come back to this point in a moment.
  3. I have never suggested that Salford is in Manchester. I have said that it is part of Greater Manchester, part of the conurbation, that some of Manchester city centre is indeed in Salford, and that Salford is generally perceived to be in Manchester. I have not, and never will have, any problem with the fact that Salford is a City status local authority lying within the administrative, metropolitan county of greater manchester. I was born in Salford myself. What I do have a problem with, as stated in detail above, is not recognising the wider city in any one place within Wikipedia. Please read my detailed objections above.
  4. I did not cite Manchester International airport, lying outside both the City of Manchester and the Greater Manchester metropolitan borough as being proof that Manchester is a special case. I cited it as being one of many illustrations that this is so.
Coming back to point number 2, I don't think any would dispute that there is a large, single city entity in the North West at the base of the pennines which is home to over 2 million people. It has one major commercial, business and media centre, which is served by extensive bus, rail and tram links that reach every corner of this wider city. It is home to some companies, institutions and clubs that are known the world over and it is a continuous urban area, from its centre to the very extremities of this wider city. It contains all of the LA defined City of Manchester, City of Salford and others, and exists on every plain, be it economic, cultural or social, independently and regardless of these arbitrary boundaries. It is this entity which is known the world over as Manchester.
I am not suggesting that this site propogate inaccurate facts, illusions or points of view, and I believe this to be self-evident from my detailed post above. If anybody has any valid and positive criticisms of that post, or indeed of any of the other points I have raised, then I am willing and ready to listen to them and take them into consideration, however I feel it is unfair that I should simply be ignored or disregarded because I am relatively new. If people would care to take my detailed objections into neutral consideration, which I am sure I have presented in a coherent, polite and structured way, then I feel that we are not far away from reaching some consensus.Mr ed 17:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think any would dispute that there is a large, single city entity in the North West at the base of the pennines which is home to over 2 million people" Are you sure? Are you genuinely arguing that there is effectively nobody who rightly or wrongly considers Bolton to be a town in its own right? You're certain that if you gathered 100 residents of Wilmslow, Horwich or Ramsbottom and asked them if they lived "in" or "just outside" Manchester, pretty much none of them would vote for "just outside"? That is what you've got to argue and demonstrate to show that "Manchester is just another name for the Greater Manchester Urban Area" is a statement of fact, rather than a point of view, and it looks pretty unsustainable to me.
I agree that large numbers of people would include at least some areas outside the city boundary as being "Manchester" though (in an aware and informed manner, not just out of ignorance) and it's important that Wikipedia doesn't suggest that they're necessarily wrong. Having the Manchester article point to the area that is officially and indisputably Manchester, while explaining the situation with links to other areas that may be considered Manchester by some people, seems the most neutral way of doing this of those available, though. Can you suggest anything else apart from a disambig page?
(As a side issue, it would certainly be unfortunate if the large number of apparent sock and meat puppets on this page meant that you were inadvertently lumped in with them, but there has to be some way of separating people with a commitment to writing a neutral encyclopedia from people who are here for no other reason than to push a POV, and its hard to see a better way than counting edits. Despite this, your vote in the straw poll still seems to have been counted so I'm not sure your opinions have just been ignored.)
JimmyGuano 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your first paragraph Jimmy, that is precisely what I am not trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the whole, continuous Urban area is called Manchester, which is why I described it the way I did. I am simply trying to argue that there is such an entity, that exists regardless of personal POV's to do with where people describe where they live, and regardless of the boundaries which it crosses. I am not trying to argue that Bolton, or Salford are in Manchester, and I never have. I am simply arguing the need for a seperate page, whatever it may be called, that deals with the entire city[in the wikipedia sense of a city - not the UK's City status mechanism], and furthermore I think this is obvious to any who would care to read my post of yesterday, and today in detail.
Also, the reason I mentioned that I felt my points had not been taken into proper consideration, was nothing to do with the poll but to do with the way the idea to revert has charged on without comment, contradiction, or even acknowledgement of the detailed points I made yesterday, at the beginning of the section entitled 'Several problems'.Mr ed 21:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The poll was instigated to prove that the article split was backed by consensus. We can see that it most definitely was not. You have dispute with the way the vote was done - but it was done according to policy - and this is not the place to dispute policy.
For what its worth I initially liked the idea of the split but having considered both sets of arguments and I can see why it is not right. MRSC 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I have not disputed the way the vote was done. I have disputed the negation of a large selection of votesMr ed 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
No. You have disputed the way the vote was carried out. If you want to join a community, you have to respect its rules. MRSC 04:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I have not disputed the way the vote was carried out. I do respect the rules of Wikipedia, and I refute the inference that I do not. I have remained polite and respectful of others positions whilst expressing my own as clearly as possible.
Please show me where in my posts I have refuted the way the vote was done. The ethos of Wikipedia is that anybody can contribute. Just because I am relatively new, it does not give you the right to intmidate or bully me into submission, or summarily dismiss the vaild points that I have explained clearly. I intened once the matter of this page is cleared up, to spend my time on Wikipedia making a full and valid contribution to it - I am not going anywhere, and my points are as valid as anybody elses.Mr ed 16:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

To reply to your above posts, the problem with your arguments are as follows:

  1. The definition of 'Manchester' as being a conurbation has no official standing whatsoever, and should certainly not be stated as fact, Manchester has an officially defined meaning as refering to the city, the wider conurbation is defined as Greater Manchester or the GMUA. And hence stating that it is veering dangerously close to POV pushing and original research.
  2. There is no way to prove your assertion that most people believe that 'Manchester refers to the conurbation'. Seem as there has not (to the best of my knowledge) been any surveys on the subject. So this assertion is based on little or no firm evidence. I would imagine that if you did a survey of people in say Rochdale as to whether they think they live in Manchester, I suspect you would have a fairly negative response.
  3. Thirdly I have no objection to the Manchester article stating that the term 'Manchester' is often used informally to refer to the entire conurbation. I'm sure there must be some way to incorporate popular views about Manchester into the article, as long as it points out the defined facts. Perhaps we could have a "Manchester Urban Area" section or something.

G-Man 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

We're getting back to the common beliefs versus "hard facts" debate, which you will remember from the lengthy population discussion. I'm afraid this will become an issue once again; and the more we split definitions of what "Manchester" is, the more complex it will become. I therefore recommend we keep this as simple as possible, and treat the "Greater Manchester Urban Area" under the "Manchester Urban Area" sections of both the Greater Manchester and the Manchester articles. Thoughts? --Cormaggio @ 18:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I would question User:G-Man's first point: does the term "Manchester" have any official definition? I don't think we should limit the Manchester article to the confines of the city (i.e. the local authority area) but this does mean we have to take care with what we mean when we say "Manchester has a population of 10.75 people" or whatever. Somewhere in the article we need to define the various terms, but this is getting away from the point and yes, we should keep this as simple as possible. Andreww 22:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


  1. This article needs to be reverted to: Original content of Manchester article.
  2. The newly restored article moved to Manchester and a redirect left on this page.
  3. Thorough check through all the links to the various Manchster articles to make sure they are working properly.
  4. Use the talk page to identify any areas for improvement in the restored Manchester article.

I will be able to offer support with all of the above but need someone able to complete point #2 (without resorting to cut and paste). MRSC 07:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think #2 should be fairly straightforward. 'Manchester' should be deleted, 'City of Manchester' moved to Manchester, and then the edit history of the deleted Manchester page is restored and merged into the new one. G-Man 21:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Debate continues

I am aware that it is against the general ethos of Wikipedia to not 'assume good faith', but in this case I truly believe my remarks of yesterday have been summarily glanced over and have not been fully considered. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong about this, however please do not charge ahead before we have come to a general consensus.
I also object to the way that the straw poll has been taken apart according to a particular point of view, is it not true that as many people voted in this poll, and that the nature of wikipedia is that everybody can contribute, that the opinions of these voters are as valid as anybody elses? I may be new here, but it is my firm intention to offer a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, and it would help matters greatly if we could spend our discussion time positively striving to reach a consensus on this matter. This will not come about whilst valid points are being ignored.Mr ed 17:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We haven't heard from User:EarlyBird, the person who started all this in the first place for a while. I wonder if he still feels so strongly about it all? MRSC 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Where should we go from here?

The dispute about the location and number of "Manchester" articles has now been going on for at least 10 days and the current pages Manchester and City of Manchester show significant overlap (look at the History sections) and are a mess (does the Bibliography on City of Manchester only refer to the city proper - I think not). Our first and only priority is to write an encyclopedia; to impart knowledge, not just facts, and the current mess fails to do this. There are therefore two questions:

  1. How do we get the articles into a state that is useful and stop wasting time arguing with each other.
  2. How do we improve the articles to help make this a really good encyclopedia.

My view is that we should have one page, at Manchester, that includes most of our information about the city (in the broad sense - possibly without delimitating the boundary in any detail). Sections would include history, industry, culture, economy sport and so on. None of these subjects follow local authority boundaries so they should not need to be discussed in the other articles. Another important section would be local government. This should talk about the existence of Greater Manchester (and link to it) and the cities and boroughs that make up Manchester. I'm unsure if we need a separate article about the City of Manchester - I suppose a list of wards and more information about the council would be over the top for Manchester so we may need a separate page but I don't think the information we currently have is enough to justify one. If we choose to have a separate City of Manchester page it should host the template but some of the information would need to be in Manchester's local government section. If not, the template would go on Manchester but we would need to note that the template information relates to the local government area not the extended city. Information about the Greater Manchester Urban Area should go in the economy section (but could also grow into its own page if there is enough info - at present I don't think there is). This is all only my view, and we should discuss the proposal. What is important is that implementing this needs more than a few page moves, redirect redirection, and the odd bit of copy and paste.

How do we achieve point 1 and start to improve things? I'm afraid we would have to follow steps 1 - 3 of User:Mrsteviec's October 24 suggestion. And could we remove some of the talk page redirects? Andreww 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree 10 days is too long to be leaving things. Some remedial action is required. MRSC 11:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A few points:

  1. I dont see anything wrong with creating a "Manchester urban area" section or something such, which deals with the wider area. And explains the various definitions e.g Manchester, Greater Manchester, GMUA etc.
  2. I think that a page like say Politics of Manchester should be created. In a similar vein to Government of Birmingham which would include details of local government, wards, constituencies, MP's etc.

G-Man 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Both points sound fine, but I think such articles should "grow out" or the Manchester article and not just exist because we can string together one or two facts about about a title. Andreww 08:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


The discussion on this page is doing nothing for the good of the article or the wikipedia, and that should be our top priority above any of our POVs. Having thought about this I'm going to revert City of Manchester back to the old combined article (it's in the City of Manchester's article history rather than the Manchester history because of a page move) and then make Manchester a redirect to City of Manchester. I'm then going to suggest at WP:RM that City of Manchester gets moved back to Manchester. This achieves two things:

  1. We get a stable article back
  2. There is forum through WP:RM for those who want change

MRSC 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hijacked For Propoganda Purposes

The article is referring to the "Manchester Conurbation". This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham. There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. --BigBriton 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that there is a place that people call "Manchester" which includes a local authority called the "City of Manchester" and which is mostly within a county called "Greater Manchester". Andreww 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Focus on article improvement

I've had a look today and moved some sections and tried to work out what is missing from the article. Two main things so far which need work:

  1. There was no Geography section so I've started this. I don't know enough about the details so someone will need to expand.
  2. There was no Commerce or Business section although there was some content scattered around which I've collected together. There is still nothing really about industry or business in the city - anyone able to make a start there?

MRSC 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the 809mm or rain per year data? While I'm sure you are right and Manchester is not as wet as Glasgow a footnote would be useful (it always seems to rain when I go to Manchester). Andreww 20:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That bit of text was already hidden elsewhere in the article and I combined it without editing it so it may need to be verified or removed if it isn't really true or noteworthy. MRSC 20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, once the page is moved I'll archive much of the talk here and add a to do list including things that I think need fact checking. Andreww 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes that's definitely a good idea. MRSC 20:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. This article was already in the midst of a trudgy cleanup job for months, and needs plenty of work.. Cormaggio @ 22:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it is probably safe to move the page now seem as no-one's objected to the move. I'll do it tommorow or Monday if no-one objects.
This article has been in need of a serious overhaul for a long time, it is easilly one of the poorest UK city articles when compared to say London, Birmingham, Glasgow or Bristol for example. It seems to consist mostly of lists, it looks more like a directory rather than an encyclopedia article. Replacing lists with sentences, wherever possible should be a priority. G-Man 23:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok by me (the five day guideline sugests that the page could be moved tomorrow). I'm happy to sort out the talk pages (I guess this one becomes a archive on Talk:Manchester, the stuff on Talk:Manchester also gets archived and look through them for good ideas). So after an admin deletes the redirect page at Manchester you should do the move but not move the talk page. Let me know if there is a better way to do this! Andreww 01:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? There's loads in this article that would more logically go in [[Greater Manchester]. I understand about the whole "Trafford/Salford/Sale is really part of Manchester" argument that I won't get involved in, but "Manchester is represented by Wigan Warriors"? Be real! There's also references to Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and Bolton scattered throughout the article - surely they should go in their own town articles, or in the Greater Manchester one. Steven J 19:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what is being described. For example, Manchester International Airport should be mentioned here (as well as on the page of wherever it is located) but some minor shopping center in Wigan does not belong here. What we shouold not do is draw a line based on an arbitary definition (local council area, ONS choice, constituencies, post code or whatever). As for Wigan Warriors, how about : "the closest rugby league team to the center of Manchester that plays in the Super League are the Wigan Warriors, somtimes considered to represent Manchester" (only add the last bit if it is true - and we can find a source). Andreww 20:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Article was originally moved without consensus.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support MRSC 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Manchester is officially a city in the conurbation of Greater Manchester --Statsfan 18:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support G-Man 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comment above. Andreww 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, even if only to preserve article history. Cormaggio @ 17:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


Add any additional comments