Jump to content

Talk:Manchester/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12


'White Groups'

Unless this is an official term (in fact, even if it is), it needs to be emended to bring it in line with the other phrasing: either "white" and "black" &c. or "white groups" and "Asian groups" &c. Given the totally different context in American English, "Asian" could probably use a link to South Asia or footnote to clarify the people intended. — LlywelynII 06:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war

Please stop this slow-motion edit war. The current description which is now being changed has been present for many months or years. So any changes should be brought here now to be discussed, because they are obviously contentious. If the edit war continues, even spread out over more than 3 reverts in one day, then administrative action may be required.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Enough is enough

I am not sure what the policy is on protecting talk pages of articles, but the persistence of the IP editor who is disrupting this page made me apply partial protection to it for one week. I hope the person behind the vandalism will go and find something else to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

They are back. DBaK (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me. They change the IP address they use, so semi-protection seems the best route to try to stop this. I have re-imposed it for one month just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ok. They are back again. I will monitor it and take the apropriate action if required.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, having seen the explosion of idiocy from one or more anonymous IP editors this evening, I have reinstated the protection of this talk page for one month. I know it is unsatisfactory to do this, but it avoids the extreme disruption that was beginning to happen again from an anonymous IP-hopping vandal.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Ice Hockey teams

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hatnotes...many there are

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Vandals

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative pronunciations

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mamucium or Mancunium

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

Rossendale Valley mention?

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

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

What a blogger from San Francisco made of Manchester

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

City of Manchester?

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

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

World's first inter-city passenger railway station?

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

2017 Bombing at Ariana Grande concert not mentioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate table

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

Eurostat source

The lead section claims:

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

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

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

References

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

Chinese, Arabs and Asians

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of uniformity of economic data

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

ONS Regional Gross domestic product (Table five in the excel file linked to by the page) has GDP for the city of Manchester and for the rest of the county. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/regionalgrossdomesticproductallnutslevelregions WatcherZero (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Grecoprofanity

Μάνχεστρο: shitty Manchester, when we support a non-Mancunian team versus a Mancunian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410a:f300:d88f:f089:47f1:5c81 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

Manchester is the fourth most populus city, fifth most populus district, the body implies that it is the fifth largest city by population, there is a link to the districts on this text (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population) I guess the writer assumed that Cornwall was a city, Cornwall is not a city, it is actually a county, cornwall is however a district, the text is quite ambiguous.

"The city has the country's fifth-largest population"

needs to be changed to

"The city has the country's fourth-largest population"

or

"The district has the country's fifth-largest population" 

Lumame (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: It doesn't say it's the fifth largest city; it says it has the fifth largest population which seems to be right per the list of districts by population. hemantha (brief) 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

I think it would be valuable re-evaluate the need to dismiss one aspect of population data included on the lead paragraph for several reasons :

  1. The data is too old, when newer data is available
  2. Other UK cities lead paragraphs use population data that takes into account the conurbation and not just the immediate city centre population
  3. There is more than 6 different population stats to choose from when measuring the size of the city, so why choose this particular data set without a thorough discussion of the other available data given by the ONS?
  4. Consensus was not achieved in previous edit disputes and unilateral action was taken.
  5. There is evidence from the Birmingham article talk page that there is a minor edit war between Manchester and Birmingham articles and thus some editors maybe pandering to a covert bias by choosing certain population data over others for advantatious reasons.

Metrolink123 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Uhm, what's the RFC question? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't second city status contested between Leeds Manchester and Birmingham anyway? Leeds is bigger then Manchester by population and west Yorkshire twice the size in population of Greater Manchester so I'd see Leeds as a second/third largest city DragonofBatley (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

West Yorkshire isn't a city? And could we leave Leeds out of this for now? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Nor is Greater Manchester which is only a metropolitan county. A bit like Tyne and Wear and Merseyside. Not cities (except Newcastle upon Tyne, Sunderland and Liverpool) but Manchester and Salford are the only cities but the rest of the county is made up of towns and suburbs. Manchester is far from the largest city in the north in fact Leeds and Newcastle upon Tyne would be larger. Only saying. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Well yes, ok. This article is not about Greater Manchester, it's about Manchester the "city and metropolitan borough." Detail about the relative size of Greater Manchester should not be included. Or certainly not in the lead section, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

DragonofBatley The population of the Greater Manchester built up area is 2.53 million, West Yorkshire is 1.8 million. That's a significant difference. Plus the WY figures include Halifax which was added in 2011. Metrolink123 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Could we restrict discussion to just this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Martinevans123, could you possibly clarify for me what exactly this RFC is asking? I got a bot summons, but I'm having trouble parsing exactly what I should be looking at. The last discussion on the talk page before the RFC was almost a year ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm also a little unsure. I was hoping Metrolink123 would clarify this. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That's built-up area which extends to Glossop etc but as a whole county minus the bua Manchester is smaller then Leeds which is 700k compared to Manchester's 500k+. I thought this was about the city and not the wider county or bua? DragonofBatley (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about Greater Manchester, it's about Manchester the "city and metropolitan borough."? Can we all agree on this? Otherwise we will get nowhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

I disagree on using third or so largest city for Manchester. That belongs to Leeds and that's my opinion. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.smallworldfs.com/en/blog/knowing-more-about-leeds-the-third-largest-city-in-the-united-kingdom, also mentioned on the City of Leeds as being the second largest city behind Birmingham and London not being a single government identity. Not my words says in article lead and http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html all say Leeds is largest not Manchester. So I don't agree with it being used as Manchester and it's Greater Manchester and BUA are normally associated with Manchester while Leeds tends to be used as a seperate entity like Bradford is. So no Manchester isn't the third largest city and I disagree with using it DragonofBatley (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. Manchester (/ˈmæntʃɪstər, -tʃɛs-/) is the most-populous city and metropolitan borough in North West England and Greater Manchester, England. The city has the country's fifth-largest population at 547,627 (as of 2018) and lies within the United Kingdom's second-most populous urban area, with a population of 2.7 million, third most-populous county, at around 2.8 million. What does this have to do with Leeds being the second largest or third largest city? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Could we have a clear question for the RfC? lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, you see, the hidden Nazi city in the hollow earth accessible only through a hole in Antarctica is actually the fourth or so largest city. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Should prove quite a challenge. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish As I requested this RFC I think the question I would like to ask the editors is the following: Should the article use population data (latest) that is consistent with those used for other WIKI articles of other UK cities like Birmingham? I agree with DragonofBatley that in terms of just the core "city" Leeds is bigger, but so is Bradford, which isn't even half the size of Manchester in terms of urban area and greater urban population. Therefore I suggest this distinction is made to readers in the initial paragraph to avoid confusion. It is not the case that Leeds or Bradford are "bigger cities". It is just the way the ONS measures population size and where borders are drawn. Unfortunately the UK doesn't measure population evenly or equally so that's why the City of London is smaller than Leeds. Having said that if you refer to the city of London article they have made that distinction clear. Maybe it's worth having a city of Manchester and Manchester article separate from one another to highlight the sheer size of Manchester, but also how population is measured distinctly, just like how the city of Salford was kept separate (even though it is part of Manchester, but not included in it's city pop stats). Thank you all for your time with this discussion and your professionalism. Metrolink123 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Metrolink123 for your agreement. I think an only slight issue with a seperate Manchester and City of Manchester articles is that neither would really have any distinct settlements as I think all of Manchester is unparished and aside from maybe Wythenshawe and East Didsbury. It's not got any towns or villages which give it major stance compared with Salford and other surrounding boroughs and towns. Although in the case of Sheffield it would work as Sheffield has Stockbridge which is a town seperate from the wider city. Or Birmingham with Sutton Coldfield and Handsworth.
Manchester is a big city not arguing that and it is significant. But as mentioned Leeds from what I know as I am from Batley (now living in Grimsby). The city has a massive population almost on par with Birmingham and the largest or one of the largest areas by square kilometres.
Manchester is at a conurbation with Salford, Stockport, Oldham and Sale which form a large urban area around the city. So yeah Manchester has the third largest bua but the city in terms of population is nearly 200k smaller then Leeds. Hence why I argue about using third largest city for Manchester. Birmingham without the West Midlands is still a large city of over 1millon before the wider West Midlands County.
DragonofBatley (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you have some suggested prose, with sources? Generally RFCs aren't opened just to ask questions discuss something. They're specifically for determining consensus, generally with specific prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish Affirmative. [1]
According to the ONS, metropolitan area is the same as urban area, which Manchester is the second largest in UK. [2][3]. Birmingham article has used metro area in lead section, so can this article? Also Ringway is the only civil parish within Manchester city council area. [4] Metrolink123 (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the article clarify "largest" in terms of area against "largest" in terms of population? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Quite possibly yes. That would be one definitive way of marking the distinction. Metrolink123 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.statista.com/statistics/294645/population-of-selected-cities-in-united-kingdom-uk/
  2. ^ https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/articles/747.aspx
  3. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Greater_Manchester_Built-up_Area
  4. ^ https://democracy.manchester.gov.uk/mgParishCouncilDetails.aspx?bcr=1&ID=141&LS=1

Recent & repeated edits to the lead section...

All the "second city" content that has been repeatedly added to the lead section in spite of the fact that the term is only mentioned once in the main body of the article. Let's discuss etc. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've adjusted the lead section re: the term "second city". Do with it what you will, but in my editing here on the article I have relied on the WP:MOS guideline of MOS:LEAD - I think it is very clear on what should be in the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Manchester and Greater Manchester?

I've noticed these past few months that certain editors are taking certain town and city (Salford) articles and changing them to say suburbs of Manchester (in case of Salford today). But what I'm puzzled about it. What is roughly Manchester's border with other towns and areas? (IE Failsworth, Stockport, Prestwich etc...) And unless stated. Should the leads be left alone to clarify the towns and Salford for where they belong to? Using suburbs of Manchester implies that area is in Manchester itself and not the Unitary authority borough its locals obviously vote to that authorities council?... DragonofBatley (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

FA sweeps

Issues include unsourced content and updates needed. For example, the number of students is given for the 2011/2012 academic year. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Have made some inroads with the Education section with the latest reliable data (i.e. 2018/19 for GCSEs due to pandemic). References could still be improved in this section, however. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Second city

Metrolink123, as you already know, you need to establish consensus here before adding the claim that Manchester is considered the UK's second city. Such a claim would also need much better sourcing than this. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

As there's been no response, I was going to revert the edit, but thanks to Stevo1000 for removing the second city claim before I could do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes sorry I did not see this. The second city "thing" seems frivolous and not an official title but very much one of conjecture. It feels out of place in the introduction of a article with FA status. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, we have an article on this subject: Second city of the United Kingdom. The claim is made by Glasgow (where I grew up), and several other cities, including Manchester. Whether it is worth mentioning in the article is something that could be discussed here, but if mention is to be made, then I'd recommend including some context about the claim. Girth Summit (blether) 10:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph in the present article starting "Since around the turn of the 21st century, Manchester has been regarded as one of the candidates for the unofficial title of second city of the United Kingdom alongside Birmingham..." isn't properly supported by the sources, which are mostly examples rather than secondary coverage (e.g. "whether Manchester or Birmingham is Britain's second city is disputed" is just sourced to two articles describing Birmingham as the second city). I propose replacing this with something like this from Second city of the United Kingdom: "Today, Birmingham is typically described as the UK's second city. In recent decades it has also been common for Manchester to be described either as the second city or as a contender for the title". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

In the introduction, can you add that it’s a major city? 70.71.80.27 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit pedestrian. And is there any agreed definition of what "major city" means? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you add that it's a city and a metropolitan borough in Greater Manchester? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.249.162 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Size of the city

I have noticed that over the last two years, Manchester's intro text has gradually been stripped of any reference to its relative size, whereas Birmingham's has had numerous claims inserted relating to its second city status. I do not wish to relitigate the second city debate, but the process seems to have gone too far against Manchester.

Manchester's article no longer states what rank it holds in terms of metropolitan population - unlike the articles for Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds. I do not see why Manchester alone should have its metropolitan size obfuscated.

Manchester's article now mentions its metropolitan area being based on 'the two cities' (including Salford) - unlike the article for Birmingham which makes no reference to the cities of Wolverhampton or Coventry, which similarly count toward's Birmingham's metropolitan population. I do not see why Manchester's intro text alone should make explicit reference to other cities when Birmingham's does not do so.

Manchester's article no longer mentions that it is the second most visited city outside London - unlike the articles for Birmingham and Liverpool.

Any neutral observer can see that, over the last two years or so, there has been a concerted effort by editors based in or (sympathetic to) Birmingham to buff up that city's credentials. That is quite understandable. But at the same time it appears that Manchester's article has gradually and quietly been denuded of statements which favour Manchester and key information has been removed, obfuscating the city's significance versus others in Britain. The intro has been denuded to the degree that Manchester's article is now missing information that is included as standard in the articles for other major British cities.

Due to edit protections I am unable to make changes but I would ask editors please to consider amending Manchester's article to bring the information provided into line with that found in other British cities. 202.189.169.219 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Order of infobox photos

I see there is a discussion about the photos above, so i suppose that this is perhaps in the process of being made right, but currently the caption states that they are Clockwise from top: Manchester Skyline, Manchester Town Hall, Hulme Arch Bridge, Manchester Cathedral, Deansgate skyline, Midland Hotel, John Rylands Library and Manchester University skyline; trouble is, they are nothing like clockwise ~ there's the top one, then each line goes left to right, whereas clockwise would start at the top, go down the right-hand column, then up the left. Can this be corrected before any conclusion is drawn about which pictures are used? Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 22:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Green tickY done. Thanks for pointing that out. I have left them as clockwise from top for now rather than top left to bottom right, but no strong feelings at the moment given that the images may be replaced soon. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I know i could have done it myself ~ SOFIXIT ~ and was coming to the conclusion that i should, but initially didn't want to stick mine oar in where it might conflict with the ongoing conversation. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 13:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah - interfering busybodies with their constructive helpful suggestions. Be gone! 10mmsocket (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to infobox photos.

Is there any editors who wish to contribute to a discussion on the infobox photos present vs the recent revert of @Stevo1000:, I see no issues with the photos used. The photos readded were from a previous collage of photos but most of them do not represent Manchester as a whole compared to the ones in the current infobox. I found the users edit summary quite incentive and falling under two wikipedia guideline violations and the issue around 2006 images and so is far from inappropriate. Some towns and village articles for instance use older photos from the early 2000s or if WikiCommons has recent photos added of the settlement. Then people can add them but not many do and the same with cities. Some of the best photos are older ones whereas newer ones can be great or not as good, years do not matter unless something has changed the landscape like a power station has been demolished or a coal mine has gone. But those themselves do not fully change the settlement as a whole and I welcome editors like @PamD:, @Eopsid:, @10mmsocket:, @Crouch, Swale:, @John Maynard Friedman: and any others to discuss this. I think the editor made a slight rude edit summary but also this about the wider infobox photos and what you all think should be included. I still think using the town hall, cathedral, hulme arch and some skylines are essential as well as maybe the library and Deansgate? What do you all think? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Manchester to comment on the detail but a similar discussion at talk:Milton Keynes#New infobox collage may be useful as it is often easier to see the essence of a question when you don't have any connection with it.
  • Yes, the infobox images should be refreshed periodically but expecially when the city changes significantly.
  • Yes, the images should try to represent the city as a whole and not just its central business district.
My 2¢ worth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I like what's there mostly. If I were given free reign I'd include Piccadilly Gardens (but I'm struggling to find an example), the Central Library instead of John Rylands (or better still a two-for one of St Peter's Square with the library and Midland hotel together - see below), and a view along Canal Street (see below). I like the Deansgate image, but I'm struggling to find a free one that includes the full length of the street looking south with tall buildings like the Hilton Hotel at the other end. Not keen on the Cathedral photo - there are better ones (see below).
  • Central Library and Midland Hotel in St Peter's Square
    Central Library and Midland Hotel in St Peter's Square
  • Canal Street
    Canal Street
  • Better view of the Cathedral
    Better view of the Cathedral
    • A couple of pic suggestions above. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    Which reminds me to add a third cent to my 2¢ worth:
    My 3¢ worth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    To my mind there's nothing inherently wrong with using relatively old photographs in articles, so long as the subject of the photograph hasn't changed substanially in appearance since it was taken, and I think @Stevo1000: has a valid point here.The top photograph of the montage dates from 2007 according to its commons page, and it's fair to say that the skyline of Manchester has changed quite a bit since 2007. G-13114 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    @G-13114:, I am not sure if there's an up to date skyline photo as I've look over wiki commons and the latest skyline photo I could find under the recency filter was from 2015. But since then new towers have been built and now the tallest tower is Deansgate Square South Tower built in 2018 and Deansgate Square East Tower as well as the Blade in 2023. So the skyline is changing rapidly and quite fast to be really up to date. Plus the 2015 view is littered with cranes and tower building so really wouldn't be a good formal image. I'm not sure how to address the skyline photos unless we use an aerial view but that's only good if you can see what is being shown.
    On another point @10mmsocket: I agree the cathedral could be changed photo wise but not a fan of the one in reply as it doesn't show the front of the building and I think an aerial view of the cathedral would work better. I'll mooch around some more photos and drop them into the discussion but like the other two you put DragonofBatley (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    Some more photo suggestions theres five here of different things in Manchester including the Cathedral, Town Hall, Deansgate, Piccadilly and Skyline/Aerial view:
    • Cathedral with tower and western side?
      Cathedral with tower and western side?
    • Manchester town hall and Albert Street
      Manchester town hall and Albert Street
    • Deansgate
      Deansgate
    • Manchester Piccadilly Station approach with footbridge and towers
      Manchester Piccadilly Station approach with footbridge and towers
    • Mayfield Park with Manchester's skyscrapers and high rise from above
      Mayfield Park with Manchester's skyscrapers and high rise from above

      • , not sure if these will all look good but these are recent-ish from past decade and present. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

      Cathedral photo great. Town Hall photo also great. Deansgate doesn't convey the shear length of the street for me. I like the Piccadilly bridge photo a lot as I often stay in the Hilton Doubletree Hotel to which the bridge is attached. I really like the Mayfield Park pic (in preference to the other Piccadilly pic) as it shows industrial/urban regeneration - really nice contrast between parts of the city. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      Yeah it does look good as well. I'll allow others to share further photos and we can all reach a consensus on the images and make a coherent infobox collage. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      Deansgate - this is quite nice and Commons-compatible licensed. It's out of date (only the one building on Deansgate Square) but a great view along some of the length of the street. Whereas this shows the tower buildings but not the street. There's some good stuff on flickr - here's a search for Deansgate (If it's not pre-selected then change licence to "Commercial use and mods allowed" 10mmsocket (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      if you can add them to this discussion as thumb nails like you and I did above. We can let others see them although I'm not sure how uploading from Flickr to Wikipedia works DragonofBatley (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      I'll do them tomorrow morning. Uploading from flickr to commons is 95% automated, all you need do is provide a description and appropriate categories. Commons upload wizard handles all the technical stuff itself. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      Talking of skyline photos. I had a look at the geograph website and searched for Manchester Skyline, and I found a few photo's potentially of interest, which I would be happy to upload to commons. The ones of interest I found were High Rise Living at Deansgate Square and Cranes over the Manchester Skyline. (EDIT: there's also this one Tower Blocks over Knott Mill which I think is superior) G-13114 (talk)
      If you wouldn't mind, @G-13114:, that be great. More photos to look through and discuss the better. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      I've uploaded two of them. I could do the third if neccesary. The skyline one dates from 2018, and is probably quite representative of the Manchester climate. The tower blocks one is stunning. G-13114 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      I like the second one it's nicely composed and the time of year and day look good. I'd deffo use that one. Other one is a bit dull of colour or life in my own opinion but could work to showcase Manchester progress with new skyscrapers DragonofBatley (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
      With this discussion ongoing, @Chocolateediter: made slight changes to the lead photos and removed other photos. I have reverted him and pointed them to this discussion through edit summaries. What photos so far should we use? DragonofBatley (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
      Here is some of the ones I’d choose, clockwise (template order):
      Pic 1 (1,row1), Skyline photos, should be one really:
      • Manchester - geograph.org.uk - 4604139.jpg : is 2015 too old for the skyline
      • Manchester Skyline From Oxford Road 2020.jpg
      • UniversityofManchesterSkyline.jpg
      Pic2 (3, r2): a Corn Exchange/ Exchange Square photo should be on the collage, here are some options:
      • Exchange Square (geograph 5147082) : 7 year old but shows the tram stop a bit
      • Exchange Square (geograph 5147517) : 7 year old, shows some of the Shamble Square, does have a yellow hue to it
      • Exchange Square (geograph 7194949) : 10 month old decent
      Other:
      • pic3 (5,r3), St Peter's Square (geograph 6194481).jpg
      • pic4 (7,r4), Midland Hotel west, Manchester.jpg
      • pic5 (6,r4), Manchester Cathedral (4).jpg
      • pic6 (4,r3) Manchester Town Hall from Lloyd St.jpg
      • pic7 (2,r2) Tower Blocks over Knott Mill, geograph 6866152 : looking at the conversation this is lovely Chocolateediter (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
      Two_M5000_trams_passing.jpg
      This is one that I think should be considered (Disclaimer: I took it) because the yellow trams are an iconic and unique feature of Manchester. G-13114 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
      Very nice! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
      I agree DragonofBatley (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
      Yesterday I changed the main skyline image on the infobox after seeing it was relatively outdated; I did not realize there was an ongoing discussion about it until now. In my opinion it is an improvement but the picture does not have the highest resolution, so if an editor wants to revert or to use a better photo feel free to do so. LivinAWestLife (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
      It's better than what was there. It can probably be better but good for now. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
      While I see now the picture has changed, I don't think it was necessary for @DragonofBatley for using such heated language in the edit. The picture I selected was perfectly fine, and is certainly more representative of a larger part of the city than just Deansgate. Also, why did you change the image from the 2020 one in the first place? LivinAWestLife (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
      I do apologise for the heated sounded language I used but that photo really isn't a good representation. How is a dark, evening gray sky image a good representation of Manchester skyline then a daytime and bright image? In that photo, it looks like it was taken during an apocalyptic esque themed day. But the Deansgate one is during the daytime and is actually quite nice. So maybe others like it and I am not trying to dictate a photo or article but if people want a fair representation of Manchester. A dark grey image really isn't nice. Maybe a geographical image for representing Salford and Manchester proximity although better images are available but for a lead skyline? No it really isn't showing anything clear but a dark sky and loads of skyscrapers with no real notable landmarks or views to see. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
      Thanks. I still mean to ask about your edit from the original wide 2020 picture, not the one I had edited. I think the current image is fine. LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

      Infobox flags

      I just reverted the addition of two county flags to the lead infobox here and at Liverpool City Region. I think the UK and England ones should be removed too as they add no value at all. See MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which says such flag icons should be avoided. Thoughts from others? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

      I opened more than a dozen English city articles at random. Only three had infobox flags, and only one of those had the county flag, so it looks like the use of infobox flags is very much in the minority. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
      Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester/Archive_11&oldid=1170253331"