Jump to content

Talk:Manchester/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Second largest conurbation in the UK

I have this source:

http://www.cec.org.uk/info/pubs/regional/nw/chap1p4.htm

The Greater Manchester conurbation has a population of 2.5 million, which
represents almost two-fifths of the North West’s total population; it is
the second largest conurbation in the UK.

Do you have anything more authoritative? - Khendon 08:25 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

How about wikipedia! Birmingham... this would need to be corrected too if its wrong. "Greater Manchester" is a bit misleading, as there are several large cities in the Greater Manchester area that are technically seperate authorities. However the same applies to London in this sense, and getting a firm grip on population could be difficult. Greg Godwin 08:51 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

That's why it specifically talks about the "conurbation". The Birmingham article isn't wrong either, AFAIK - it talks about the city of Birmingham, rather than the conurbation around it. Greater Manchester is made up of two cities and a collection of towns that are *administratively* separate, but it's all part of one cohesive urban "sprawl". Talking about the population of just the city of Manchester would be (as you note) as misleading as talking about just the city of London. - Khendon 09:19 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC) conurbation


But the Birmingham page says it it forms part of a large conurbation of over four million. This would easily exceed the 2.5 million quoted for Manchester. One of these pages must be wrong. -- Chris Q 09:33 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
OK I am sure it is the third largest so I've decided to "be bold"

"Although the population of Manchester City is only 400,000 and of Greater Manchester, 2.5 million" from http://www.commonwealthgames.ca/eng/publication/cdm/cdm0400.htm.

"Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK and has a population of over 1 million" from http://www.locatebirmingham.org.uk/pages/images/pdf_files/Key_Fact_Pack_1_in_full_colour.pdf

Why not forget the whole "conurbation" thing altogether, and just state the facts. Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK. Greg Godwin 12:40 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Its OK with me if you want to do that ! -- Chris Q 12:44 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

The problem with removing the "conurbation" idea and just talking about the city of Manchester is it would give a misleading impression. - Khendon 12:53 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

I cant see an issue though. The City of Manchester has a population of 400,000 - Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5 million, why don't we just put the 400,000 in Manchester and the conurbation size in Greater Manchester, it makes perfect sense - Greg Godwin

And would you support the same criteria being applied to London? - Khendon 12:59 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

As a compromise, why not state the population of Manchester as 400,000 but in parathesis note that the conurbation is upwards of 2.5 million. As we have a page on Greater Manchester it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure on population of the City of London, but I suspect it is greater than Birmingham and certainly larger than Manchester.

Population of the City of London was 5200 in 1998, according to City of London - Khendon 13:06 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

he-he I was a little bit off then! Birmingham is commonly recognised as the second largest city in the UK, at least from everything I've read. Although I think everybody is arguing the same point here, as we have two different definations (city/conurbation) and two matching results (400,000/2.5 million). Lets just mention both figures, I can't see why not. Greg Godwin 13:21 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)


Let me throw a cat amoung the pigeons, Manchester is the sixth largets city!

From [1] National Statistics:

  • Birmingham (1,013,431)
  • Leeds (727,389)
  • Sheffield (531,141)
  • Bradford (483,285)
  • Liverpool (461,481)
  • Manchester (429,812)
  • Bristol (402,310)
  • Croydon (338,217)
  • Cardiff (320,940)
  • Wakefield (318,804)
  • Dudley (311,468)
  • Wigan (310,491)
  • Coventry (304,334)

So by city size Machester is sixth in England and Wales!

Yes, but that's divided along arbitrary administrative divisions. Imagine
you had a map of the country, colour-coded by urbanisation. There would
be a distinct cohesive urban area around each "city proper". That's the
most useful size to use when comparing cities. Anyway, I think the
article is now clear and accurate enough for everyone, isn't it? - Khendon 14:01 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Making claims on city size/comparisons is always going to be controversial. To think that there are only 5200 people in London!... Greg Godwin

Controversial, but too important to skip over, I think. - Khendon 15:27 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Today's scores (from the 4 Wikipedia articles)

Andy G 23:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Census of 29 April 2001:
  • Manchester 392,819; Greater Manchester 2,482,352
  • Birmingham 977,091; West Midlands (county) 2,555,596.
That isn't really the point, though: for one thing, the counties in neither case represent the city even at its widest extent (Bolton and Wigan aren't in Manchester any more than Coventry or Wolverhampton are in Bormingham, though they're all in the respective metropolitan counties). The real issue is that Manchester is ludicrously underbounded in comparison with say Leeds, while Birmingham is about right. If Manchester had enjoyed the same kind of boundary extension that Birmingham experienced in 1891-1931 it would be approaching a similar size - and I'm not talking here about conurbations, which can often lump together independent urban areas of similar rank.
I still think that leaves Birmingham securely Britain's second city, but it shows that we have to be careful in throwing out rankings - I'd put Liverpool and Manchester ahead of Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford in "real" terms, ie disregarding purely administrative boundaries: as for Wakefield, Dudley and Wigan (about 310,000 apiece for the administrative area, which in each case includes neighbouring towns), I doubt any would come close to 100,000 on a similar definition. Oh, and Newcastle should be up there too with about 450,000 once Gateshead is included.
Graculus (how do you do that time thing?)

The Office for National Statistics publish official figures for conurbations from the 2001 census.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8271.xls

Greater Manchester Urban Area - 2,244,931 West Midlands Urban Area - 2,284,093

So whether you measure it by city, conurbation or metropolitan county, Manchester is still smaller than Birmingham.

Billy.


re the number of universities: it was announced last week that the University of Manchester and UMIST are to merge, so someone should be ready to make the appropriate changes when it actually happens! Arwel 15:16 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

population

I have adjusted the population statistics upwards because the original cesus figures have been shown to be incorrect and have been revised upwards: see here [2] just in case anyone was wondering G-Man 19:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Tiresome

Am I alone in finding this Second City stuff tiresome? Do we think that the user will come to this article to learn about Manchester is interested either? In any case, surely Glasgow is the Second city of the UK. It used to be the Second City of the Empire! I suggest a separate article Second city of England where the debate can continue for those who care.Cutler 10:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rest assured, you're not alone. But before anyone decides to fill in those red links, there is already a second city article with a UK section, where the whole issue has been played out in the past, and continues to linger on.We had it down to the bare bones before xmas, and that looked pretty good, but I think it's got flabby again since. I've been embroiled in second city arguments before and can see with confidence that all it does in the end is mess up decent articles. It's wreaking havoc with this one. Mattley 10:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ManU

The recent addition that Old Trafford (ManU's ground) is in Trafford, is of course right. However, to someone not familiar with M'cr this sounds as if it was out somewhere... how can we bring in that Trafford is part of Greater Manchester? Kokiri 09:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Grauniad

The article should probably make some mention of The Guardian, altho I am unsure where and how... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:42, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

The 'media' section seems the best place, as it already mentions the Guardian's sister publication, the Manchester Evening News. I added a sentence and link. --David Edgar 15:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merge with City Centre article

Since the Manchester page is really about the City of Manchester, I think it should be merged with Manchester City Centre. What do people think? Bornslippy 12:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I made a few comments on Talk:Manchester City Centre. --David Edgar 09:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV and Bomb

It it really POV to say that it's fortunate that civilians escaped injury from a bomb? No matter who placed it. Cutler 13:57, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've completey rewritten the popular music section - I have a feeling that this may be too long for this kind of article.

Maybe you should create a separate article - something like History of popular music in Manchester? Nick Smale

TV, music, Sex Pistols etc

"Although Manchester had an impressive music scene before 1976 ( with groups like The Hollies, The Bee Gees and 10cc, and with Top of the Pops being recorded at Granada TV studios), undoubtedly the key moment in Manchester’s musical history occurred on June 4th 1976 when the Sex Pistols at the invitation of Howard Devoto & Pete Shelley (of the Buzzcocks) arrived at the Lesser Free Trade Hall in Manchester City Centre to play a legendary gig..."

I have two problems with the above section.

  • Firstly, the BBC has its own studios in Manchester. Why would it have recorded Top of the Pops at the studio of its main northern rival?
  • Secondly, the original text has a wikilink to "Free Trade Hall" from the text "Lesser Free Trade Hall". I never attended any gig at the Lesser Free Trade Hall, but it's my understanding that the venue was not directly related to the Free Trade Hall, that it was just an ironic name chosen by a club, in reference to the latter's reputation as a high culture classical music venue. Can anyone comment on this?

Sometimes I think I must be one of the few people who were in Manchester in 1976 who have never claimed to have been in the tiny audience at the legendary Sex Pistols gigs at the Lesser FTH in 1976. I did see Rik Mayall and, I think, Ade Edmondson perform in some grotty student revue in 1977, though. They were shite. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be BBC studios of course, but it feels like it should be Granada.
As far as I am aware the Lesser Free Trade hall is in the Free Trade Hall Complex - see here
--DanCupid 19:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks. I googled and eventually found an article about the Lesser Free Trade Hall. Would you believe, it was on Wikipedia all along?
I'll update the article. The BBC Manchester studios for TOTP (Oxford Road, I expect) and the Wikilink to the Lesser FTH. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think they did TOTP at Oxford Road -- as far as I recall the BBC studios there weren't built until the early/mid 80s -- the BBC used to have a small building at the corner of Piccadilly Gardens, but for some reason I have a recollection that TOTP may have been recorded in an old church in Wythenshawe... -- Arwel 23:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Charlatans

Manchester has a great music history but The Charlatans are not a Manchester band, they were formed in Brum by a Brummie, and the band have consisted mainly of West Midlands musicians throughout their history, Mark is the only member from Manchester, Tim is from Chester area and he is quoted as distancing himself from the Manchester Scene (otherwise known as the baggy or indie scene to many) sorry to be pedantic but this place has made me this way :)

The item which has been removed did not describe The Charlatans as a Manchester band--indeed I specifically changed the text to state that they were from Birmingham. They were associated with the Madchester phenomenon, so it's wrong to remove them on the grounds that they were actually from Birmingham. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Tony,

I am not trying to be awkward but the Charlatans were assosiated with the "Indie" or "Baggy" scene, the press may have asumed the band were from Manchester as the usual NME press reports likened them to a poor relation of the Roses, in actual fact Tim Burgess (Cheshire raised singer of the band) stated at the time that he wished NOT to be associated with the Madchester scene because the band were Not from Manchester, only ONE member of the band are from Manchester and that is Mark Collins who joined for the second album 'In between tenth and eleventh' it would be like saying Pink Floyd are a Birmingham band just because Nick Mason (the longest serving member) was born in the city. I am sure that Manchester does not need the Charlatans on their their page due to one member, it gets confusing as the band are already listed as being from Birmingham. Even Tony the replacemnet keyboardist is from the city limits.

Anyway i've amended the article to include Mark Collins who is a mancunian and the band name.

Nick Boulevard 22:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poll

On Nick Boulevard's additions, I think they're vague. It isn't enough to say that "although some say it is a missleading poll", you have to be more specific. I'm removing this until someone can come up with a specific, significant reference (not "the bloke I met down the pub says it's misleading.") --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "specific, significant reference"? It is very unlikely that some outside agency has done a point-by-point analysis of the methodology used by MORI for carrying out this poll. On the other hand, the bloke in the pub might reasonably point out that this is a poll of only 1,087 people, commissioned by Marketing Manchester in the immediate aftermath of the Commonwealth Games, in which Manchester was placed ahead of Birmingham by a mere 5 percentage points. All true - all taken from the link itself -and all evidence of its potential to mislead. I am not in favour of rehashing all of these criticisms on the article page, nor do I think that we should remove the reference (and link) to the poll. However, I do think we should be careful about how we word our reference to it. We might say that it bolsters, or can be seen as bolstering Manchester's claim. But to assert that it demonstrates the prevalence of a Manchester as second city point of view or similar is too much. It is suggestive, but it proves nothing. Mattley 00:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be honest guys, i wouldn't at all be bothered if the reference to second city was removed from Birmingham... but also Manchester pages, it's a crap term in many, many ways and readers can make up their own minds. Charlatans though, they are a west midland band through and through and as Tim Burgess the bands lead singer said himself that he wanted to distance the band from the madchester scene, it would be like saying that Pink Floyd were from Birmingham just because Nick Mason was in the band. Can we do that? :) Nick Boulevard 00:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and Tony, i was being stupidly sarcastic with my comments on second city Manc etc, the whole point is that i have met loads of people from down the pub, in work, on the net and so on that rightly or wrongly consider Birmingham as England second city, this may only amount to dozens of people in my entire life time but then surely that could be classed as a poll, i have never been in a discusion with smeone about England second city and then hear them correct me and say... "actually mate i think you mean Manchester" it doesn't really matter but i am just a little wary of the presses baiting of Brum lately and this second city thing seems to have been stirred up by people that have no vested interest in either city ;)

i would rather the manc title be removed re: second city or toned down before an edit war ensues and as a victim of a wiki edit war it really is a pain in the ace of spades.

Nick Boulevard 00:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'We might say that it bolsters, or can be seen as bolstering Manchester's claim. But to assert that it demonstrates the prevalence of a Manchester as second city point of view or similar is too much. It is suggestive, but it proves nothing.'

Actually if you look at the wording I have chosen it says this:

Manchester is more recently regarded as England's second city after London by many; a 2002 opinion poll [3] illustrates the prevalence of this impression; although Birmingham has a much larger population and has also claimed this title for many decades, fewer people described Birmingham as England's second city than Manchester.

So although we note that despite the fact that Manchester doesn't have the population to challenge Birmingham (which in my mind is easily the winner in the Second City stakes, for what it's worth), nevertheless in a fairly recent poll (yes, probably affected by recent high profile events in Manchester) significantly more people think Manchester is the second city (utter nonsense in my mind, but that makes the prevalence of the impression all the more significant).

To summarise:

  • I don't think Manchester has a ghost of a chance of challenging Birmingham as England's second city.
  • I do think the fact that so many people regard it as the second most important city is worth mentioning.

And 5% in a poll size of around 1000 is usually regarded as significant in opinion polling. The surprising thing is that the number who think of Manchester as England's second most important city is anywhere near those who think Birmingham is. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

how about:

Manchester is considered by some as England's second city after London; a 2002 opinion poll [4] illustrates the prevalence of this impression; although Birmingham has a much larger population and has also claimed this title for many decades, the title is infact irrelevant to either city.

??? Cheers

Nick Boulevard 20:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok well i've edited the second city title to try and please both sides, you cannot simply deny the fact that for many, many decades the second city has been Birmingham, it's a massive cultural place that gets grosely overlooked mainly by the press. Imagine if Manchester had been known as the second city for decades with hundreds of well established business's with 'second city' in their title (heaven forbid they ever read this page) and then one day the press decided they would pass the crown to Birmingham??? you'd be well pissed off and i don't think you would let it pass you by! Manchester is a magnificent vibrant city like Birmingham but it is not second to London in many ways, (in some ways Manc might be first?) i prefer to think of Manchester as the main city of the north west but even that may be contested by Liverpool and that is something i wish NOT to get emroiled in.

Nick Boulevard 22:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nick, I made it plain above that I think Birmingham's claim to Second City status is far, far stronger than Manchester's. Now I have no problem with your alternative wording except the last part of that last sentence.

It says: the title is infact irrelevant to either city.

That is a POV statement. Every other statement in my version and yours is NPOV. I'm replacing that by my own wording. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds fair... i still think that maybe we should remove the reference to 'second city' and just have 'second largest city' on the Birmingham page, i have a feeling it would save a lot of arguments for the future? Nick Boulevard 18:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just a warning to the anonymous user who keeps blanking this page, if you do it again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now you've been blocked. You will be welcome back afterwards if you don't vandalize pages. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we have an IP switching vandal. If this continues I'll protect the page for 24hrs or so. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page has been protected. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have to say I think it's utterly disgusting that people abuse this free resource and waste editors' time with this kind of blanking, vandalism, pissing about, to the extent that the page has to be protected from everything, even legitimate edits. Smileyrepublic 22:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)RESPONCE-birmingham_free_state@gawab.com

oh realy well, so you think its utterly disgusting do you. Well let me tell you some thing. I find it equally disgusting that this site lets such crap writting to be displayed,and Im talking here about the manchester page,I have never, ever,ever read such a biased view of Manchester.Birmingham is the second city never mind what some one like FAT BOY john prescot says.Heres somthing else for you to chew over as well, Im part of a large community of people in Birmingham that has had enough of this type thing being written.eg lies, bull, untrues, misleading information,spin and so on. unless the Manchester page is edited in a fair and unbiasd way in regard of its status eg "it is not regarded as the second city" ,continued editing and or deleting will carry on. No one minds the truth being told but bull shit is not exceptable.Oh yes in regard to the above statement "pissing out" it is no such thing we are deadly serious about this. so cut the crap, shit for brains. unsigned by vandal It was signed someone moved it.It is now at the beginning. birmingham_free_state@gawab.com

  • Well, friend, guess what? Looks like you earned yourself a block. Hmm, seeing that you're allowed to make edits, you could have just fixed these supposed irregularities. Well, instead, you were inflamatory, violated Wikipedia policy, and just BLANKED the articles. Now guess what? You're no longer allowed to make ANY edits. Congrats! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Page has been unprotected. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Second city

Difficult one, this, as the term is so vague. Obviously Birmingham has a higher population but in terms of influence (and football trophies :-P) Manchester does pretty well. I suggest trying to resolve this by citing sources - can we get references for people whose opinions are considered important (Blair would be a good example but can't find anything on google) saying which they consider to be the second city? It's perfectly reasonable to say that many consider Manchester to be Britain's second city - they do - but as with anything contentious it would be helpful to have a source.

Of course, I'm biased as hell and think Birmingham is Britain's second city - after Manchester. CTOAGN 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Second city petty

Manchester really does Itself no favours with its obsession with its doomed attempt at claiming second city status. Every school kid knows that Birmingham is the second city. All references to Manchester and second city should be removed, unless some one can come up with a good reason why not, Its no good just to say " well Manchester has in recent times had a more vibrant music scene, or we have the Manchester ship canal" That will not do. --user:Ashley2020 20.44, 15 August 2005

Quite agreed, there was a big row about this at Talk:Second city some time ago. G-Man 20:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone from the government down knows Birmingham is the UK's second city. A very silly paragraph - I think I'll take it out. Dan100 (Talk) 19:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dan you say "everyone from the government down knows Birmingham is the second city" Not on Wikipedia tho, Or at least people who have contributed to the Manchester page, as proved by the constant attempts to push Manchester's status as the second city.

At the end of the day "and all that" this is an encyclopedia and it could do with out all the "Ifs, Buts, and hyping". It needs to get back to bare facts. Then surely all would be happy. User:Ashley2020 22.07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's just the trouble - there are no "bare facts". The idea of a second city is in no sense well-defined, so there are just claims and counterclaims. We should report it as such. (but without going into too much detail, because it's just not that interesting) --Khendon 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
But what about leaving in a reference to the mistaken belief, as per something like an earlier wording by Tony Sidaway: Manchester is more recently regarded as England's second city after London by many; a 2002 opinion poll [3] illustrates the prevalence of this impression; although Birmingham has a much larger population and has also claimed this title for many decades, fewer people described Birmingham as England's second city than Manchester.? I'd pare this down to something like: Manchester is often believed to be England's second city [Poll reference] but its claim to this title is not borne out by population figures. I think it would be good to have here, preferably in the intro, so we can just describe it as a popularly-held misconception. Cormaggio 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Key to this is the population of Greater Manchester which, according to the National Statistics website is 2,482,328. The figure for West Midlands is 2,555,592 [5]. The figure for Birmingham [6] is 977,087. Now I know it's all a case of where you draw your boundaries. But those two figures above are surely close enough to warrant a mention of the belief of second city status, and then a confirmation that it isn't true - if indeed it isn't. Can we please have a bit of balance here? And correct figures as well, neither the old nor the current figure at time of writing are correct according to this figure I've supplied. Where is everyone else getting their figures? (I am, indeed, only asking, not accusing.) Cormaggio 20:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell, not this again. Do we have to? :-( This road leads to inevitable madness - we get an arms race of competing reasons until we have a huge and irrelevant "shopping list". Can we just say that people believe that both Manchester and Birmingham are the second city and leave it at that? Please? --Khendon 21:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't realised this had created such a fuss (I haven't been to Second city yet), but at the moment the article is without sources. That's what I'm trying to get here - sources for census figures, opinion polls and just report them. And yes, we probably will have to mention that people think both cities are second, just we'll have to say which one is actually bigger (probably Birmingham). You've been here for a while - was this what "core cities" was meant to address? Cormaggio 21:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources are good, certainly. Comparing sizes has to be done carefully - the "official" city boundaries aren't necessarily the most appropriate (you wouldn't use the population of the City of London to say that London was tiny, so don't do the same with Manchester). --Khendon 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I take your points here and above and agree that it's not so important or interesting which is bigger - but if we're including figures, like the ones I've supplied above, we are making implicit reference to this. Doesn't mean we're going to stop people arguing over it, mind. Cormaggio 22:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
But saying "people believe that both Manchester and Birmingham are the second city" is a little misleading. Surely It should be pointed out that an overwhelming majority of people across the entire UK believe (or recognize) Birmingham to be the second city, and then say "But some people confined to the city of Manchester believe Manchester the second city.
Its not up to Birmingham to prove its the second city, Its Manchester that has to prove that it is the second city. Otherwise maybe no mention of "second city" should be made in the Manchester page until absolute proof is shown. User:Ashley2020 10.45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
But this poll [7] says that most people in the UK thought Manchester was England's second city. We're not "proving" anything here, by the way. Cormaggio 12:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes but that poll was taken three years ago, straight after the Commonwealth Games when Manchester's profile was raised, and Manhester only won by a few percentage points. I doubt a similar opinion poll carried out today would yield the same results. Most of the sources saying that Manchester is the second city are Manchester based, and quote the above poll as their evidence, whereas the sources which say Birmingham are, are nationally based, e.g the national media. Which suggests that only Mancunians believe that Manc is the "second city". I believe it is utterly false and misleading to claim that B'ham and M'chester have equal right to claim the title. G-Man 12:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well that's why I wanted to qualify the belief as mistaken, but EarlyBird is adamantly opposed. What I think we need is some form of acceptable wording that doesn't arbitrate on which one is second, but rather report census figures and opinion polls and that's that. That's a fair point on when the poll was taken - I looked last night and couldn't find another poll - feel free to do so (BTW, it was also reported by the BBC). So how about this: "Manchester is sometimes believed to be England's Second city [8], but this claim is disputed by others, particularly Birmingham"? Then we describe the controversy on Second city. Cormaggio 12:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Crime and policing in Manchester

I have had it in my mind for a while to start an article Crime and policing in Manchester. This would serve as an informal portal for such much needed and overdue articles as:

- in addition to providing a home for all the stuff on gun-related crime which does seem to take up a disproportionate amount of space in the main articles. Any thoughts on this idea? Cutler 20:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

    • Good idea. There's so much more to Manchester and this stuff in the main article could have made people look at the city in a bad light - it's in the past now. Smileyrepublic 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Sorry guys, I had to do a really messy revert. Looks like our article-blanking friend got by. You may find the previous discussions in the page history. Again, I apologize. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

212.100.150.x

This IP range seems to do little other than vandalise the Manchester article. Where would be the best place to request a block be put on it? Smileyrepublic 10:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an admin, I will deal with him as soon as I get back from work. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

So you are going to deal with me are you. We are so scared!!. No really we are terrified. I just took at look at your info page. I presume you do not have a girl friend?. Maybe you should get out of the house a little more and find a girl friend I am sure it would do you the power of good!. As soon as the offending material on Manchester ( items suggesting it is the second city ) are removed, then we can move on. It realy is not our intention to annoy but we are also annoyed with such articals. birmingham_free_state@gawab.com

Try signing your posts with ~~~~ instead of your email address. Nope, don't have a girlfriend, but why does that even matter? Now give me proof that Manchester isn't the second city. Otherwise, go away. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. There are actually some decent constructive edits being done by a BBC anon now. Smileyrepublic

Page protection

Just a heads up: In a few hours, the article page will be protected until futher notice while we figure out an appropriate way to deal with the vandalism. If you want to make an edit during the protection period, PM me and I will allow you to edit it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am unprotecting the page again. If there is another blanking incident concerning the status as "second city", it will be dealt with swiftly. Remember to be bold, but you better cite your sources. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Arndale centre/Bullring

The Bull_Ring,_Birmingham article claims that's the biggest shopping centre in Europe - clearly one of the articles is wrong, and I believe it's this one (someone can change it if its not...). I also reworded the section as it seemed to imply that Manchester is unique in having two indoor shopping centres, rather than two large ones.

--Alex Whittaker 17:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a link to Manchester New Hampshire, As this is an equally important city in the US.

If Birmingham Alabama has a link in the Birmingham UK page, then I don't see why Manchester New Hampshire does not also have a link? So if no one objects then I shall add one.

--user:Ashley2020 20.22 15 August 2005.

This article is poor

I have to say this is one of the poorer articles about UK cities. It seems to consist mostly of lists, and reads more like a travel guide than an encyclopedia article. Compare this to say the Birmingham, Bristol Liverpool or London articles, and you will see that this is sorely lacking. Its about time some serious effort as put into bringing this up to standard. G-Man 20:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To right, Looks like we might be on the same wave length on this one, as you said it does "consist mostly of lists", but not only that it seems to go out of its way in doing a very good imitation of the "Manchester tourist bureau". It needs a complete overhaul with the misleading stuff and over hype removed. --user:Ashley2020 23:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been taking out the worst crap - now on to making it read more coherently and look nicer.. Cormaggio 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The Music section is terrible and rather boring, surely the Manchester music scene should be to the point and above all, make you want to read on, I am sure there are loads of bands missed off the list? Nick Boulevard 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Third-largest airport"

In what terms? Land area? Passengers a year? Daily flights? How much of that is freight? Dan100 (Talk) 19:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

In terms of passengers a year it's actually fourth. As this is verifiable information, I am amending as such. Dan100 (Talk) 19:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
What's third, as a matter of interest? Cormaggio 01:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


Neutrality

Not a neutral page at all. --The Bad Tax Man 11:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain? David 11:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's biased. Ask Taxman for more info. --The Bad Tax Man 11:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You're a troll. David 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, David. Taxman knows this is a biased article. --The Bad Tax Man 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it a biased article then? David 11:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You ask Taxman, he knows why. --The Bad Tax Man 11:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this guy is a troll - can someone lock up the article and deal with this? David 11:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Taxman, GraemeL, Violetriga and Pigsonthewing all know this is NOT a neutral article. --The Bad Tax Man 11:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You need to get out more and make some friends. David 11:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
David, please don't give this person any attention. Instead just try to address the article - it does need improvement. Meantime, said user has an appointment with a cluestick. Cormaggio @ 12:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Troll user The Bad Tax Man is permanently banned. -- Arwel 12:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Arwel. Cormaggio @ 12:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This inserting and reverting of the NPOV tag is doing no good whatsoever. Can those who are unhappy with this article please stop taking up so much time making a point and just improving it? Because this is just ridiculous. Cormaggio @ 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignore it, it was pure vandalism. The same vandal hit a number of other pages. -- Curps 20:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester/Archive_1&oldid=1048157661"