![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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)
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)
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)
ok. They are back again. I will monitor it and take the apropriate action if required. DDStretch (talk) 23:29, 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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).
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
Turns out there's a lot of drink. City review: Manchester, England. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 20:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Manchester has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 :
Metrolink123 ( talk) 11:04, 1 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Martinevans123 Quite possibly yes. That would be one definitive way of marking the distinction. Metrolink123 ( talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
References
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Manchester has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction, can you add that it’s a major city? 70.71.80.27 ( talk) 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
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)
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)
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, ~
Lindsay
H
ello
22:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
, 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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)
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)
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)
ok. They are back again. I will monitor it and take the apropriate action if required. DDStretch (talk) 23:29, 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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).
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
Turns out there's a lot of drink. City review: Manchester, England. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 20:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Manchester has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 :
Metrolink123 ( talk) 11:04, 1 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Martinevans123 Quite possibly yes. That would be one definitive way of marking the distinction. Metrolink123 ( talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
References
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Manchester has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction, can you add that it’s a major city? 70.71.80.27 ( talk) 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
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)
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)
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, ~
Lindsay
H
ello
22:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
, 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)
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)