![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm sure i was told Manchester has the biggest student population in europe. Anyone know of any bigger ones? Plugwash 23:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Users have been warring over this page so it has been temporarily protected. Please discuss where the redirect should go on Talk:City of Manchester and leave me a message when that is resolved. Thank you. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Why has some new user steamed in, removed the extensive page on Manchester, redirected it to Greater Manchester and taken the Manchester page to "City of Manchester"?!
What a fucking mess. 86.138.10.139 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back home, Manchester! Hope you enjoyed your little trip. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
There are many inaccuracies throughout the article. Please check. -- Litherland 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"As with the conurbation around London, many people have come to regard Manchester as a city in its own right, despite the fact that neither officially has City status."
On the City Status article, Manchester and London are both in the list of cities, but this paragraph says they arent?
I don't really know much about this, but surely thats wrong?
Having done some research, this article as it currently stands is in clear breach of the No original research policy, which clearly states that editors are not allowed to invent their own definitions of a subject, based upon original research. G-Man 20:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Please read through the detailed discussions in the City of Manchester talk page. Mr ed 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
A more full and detailed discussion regarding this matter is currently taking place on the City of Manchester talk page. I think all would agree that trying to engage in a lenghty discussion across two pages is at best confusing and at worst disadvantageous to the expression of the points raised by everyone.
As I did above, I refer everybody to the discussion on the City of Manchester:Talk page. Mr ed 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Please add suggestions at Talk:City_of_Manchester#Definitions about which Manchester-related articles we should have and what each of them should contain. Cormaggio @ 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is referring to Manchester as a Conurbation. This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham. There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. -- BigBriton 12:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
This page has been temporarily protected so that disputes about where the redirects should be can be discussed rather than warred over. Please discuss and leave a message for me when a solution has been reached. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 15:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I've lived in Manchester my entire life and in my experience people generally do refer to much of the urban area as 'Manchester' not 'Greater Manchester'. People from Trafford and Salford in particular. I think having seperate articles is necessary, come on, if someone wants to find out about the area around MUFC, they will type 'Manchester' and not 'Trafford'. 82.31.97.209 16:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I live in Trafford but everyone who lives here dosent call it that. If I go somewhere are someone asks where are you from I say Manchester. If they say what part I'll say Sale and they'll oh ye. If you said Trafford to them they would be like "wheres that?". (unsigned comment by 81.97.11.143)
Right, having looked at the comments above, would I be right in saying that this is the genral consensus here for the articles about Manchester?
Is that right? If so, is someone willing to make the article on the connurbation? If so, ten call on me again and I'll unprotect. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
EarlyBird's pedantic posturing over exact borough names makes me wonder if he is either:
The Manchester article (as it was yesterday) encompassed most of what people thought of when they thought Manchester. Replacing it with a load of articles about arbitrarily-defined metropolitan boroughs strikes me as the work of someone with too much time on their hands, and only a tenuous grasp on the real world that (most of) the rest of us are living in. EarlyBird has steamed in here, trashed the place with clumsy copy-and-paste page moves and redirects - and meanwhile, the entire Wikipedia article space on our city is paralysed by protected pages. Change it back to how it was immediately. 86.138.10.139 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - This comment was by me, but the god-awful, slow software this site runs is logging me out every few minutes. Smileyrepublic 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, i live in salford, i am a mancunian. I have yet to meet one person in my entire existence from salford that doesn't consider them self a resident of Manchester. Please carry out the proposed changes. Thankyou, kids in the riot. 86.1.49.182 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)# 24.162.17.93 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Created a separate bit for this as it's getting cluttered up there:
There isn't a consensus at present. My opinions are:
I'm open to suggestions on it, but unless what we can define exactly what the conurbation of Manchester is, and what should go in Stockport/Manchester/Tameside etc and what would belong in Conurbation of Manchester, we should leave things as they were.
I also think the articles should be reverted the way they were for now (Manchester not being a redirect, City of Manchester being a redirect) and that any move should go on Wikipedia:Requested moves for voting. This page has had too many editors and too much debate to allow one person to decide to move it without first getting a consensus. CTOAGN 20:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
CTOAGN, this has already been done for us. The Office for National Statistics has produced a document detailing the Manchester Urban Area. It is as follows:
D90200 Greater Manchester Urban Area
D90250 Altrincham D90237 Ashton-under-Lyne D90224 Atherton D90241 Audenshaw D90206 Bolton D90251 Bowdon D90249 Bredbury and Romiley D90248 Brinnington D90207 Bromley Cross/Bradshaw D90209 Bury D90218 Chadderton D90253 Cheadle and Gatley D90243 Denton (Tameside) D90236 Droylsden D90242 Dukinfield D90233 Eccles D90230 Failsworth D90213 Farnworth D90252 Hale D90254 Hazel Grove and Bramhall D90261 Helsby D90210 Heywood D90222 Hindley D90205 Horwich D90244 Hyde D90258 Irlam D90227 Kearsley D90223 Leigh D90204 Littleborough D90214 Little Lever D90245 Longdendale D90235 Manchester D90217 Middleton D90212 Milnrow D90221 Oldham D90259 Partington D90256 Poynton D90229 Prestwich D90215 Radcliffe D90201 Ramsbottom D90211 Rochdale D90219 Royton D90246 Sale D90234 Salford D90220 Shaw D90238 Stalybridge D90247 Stockport D90240 Stretford D90228 Swinton and Pendlebury D90208 Tottington D90225 Tyldesley D90239 Urmston D90226 Walkden D90203 Wardle D90216 Whitefield D90202 Whitworth D90255 Wilmslow/Alderley Edge
Note, this doesn't include outlying places like Wigan, which have their own urban areas. Total population of this area is 2,244,931.
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8271.xls
EarlyBird 20:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I live in Sale, Trafford, I consider myself to be a Mancunian, from Manchester, as does everyone else I know.
In my opinion, what essentially are political boundaries are not representative, in the slightest, of what is considered to be Manchester.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned I think there should be three articles, firstly one for the area of land, where people live and pay council tax to Manchester city council - the City of Manchester page - I think we all agree on that???
There should also be a page that refers to Greater Manchester, and should be an article similar to that for, say the West Midlands.
However, since neither of these articles gets close to describing what most of the locals actually understand to be Manchester, I believe that there should be a third article, essentially describing the urban area that surrounds the area described in the City of Manchester page. This would include all the areas listed in Earlybirds earlier posting.
Otherwise, the area you are describing in the other articles do not relate to the reality of what people undestand Manchester to be - isn't that the whole idea of an encyclopedia, to reflect reality? I think the first line should read something like... 'The urban area that spans the Greater Manchester boroughs of... is commonly known as Manchester', otherwise, the articles do not reflect what people actually understand Manchester to be.
Fo example, looking at the following image from Multimap...
http://mc.multimap.com/cs/os50k//X15/Y15/X1532Y1588S25W700H400.gif
the people who live south of St Georges are, in reality, living in the same city as those who live just to the north (Trafford - south and Mancheseter - north).
So in short, 3 articles, City of Manchester, Greater Manchester and Manchester (the urban bit of Greater Manchester) otherwise, you are not reflecting what people understand to be Manchester.
To show how people see the urban area as Manchester have a look at how the Chamions League final was described...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League#1999_to_2003_-_Varied_success
says "who lifted the trophy in Manchester"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/news/words/general/030528_witn.shtml
says "Italian fans travelled to England in their thousands for the European champions league final in Manchester in the north of England today."
Even the Italians see it all as Manchester...
http://www.gazzetta.it/speciali/champions_league/2003/index.shtml
There are plenty more examples like this, that show that people in general describe the urban area as Manchester, and do not simply relate to the part that pays council tax to the city of Manchester council - not to reflect this would surely be a mistake.
By the way, UEFA always hold a ceromony outside the town hall for the local city to show off the trophy, when the final was held in Manchester in 2003, that ceromony took place outside the Manchester town hall, and NOT the Trafford one.
In short we need 3 articles City of Manchester(Council/History stuff etc) Greater Manchester describing the conurbation as a whole, including any places of interest such as Old Trafford stadium The Quays etc, then Manchester which could describe the WHOLE urban area and not just the centre of town or MCC controlled places. I've never met anyone in my entire life (36 yrs)who comes from any part of GM that doesn't just say they live in Manchester no matter if they live in Sale, Salford, where ever, it needs to be addressed IMO.Why is it different for London?
This is madness. The job of wikipedia is to be accurate and to state what is true, not to state what some people assume to be true. There is a city/metropolitan district called "Manchester" with a population of around 400,000, and a county called "Greater Manchester" with a population around 2 1/2 million. Both should have articles with their correct names that describe them accurately and describe their relationship to each other and the surrounding areas. If somebody thinks that the "Greater Manchester Urban Area" deserves an article (doubtful IMO) then write one and call it the "Greater Manchester Urban Area".
If most people in Trafford think of themselves as Mancunians then the Trafford article should say "most people in Trafford think of themselves as Mancunians". It should NOT say "Trafford is part of Manchester" because that would be inaccurate - Trafford and Manchester are separate boroughs in Greater Manchester (it could of course say "most of Trafford forms part of the urban area around Manchester", because that would be true).
Look at other cities that are also parts of larger conurbations - does the Boston article say "Cambridge is part of Boston", does the Newcastle article say "North Shields is part of Newcastle", does the San Fransisco article say "Silicon Valley is part of San Fransisco"? No? Why not? Because it wouldn't be true. San francisco isn't the same as the Bay Area, Newcastle isn't the same as Tyneside and by the same token Manchester isn't the same as Greater Manchester.
The London comparison is wrong too. There is an article about the region called "London", one about the administrative area called "Greater London" (which has the same borders as the region called "London") and one about the much smaller "City of London". All are titled accurately and refer to their subjects accurately. There is no article called "London" that refers to all of London's conurbation, so this is no justification for doing this for Manchester's conurbation either. Manchester should follow the same rule - accurate articles accurately titled. JimmyGuano 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW its not so much what you did that i object to, its how it was done (i saw what certainly appeared to be a copypaste move though it now seems messier than that) and the fact that an admin protected the results of unilateral edits! Plugwash 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, this seems more to be about a discussion about what a city is, some are claiming it is the area within a political boundaries, whilst others claim it to be an urban area - I'd suggest that until we agree on this we will not be able to decide on what 'Manchester' is, i.e. is it the city of Manchester (the bit over which Manchester city council control the refuse collection for) or the urban area, like myself and Earlybird?
So, we need to decide what a city is, using the Wikipedia definition i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
"A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core, but in the United States many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, or a suburban or even mostly rural character, are designated as cities. City can also be a synonym for "downtown" or a "city centre".
Then it is obvious that the urban area is the correct way for defining a city (this Encylopedia needs to be consistent if nothing else).
The problem I have with having cities defined by political boundaries (especially on an internet based global encyclopedia) is that your definition of a city does not transpose well to other cultures.
For example, if you are defining a city as having local political boundaries, are you claiming communist countries such as North Korea that may not have similar authorities, do not have any cities?
Until we decide on what a city is, then this discussion is pointless - I suggest instead of agruing about the Manchester definition, those unhappy about a city being described as an urban area put forward a sensible way of defining a city, that will work internationally (since we are on the www), and uses local political boundaries.
It seems to be accepted by both sides of the argument that consistency is important. As there is already a project looking to establish consistent naming conventions for articles on UK subdivisions (including cities) at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions, shouldn't this debate be continued there, with the Manchester articles conforming to the existing convention until a new one is established, and any new convention can be used consistently across the UK? JimmyGuano 09:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
(Keep It Simple Stupid)
I think we should keep things as simple as possible. There should be only two "Manchester" articles - City of Manchester and Greater Manchester. The debate should be whether the article Manchester redirects to the City of Manchester (like it did pre-EarlyBird) or to the Greater Manchester article. I can't really decide which. David 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this insistence that a city ends when a local political authorities remit ends - I can find no web sites that define a city in such a way, e.g.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=city
says amongst others...
cit·y Audio pronunciation of "city" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st) n. pl. cit·ies
1. A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance.
and
city
n 1: a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts;
This web site itself describes a city as being an urban area and NOT a political authority.
If you are going to insist on describing Manchester in the same manner as the city of Manchester, then you are going to have to alter your article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City since it will be wrongn as it describes a city as...
"A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core, but in the United States many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, or a suburban or even mostly rural character, are designated as cities. City can also be a synonym for"
and does not mention political authorities.
Also, since no one has come up with a decent way of defining a city, other than the one that we already have, that will work internationally, I suggest we stick with the definition of city that we have, we have a "city of Manchester" article that describes the local plot of land that MCC control, a "Greater Manchester" one for the 10 bourghs, and a "Manchester" one, for the area that is defined by the definition of a city i.e. the urban area. Manchester Kurt 13:06 17th October
Here is another one...
http://gouk.about.com/od/thenorthwest/a/manchester.htm
It is entitled "Marvellous Manchester" and discusses what Manchester has to offer. Lets look at some of the places it mentions.
None of these are within the City of Manchester boundary.
EarlyBird 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Another example, the Manchester food and drink festival - look at the locations for the events...
http://www.foodanddrinkfestival.com/
Seems that the organisers don't use political boundaries to relate to where they are describing Manchester.
Where has this idea that a city is defined by political boundaries come from? It is not a dictionary definition as far as I call tell, and certainly not one that could be held consistently across international boarders.
Manchester Kurt 14:15, 17 October 2005
I take it from the lack of response from those saying that a city is defined by it's political boundaries we may be getting somewhere?
If we have agreed (I presume by the silence) that a city if NOT defined by the area over which a council controls, but rather an urban area (as defined in both Wikipedia and dictionary.com) then the 'city of Manchester' artcile is no where near what 'Manchester' really is???
Surely, the only logical conclusion is the have an article called 'City of Manchester' - the area controlled by the council, one called 'Greater Manchester' for all 10 boroughs, and one call 'Manchester' which refers to Manchester as defined by a dictionary and this web site itself.
Manchester Kurt 08:51, 18 October 2005
Small point, but they are not my definitions, but the definitons of a dictionary and this web site - the one we need to be consistent with.
Small point, but they are not my definitions, but the definitons of a dictionary and this web site - the one we need to be consistent with. Manchester Kurt
It seems that our friend EarlyBird is a bit of a local government anorak. In the real world our lives don't stop at the arbitrary boundaries set by our political leaders - we live in a city, and that city is as one. It'd be nice if he'd asked before messing up the article and killing its long edit history. 86.138.10.139 15:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am going to move these pages back to their original positions. Seem as this mess has been created by one user without any consultation or agreement. EarlyBird I suggest that if you want to move it back again then you take the issue to Wikipedia: Requested page moves. If you try changing things back again without the correct proceedures I will request these pages to be blocked. G-Man 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you should sort this out in a sensible manner on this page. If you continue to revert each others edits then you may be blocked as per the three revert rule. Fir e Fo x 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Abusive??? would you like to point out any abusive comments. If they are seen as abusive it was not intentional. G-Man 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Earlybirds says hes got consensus but it came from here [blacklisted links removed] (he deleted this from the Manchester discussion which why its blank)
EarlyBird 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment
Can we revert back to how these articles were before this began and then have this conversation? I am not opposed to having 3 articles but I can't vote to keep the mess we have now. The quality of the Manchester article was far greater than the two we have now and should be reinstated and used as a starting point for any future split - the details of which should be discussed first. MRSC 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
What people want is for the Manchester article to correctly reflect what a majority of people consider Manchester to be. Manchester Would you like to provide evidence about what the majority of people think Manchester is. Do you have any surveys to prove this?. This is pure conjecture withou any evidence. There is only one official entity called Manchester. I know people who live in Ashton-under-Lyne who most definately do not consider themselves to live in Manchester, likewise people who live in Salford, yet according to you they do. It should perhaps be noted that people informally use 'Manchester' to refer to the urban area, but that is about all. Informal usage is not good enough reason to go splitting up encyclopedia articles.
Of course if this is split up, then for consistancy sake we would have to move Birmingham to West Midlands conurbation because some people informally refer to the entire area as 'Birmingham'. And we would also have to move Liverpool to Merseyside. And Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Tyneside. This is a can of worms. G-Man 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Ps. I do not accept the votes made my all these anonymous IP's as valid, unless they have made at least 100 edits see here G-Man 21:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I dont know exactly where this majority you talk of is. Well lets put this to the test then shall we and hold a vote.
I now vote for this, on the basis that "City of Manchester" and "Greater Manchester" are fundamentally political constructs (like Salford, Bolton, Rusholme), whereas "Manchester" is a socio-cultural one.
Cormaggio
@
22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Against split
For split
Looking above it seems this poll was instigated to prove/disprove there is a majority who want the Manchster article split.
There is clearly not a majority who wanted change so I suggest we revert now to the original content while we continue this conversation as I fear it might drag on a bit and divert us from any improvement work. MRSC 13:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this article from page moves. It was apparently moved to Manchester (city) and then a clone was pasted in its place. -- Tony Sidaway[[User talk:Tony
Woke up this mornin', feelin' fine - then I read the history of the City of Manchester page. Can people please calm down with the redirecting until a clear consensus emerges? The straw poll above is pretty vague when you take out the anonymous votes (and where are they all coming from all of a sudden?) Cormaggio @ 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any official definition of manchester as refering the urban area, I dont think so. The fact that many people confuse manchester and greater manchester is no justification for creating daft duplicate articles. An encyclopedia is here to give facts not cement them in their ignorance. Bob Matthews 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes Bob, there is. The Office of National Statistics has compiled a list entitled 'Key studies for Urban areas', in which it lists the 'Greater Manchester Urban Area' as having a population of 2.2 million. It does not include all of greater Manchester, it is a seperate area defined by the ONS. [4]
It is entirely sensible that there should be a page entitled Manchester dealing with the conurbation, due to the reasons discussed above. Mr ed 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this talk page is currently running at 72k, all generated in the heat of the last 4/5 days - I suggest we nail it. We now have four Manchester-related articles - clearly this is too many. So why don't we define exactly what should and (where relevant) should not go in each article, and whether one article should redirect to another:
To reply to your above posts, the problem with your arguments are as follows:
G-Man 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I will be able to offer support with all of the above but need someone able to complete point #2 (without resorting to cut and paste). MRSC 07:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
We haven't heard from User:EarlyBird, the person who started all this in the first place for a while. I wonder if he still feels so strongly about it all? MRSC 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The dispute about the location and number of "Manchester" articles has now been going on for at least 10 days and the current pages Manchester and City of Manchester show significant overlap (look at the History sections) and are a mess (does the Bibliography on City of Manchester only refer to the city proper - I think not). Our first and only priority is to write an encyclopedia; to impart knowledge, not just facts, and the current mess fails to do this. There are therefore two questions:
My view is that we should have one page, at Manchester, that includes most of our information about the city (in the broad sense - possibly without delimitating the boundary in any detail). Sections would include history, industry, culture, economy sport and so on. None of these subjects follow local authority boundaries so they should not need to be discussed in the other articles. Another important section would be local government. This should talk about the existence of Greater Manchester (and link to it) and the cities and boroughs that make up Manchester. I'm unsure if we need a separate article about the City of Manchester - I suppose a list of wards and more information about the council would be over the top for Manchester so we may need a separate page but I don't think the information we currently have is enough to justify one. If we choose to have a separate City of Manchester page it should host the template but some of the information would need to be in Manchester's local government section. If not, the template would go on Manchester but we would need to note that the template information relates to the local government area not the extended city. Information about the Greater Manchester Urban Area should go in the economy section (but could also grow into its own page if there is enough info - at present I don't think there is). This is all only my view, and we should discuss the proposal. What is important is that implementing this needs more than a few page moves, redirect redirection, and the odd bit of copy and paste.
How do we achieve point 1 and start to improve things? I'm afraid we would have to follow steps 1 - 3 of User:Mrsteviec's October 24 suggestion. And could we remove some of the talk page redirects? Andreww 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
A few points:
G-Man 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on this page is doing nothing for the good of the article or the wikipedia, and that should be our top priority above any of our POVs. Having thought about this I'm going to revert City of Manchester back to the old combined article (it's in the City of Manchester's article history rather than the Manchester history because of a page move) and then make Manchester a redirect to City of Manchester. I'm then going to suggest at WP:RM that City of Manchester gets moved back to Manchester. This achieves two things:
MRSC 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is referring to the "Manchester Conurbation". This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham. There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. -- BigBriton 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I've had a look today and moved some sections and tried to work out what is missing from the article. Two main things so far which need work:
MRSC 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here? There's loads in this article that would more logically go in [[Greater Manchester]. I understand about the whole "Trafford/Salford/Sale is really part of Manchester" argument that I won't get involved in, but "Manchester is represented by Wigan Warriors"? Be real! There's also references to Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and Bolton scattered throughout the article - surely they should go in their own town articles, or in the Greater Manchester one. Steven J 19:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Article was originally moved without consensus.
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm sure i was told Manchester has the biggest student population in europe. Anyone know of any bigger ones? Plugwash 23:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Users have been warring over this page so it has been temporarily protected. Please discuss where the redirect should go on Talk:City of Manchester and leave me a message when that is resolved. Thank you. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Why has some new user steamed in, removed the extensive page on Manchester, redirected it to Greater Manchester and taken the Manchester page to "City of Manchester"?!
What a fucking mess. 86.138.10.139 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back home, Manchester! Hope you enjoyed your little trip. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
There are many inaccuracies throughout the article. Please check. -- Litherland 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"As with the conurbation around London, many people have come to regard Manchester as a city in its own right, despite the fact that neither officially has City status."
On the City Status article, Manchester and London are both in the list of cities, but this paragraph says they arent?
I don't really know much about this, but surely thats wrong?
Having done some research, this article as it currently stands is in clear breach of the No original research policy, which clearly states that editors are not allowed to invent their own definitions of a subject, based upon original research. G-Man 20:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Please read through the detailed discussions in the City of Manchester talk page. Mr ed 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
A more full and detailed discussion regarding this matter is currently taking place on the City of Manchester talk page. I think all would agree that trying to engage in a lenghty discussion across two pages is at best confusing and at worst disadvantageous to the expression of the points raised by everyone.
As I did above, I refer everybody to the discussion on the City of Manchester:Talk page. Mr ed 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Please add suggestions at Talk:City_of_Manchester#Definitions about which Manchester-related articles we should have and what each of them should contain. Cormaggio @ 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is referring to Manchester as a Conurbation. This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham. There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. -- BigBriton 12:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
This page has been temporarily protected so that disputes about where the redirects should be can be discussed rather than warred over. Please discuss and leave a message for me when a solution has been reached. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 15:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I've lived in Manchester my entire life and in my experience people generally do refer to much of the urban area as 'Manchester' not 'Greater Manchester'. People from Trafford and Salford in particular. I think having seperate articles is necessary, come on, if someone wants to find out about the area around MUFC, they will type 'Manchester' and not 'Trafford'. 82.31.97.209 16:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I live in Trafford but everyone who lives here dosent call it that. If I go somewhere are someone asks where are you from I say Manchester. If they say what part I'll say Sale and they'll oh ye. If you said Trafford to them they would be like "wheres that?". (unsigned comment by 81.97.11.143)
Right, having looked at the comments above, would I be right in saying that this is the genral consensus here for the articles about Manchester?
Is that right? If so, is someone willing to make the article on the connurbation? If so, ten call on me again and I'll unprotect. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
EarlyBird's pedantic posturing over exact borough names makes me wonder if he is either:
The Manchester article (as it was yesterday) encompassed most of what people thought of when they thought Manchester. Replacing it with a load of articles about arbitrarily-defined metropolitan boroughs strikes me as the work of someone with too much time on their hands, and only a tenuous grasp on the real world that (most of) the rest of us are living in. EarlyBird has steamed in here, trashed the place with clumsy copy-and-paste page moves and redirects - and meanwhile, the entire Wikipedia article space on our city is paralysed by protected pages. Change it back to how it was immediately. 86.138.10.139 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - This comment was by me, but the god-awful, slow software this site runs is logging me out every few minutes. Smileyrepublic 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, i live in salford, i am a mancunian. I have yet to meet one person in my entire existence from salford that doesn't consider them self a resident of Manchester. Please carry out the proposed changes. Thankyou, kids in the riot. 86.1.49.182 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)# 24.162.17.93 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Created a separate bit for this as it's getting cluttered up there:
There isn't a consensus at present. My opinions are:
I'm open to suggestions on it, but unless what we can define exactly what the conurbation of Manchester is, and what should go in Stockport/Manchester/Tameside etc and what would belong in Conurbation of Manchester, we should leave things as they were.
I also think the articles should be reverted the way they were for now (Manchester not being a redirect, City of Manchester being a redirect) and that any move should go on Wikipedia:Requested moves for voting. This page has had too many editors and too much debate to allow one person to decide to move it without first getting a consensus. CTOAGN 20:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
CTOAGN, this has already been done for us. The Office for National Statistics has produced a document detailing the Manchester Urban Area. It is as follows:
D90200 Greater Manchester Urban Area
D90250 Altrincham D90237 Ashton-under-Lyne D90224 Atherton D90241 Audenshaw D90206 Bolton D90251 Bowdon D90249 Bredbury and Romiley D90248 Brinnington D90207 Bromley Cross/Bradshaw D90209 Bury D90218 Chadderton D90253 Cheadle and Gatley D90243 Denton (Tameside) D90236 Droylsden D90242 Dukinfield D90233 Eccles D90230 Failsworth D90213 Farnworth D90252 Hale D90254 Hazel Grove and Bramhall D90261 Helsby D90210 Heywood D90222 Hindley D90205 Horwich D90244 Hyde D90258 Irlam D90227 Kearsley D90223 Leigh D90204 Littleborough D90214 Little Lever D90245 Longdendale D90235 Manchester D90217 Middleton D90212 Milnrow D90221 Oldham D90259 Partington D90256 Poynton D90229 Prestwich D90215 Radcliffe D90201 Ramsbottom D90211 Rochdale D90219 Royton D90246 Sale D90234 Salford D90220 Shaw D90238 Stalybridge D90247 Stockport D90240 Stretford D90228 Swinton and Pendlebury D90208 Tottington D90225 Tyldesley D90239 Urmston D90226 Walkden D90203 Wardle D90216 Whitefield D90202 Whitworth D90255 Wilmslow/Alderley Edge
Note, this doesn't include outlying places like Wigan, which have their own urban areas. Total population of this area is 2,244,931.
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8271.xls
EarlyBird 20:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I live in Sale, Trafford, I consider myself to be a Mancunian, from Manchester, as does everyone else I know.
In my opinion, what essentially are political boundaries are not representative, in the slightest, of what is considered to be Manchester.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned I think there should be three articles, firstly one for the area of land, where people live and pay council tax to Manchester city council - the City of Manchester page - I think we all agree on that???
There should also be a page that refers to Greater Manchester, and should be an article similar to that for, say the West Midlands.
However, since neither of these articles gets close to describing what most of the locals actually understand to be Manchester, I believe that there should be a third article, essentially describing the urban area that surrounds the area described in the City of Manchester page. This would include all the areas listed in Earlybirds earlier posting.
Otherwise, the area you are describing in the other articles do not relate to the reality of what people undestand Manchester to be - isn't that the whole idea of an encyclopedia, to reflect reality? I think the first line should read something like... 'The urban area that spans the Greater Manchester boroughs of... is commonly known as Manchester', otherwise, the articles do not reflect what people actually understand Manchester to be.
Fo example, looking at the following image from Multimap...
http://mc.multimap.com/cs/os50k//X15/Y15/X1532Y1588S25W700H400.gif
the people who live south of St Georges are, in reality, living in the same city as those who live just to the north (Trafford - south and Mancheseter - north).
So in short, 3 articles, City of Manchester, Greater Manchester and Manchester (the urban bit of Greater Manchester) otherwise, you are not reflecting what people understand to be Manchester.
To show how people see the urban area as Manchester have a look at how the Chamions League final was described...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League#1999_to_2003_-_Varied_success
says "who lifted the trophy in Manchester"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/news/words/general/030528_witn.shtml
says "Italian fans travelled to England in their thousands for the European champions league final in Manchester in the north of England today."
Even the Italians see it all as Manchester...
http://www.gazzetta.it/speciali/champions_league/2003/index.shtml
There are plenty more examples like this, that show that people in general describe the urban area as Manchester, and do not simply relate to the part that pays council tax to the city of Manchester council - not to reflect this would surely be a mistake.
By the way, UEFA always hold a ceromony outside the town hall for the local city to show off the trophy, when the final was held in Manchester in 2003, that ceromony took place outside the Manchester town hall, and NOT the Trafford one.
In short we need 3 articles City of Manchester(Council/History stuff etc) Greater Manchester describing the conurbation as a whole, including any places of interest such as Old Trafford stadium The Quays etc, then Manchester which could describe the WHOLE urban area and not just the centre of town or MCC controlled places. I've never met anyone in my entire life (36 yrs)who comes from any part of GM that doesn't just say they live in Manchester no matter if they live in Sale, Salford, where ever, it needs to be addressed IMO.Why is it different for London?
This is madness. The job of wikipedia is to be accurate and to state what is true, not to state what some people assume to be true. There is a city/metropolitan district called "Manchester" with a population of around 400,000, and a county called "Greater Manchester" with a population around 2 1/2 million. Both should have articles with their correct names that describe them accurately and describe their relationship to each other and the surrounding areas. If somebody thinks that the "Greater Manchester Urban Area" deserves an article (doubtful IMO) then write one and call it the "Greater Manchester Urban Area".
If most people in Trafford think of themselves as Mancunians then the Trafford article should say "most people in Trafford think of themselves as Mancunians". It should NOT say "Trafford is part of Manchester" because that would be inaccurate - Trafford and Manchester are separate boroughs in Greater Manchester (it could of course say "most of Trafford forms part of the urban area around Manchester", because that would be true).
Look at other cities that are also parts of larger conurbations - does the Boston article say "Cambridge is part of Boston", does the Newcastle article say "North Shields is part of Newcastle", does the San Fransisco article say "Silicon Valley is part of San Fransisco"? No? Why not? Because it wouldn't be true. San francisco isn't the same as the Bay Area, Newcastle isn't the same as Tyneside and by the same token Manchester isn't the same as Greater Manchester.
The London comparison is wrong too. There is an article about the region called "London", one about the administrative area called "Greater London" (which has the same borders as the region called "London") and one about the much smaller "City of London". All are titled accurately and refer to their subjects accurately. There is no article called "London" that refers to all of London's conurbation, so this is no justification for doing this for Manchester's conurbation either. Manchester should follow the same rule - accurate articles accurately titled. JimmyGuano 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW its not so much what you did that i object to, its how it was done (i saw what certainly appeared to be a copypaste move though it now seems messier than that) and the fact that an admin protected the results of unilateral edits! Plugwash 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, this seems more to be about a discussion about what a city is, some are claiming it is the area within a political boundaries, whilst others claim it to be an urban area - I'd suggest that until we agree on this we will not be able to decide on what 'Manchester' is, i.e. is it the city of Manchester (the bit over which Manchester city council control the refuse collection for) or the urban area, like myself and Earlybird?
So, we need to decide what a city is, using the Wikipedia definition i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
"A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core, but in the United States many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, or a suburban or even mostly rural character, are designated as cities. City can also be a synonym for "downtown" or a "city centre".
Then it is obvious that the urban area is the correct way for defining a city (this Encylopedia needs to be consistent if nothing else).
The problem I have with having cities defined by political boundaries (especially on an internet based global encyclopedia) is that your definition of a city does not transpose well to other cultures.
For example, if you are defining a city as having local political boundaries, are you claiming communist countries such as North Korea that may not have similar authorities, do not have any cities?
Until we decide on what a city is, then this discussion is pointless - I suggest instead of agruing about the Manchester definition, those unhappy about a city being described as an urban area put forward a sensible way of defining a city, that will work internationally (since we are on the www), and uses local political boundaries.
It seems to be accepted by both sides of the argument that consistency is important. As there is already a project looking to establish consistent naming conventions for articles on UK subdivisions (including cities) at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions, shouldn't this debate be continued there, with the Manchester articles conforming to the existing convention until a new one is established, and any new convention can be used consistently across the UK? JimmyGuano 09:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
(Keep It Simple Stupid)
I think we should keep things as simple as possible. There should be only two "Manchester" articles - City of Manchester and Greater Manchester. The debate should be whether the article Manchester redirects to the City of Manchester (like it did pre-EarlyBird) or to the Greater Manchester article. I can't really decide which. David 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this insistence that a city ends when a local political authorities remit ends - I can find no web sites that define a city in such a way, e.g.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=city
says amongst others...
cit·y Audio pronunciation of "city" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st) n. pl. cit·ies
1. A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance.
and
city
n 1: a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts;
This web site itself describes a city as being an urban area and NOT a political authority.
If you are going to insist on describing Manchester in the same manner as the city of Manchester, then you are going to have to alter your article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City since it will be wrongn as it describes a city as...
"A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. In most parts of the world cities are generally substantial and nearly always have an urban core, but in the United States many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, or a suburban or even mostly rural character, are designated as cities. City can also be a synonym for"
and does not mention political authorities.
Also, since no one has come up with a decent way of defining a city, other than the one that we already have, that will work internationally, I suggest we stick with the definition of city that we have, we have a "city of Manchester" article that describes the local plot of land that MCC control, a "Greater Manchester" one for the 10 bourghs, and a "Manchester" one, for the area that is defined by the definition of a city i.e. the urban area. Manchester Kurt 13:06 17th October
Here is another one...
http://gouk.about.com/od/thenorthwest/a/manchester.htm
It is entitled "Marvellous Manchester" and discusses what Manchester has to offer. Lets look at some of the places it mentions.
None of these are within the City of Manchester boundary.
EarlyBird 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Another example, the Manchester food and drink festival - look at the locations for the events...
http://www.foodanddrinkfestival.com/
Seems that the organisers don't use political boundaries to relate to where they are describing Manchester.
Where has this idea that a city is defined by political boundaries come from? It is not a dictionary definition as far as I call tell, and certainly not one that could be held consistently across international boarders.
Manchester Kurt 14:15, 17 October 2005
I take it from the lack of response from those saying that a city is defined by it's political boundaries we may be getting somewhere?
If we have agreed (I presume by the silence) that a city if NOT defined by the area over which a council controls, but rather an urban area (as defined in both Wikipedia and dictionary.com) then the 'city of Manchester' artcile is no where near what 'Manchester' really is???
Surely, the only logical conclusion is the have an article called 'City of Manchester' - the area controlled by the council, one called 'Greater Manchester' for all 10 boroughs, and one call 'Manchester' which refers to Manchester as defined by a dictionary and this web site itself.
Manchester Kurt 08:51, 18 October 2005
Small point, but they are not my definitions, but the definitons of a dictionary and this web site - the one we need to be consistent with.
Small point, but they are not my definitions, but the definitons of a dictionary and this web site - the one we need to be consistent with. Manchester Kurt
It seems that our friend EarlyBird is a bit of a local government anorak. In the real world our lives don't stop at the arbitrary boundaries set by our political leaders - we live in a city, and that city is as one. It'd be nice if he'd asked before messing up the article and killing its long edit history. 86.138.10.139 15:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am going to move these pages back to their original positions. Seem as this mess has been created by one user without any consultation or agreement. EarlyBird I suggest that if you want to move it back again then you take the issue to Wikipedia: Requested page moves. If you try changing things back again without the correct proceedures I will request these pages to be blocked. G-Man 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you should sort this out in a sensible manner on this page. If you continue to revert each others edits then you may be blocked as per the three revert rule. Fir e Fo x 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Abusive??? would you like to point out any abusive comments. If they are seen as abusive it was not intentional. G-Man 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Earlybirds says hes got consensus but it came from here [blacklisted links removed] (he deleted this from the Manchester discussion which why its blank)
EarlyBird 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment
Can we revert back to how these articles were before this began and then have this conversation? I am not opposed to having 3 articles but I can't vote to keep the mess we have now. The quality of the Manchester article was far greater than the two we have now and should be reinstated and used as a starting point for any future split - the details of which should be discussed first. MRSC 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
What people want is for the Manchester article to correctly reflect what a majority of people consider Manchester to be. Manchester Would you like to provide evidence about what the majority of people think Manchester is. Do you have any surveys to prove this?. This is pure conjecture withou any evidence. There is only one official entity called Manchester. I know people who live in Ashton-under-Lyne who most definately do not consider themselves to live in Manchester, likewise people who live in Salford, yet according to you they do. It should perhaps be noted that people informally use 'Manchester' to refer to the urban area, but that is about all. Informal usage is not good enough reason to go splitting up encyclopedia articles.
Of course if this is split up, then for consistancy sake we would have to move Birmingham to West Midlands conurbation because some people informally refer to the entire area as 'Birmingham'. And we would also have to move Liverpool to Merseyside. And Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Tyneside. This is a can of worms. G-Man 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Ps. I do not accept the votes made my all these anonymous IP's as valid, unless they have made at least 100 edits see here G-Man 21:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I dont know exactly where this majority you talk of is. Well lets put this to the test then shall we and hold a vote.
I now vote for this, on the basis that "City of Manchester" and "Greater Manchester" are fundamentally political constructs (like Salford, Bolton, Rusholme), whereas "Manchester" is a socio-cultural one.
Cormaggio
@
22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Against split
For split
Looking above it seems this poll was instigated to prove/disprove there is a majority who want the Manchster article split.
There is clearly not a majority who wanted change so I suggest we revert now to the original content while we continue this conversation as I fear it might drag on a bit and divert us from any improvement work. MRSC 13:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this article from page moves. It was apparently moved to Manchester (city) and then a clone was pasted in its place. -- Tony Sidaway[[User talk:Tony
Woke up this mornin', feelin' fine - then I read the history of the City of Manchester page. Can people please calm down with the redirecting until a clear consensus emerges? The straw poll above is pretty vague when you take out the anonymous votes (and where are they all coming from all of a sudden?) Cormaggio @ 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any official definition of manchester as refering the urban area, I dont think so. The fact that many people confuse manchester and greater manchester is no justification for creating daft duplicate articles. An encyclopedia is here to give facts not cement them in their ignorance. Bob Matthews 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes Bob, there is. The Office of National Statistics has compiled a list entitled 'Key studies for Urban areas', in which it lists the 'Greater Manchester Urban Area' as having a population of 2.2 million. It does not include all of greater Manchester, it is a seperate area defined by the ONS. [4]
It is entirely sensible that there should be a page entitled Manchester dealing with the conurbation, due to the reasons discussed above. Mr ed 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this talk page is currently running at 72k, all generated in the heat of the last 4/5 days - I suggest we nail it. We now have four Manchester-related articles - clearly this is too many. So why don't we define exactly what should and (where relevant) should not go in each article, and whether one article should redirect to another:
To reply to your above posts, the problem with your arguments are as follows:
G-Man 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I will be able to offer support with all of the above but need someone able to complete point #2 (without resorting to cut and paste). MRSC 07:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
We haven't heard from User:EarlyBird, the person who started all this in the first place for a while. I wonder if he still feels so strongly about it all? MRSC 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The dispute about the location and number of "Manchester" articles has now been going on for at least 10 days and the current pages Manchester and City of Manchester show significant overlap (look at the History sections) and are a mess (does the Bibliography on City of Manchester only refer to the city proper - I think not). Our first and only priority is to write an encyclopedia; to impart knowledge, not just facts, and the current mess fails to do this. There are therefore two questions:
My view is that we should have one page, at Manchester, that includes most of our information about the city (in the broad sense - possibly without delimitating the boundary in any detail). Sections would include history, industry, culture, economy sport and so on. None of these subjects follow local authority boundaries so they should not need to be discussed in the other articles. Another important section would be local government. This should talk about the existence of Greater Manchester (and link to it) and the cities and boroughs that make up Manchester. I'm unsure if we need a separate article about the City of Manchester - I suppose a list of wards and more information about the council would be over the top for Manchester so we may need a separate page but I don't think the information we currently have is enough to justify one. If we choose to have a separate City of Manchester page it should host the template but some of the information would need to be in Manchester's local government section. If not, the template would go on Manchester but we would need to note that the template information relates to the local government area not the extended city. Information about the Greater Manchester Urban Area should go in the economy section (but could also grow into its own page if there is enough info - at present I don't think there is). This is all only my view, and we should discuss the proposal. What is important is that implementing this needs more than a few page moves, redirect redirection, and the odd bit of copy and paste.
How do we achieve point 1 and start to improve things? I'm afraid we would have to follow steps 1 - 3 of User:Mrsteviec's October 24 suggestion. And could we remove some of the talk page redirects? Andreww 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
A few points:
G-Man 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on this page is doing nothing for the good of the article or the wikipedia, and that should be our top priority above any of our POVs. Having thought about this I'm going to revert City of Manchester back to the old combined article (it's in the City of Manchester's article history rather than the Manchester history because of a page move) and then make Manchester a redirect to City of Manchester. I'm then going to suggest at WP:RM that City of Manchester gets moved back to Manchester. This achieves two things:
MRSC 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is referring to the "Manchester Conurbation". This is clearly wrong because the actual name of the conurbation is "Greater Manchester" according to Wikipedia's own definition. By incorrectly stating Manchester is a conurbation the contributor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia for his own purpose of having Manchester redefined in the way they would like, namely the whole Greater Manchester area should be called Manchester. This is like someone suggesting that the West Midlands conurbation should be referred to as Birmingham. There has been no national survey as to whether most people do think Greater Manchester is Manchester so this can not be listed as a fact. The current Wikipedia article about Manchester is being used by many people on their websites and this incorrect assertion is being duplicated. The contributor has then moved on to redirecting the "city of Manchester" article to the "Manchester" article which calls it a conurbation. The whole credibility of Wikipedia is coming into question when one individual starts to manipulate articles and defintions for their own propoganda purposes. The originators of the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be alerted to what is happening. -- BigBriton 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I've had a look today and moved some sections and tried to work out what is missing from the article. Two main things so far which need work:
MRSC 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here? There's loads in this article that would more logically go in [[Greater Manchester]. I understand about the whole "Trafford/Salford/Sale is really part of Manchester" argument that I won't get involved in, but "Manchester is represented by Wigan Warriors"? Be real! There's also references to Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and Bolton scattered throughout the article - surely they should go in their own town articles, or in the Greater Manchester one. Steven J 19:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Article was originally moved without consensus.