Talk:Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.	United Kingdom Portal
This article has been rated "B" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs: Edit this list Expand or add sections Geography and climate Pre-university education Religion Industry in Commerce Section. Expand Business?? History section needs to include Peterloo massacre Reduce size Remove list style from sections Architecture Culture Fact checking (that's what footnotes are for) Is the Trafford Centre really part of Trafford Park? The Trafford centre was built on derelict land within the boundaries of what was colloquially known as Trafford Park - but I've not yet found a map of the original de Trafford estate, although the building of the ship canal was a major factor in the family selling up. The Bridgewater canal wasn't on such a scale, and didn't cause so many perceptions of living in polluted land. Trafford Park, the industial park, did encompass the site of the current Trafford centre. 'Many' million-pound apartments? I know there are some (top floors of 1 Deansgate) but many? Any source? I completely agree with this, there certainly aren't many, and the text reads as if there are 'many' in Hulme. Probably one or two have been sold in the city centre, this definately needs editing.--86.11.18.66 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Is the gay population really larger than Brighton's? Is that in absolute terms or as a proportion of the population? Any sources? Student population "one of the largest in Europe": I'm certain it's true, but this is exactly that the kind of statement that could do with a source. Velodrome being built for the 2002 games. I'm sure it was planned and built well before the games were announced. Needs checking and/or editing. Other bits and pieces "The coffee chain Starbucks has 12 outlets in a 2 mile radius." - of where? General proofreading needed. Facts to include here World's first computer (arguably) built in Manchester Rutherford splitting the atom - also arguable. Rutherford did scattering experiments here that were first evidence of substructure but first fission was at Cambridge Images It'd be good to have a main image for each major section. Maybe an exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry for History and the Trafford Centre (not the Arndale :-) ) for Commerce and the Granada TV building (BBC one is ugly) for Media? I'll try and get some pics next time I'm at any of these, but if anyone else can do it or has any better ideas, please do so.

	This article is within the scope of the Greater Manchester WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive guide to places in Greater Manchester. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother projects; UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject.	Greater Manchester Portal
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find suggestions on how to improve related articles. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

[edit] Archives

• Talk:Manchester/Archive 1 (including long-running debate on "second city" status)
• Talk:Manchester/Archive 2 24 September 2005 - 27 October 2005
• Talk:Manchester/Archive 3 28 October 2005 - 28 February 2007

• Also:
• Talk:City of Manchester/Archive01 Archive 1 (16-Oct-2005 to 01-Nov-2005):

  Initial discussions

  Focus on article improvement

  Requested move

Contents 1 Archives 2 Good Article status removed 2.1 Way too long 3 Pronunciation 4 Too long

[edit] Good Article status removed

I've reverted this edit of 23 October 2006, by which User:Manchester2k6 removed the {{toolong}} notice and promoted the article to Good Article status. This was done unilaterally, without going through the proper channels (i.e. listing it on the nominations page and putting a candidacy notice here). The article was demoted for being too long back in May 2006, when it was 75 kb long; as it is now 87 kb long, it doesn't look as if these concerns have been addressed. I'm not otherwise commenting on the quality of the article, but if the GA process is to work, a candidate needs to be reviewed by an impartial editor (which, on the basis of their contributions, Manchester2k6 appears not to be), and only after other editors have had a chance to comment. --Blisco 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long

Thanks for pointing this out. This should have never happened. You raise valid points with regards to getting this article upto WP:GA standard. The article is massively too long - we need to create some daughter articles, or move the info to these pages. Some leadership and fresh eyes would help here. Jhamez84 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

How is Manchester pronounced according to the IPA chart for English. We need to include this in the lead to emulate our rivals London and Birmingham. Any lingusts out there? I'll try to work it out now, but may need a specialist to correct me. Jhamez84 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've included the IPA pronunciation - please feel free to verify and ammend if appropriate. Jhamez84 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessary really. There's scope for ambiguity with the other two cities - the first syllable of London could be taken to rhyme with "bond", and the h of Birmingham could be pronounced (as Americans tend to) - but could Manchester conceivably be pronounced any other way? Including the pronunciation is counter-productive if anything, since to the vast majority of readers who don't understand IPA it gives the impression that it's pronounced differently to how it looks. --Blisco 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Manchester is one of those places where you do actually say it as you spell it! David 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does IPA make any reference to which syllables are stressed? If so, there's scope for ambiguity: is it 'ManCHESter' or 'MANchester'?, etc. Matthew 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the IPA improves the comprehensiveness of the article, and is a useful utility for users whose first language is not English. In wider terms, it could be mis-pronounced Manc-Hester for a foreign reader. But if there is consensus to remove it, perhaps it is more appropriate in the Etymology section. 86.138.162.84 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be stressed that it is made up of three syllables - "Man" then "Ches" - "ter" (the last two rolled into one almost). I'm sure some clever cloggs can write that up in a clearer/more scientific way!! David 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. Anyone whose standard of English is so poor that they mispronounce Manchester - which is after all probably the second most famous city in England worldwide - is unlikely to be able to read Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there should be no need to give IPA for every single proper noun unless there might be genuine doubt as to how to pronounce it - otherwise we're only creating confusion where there was none before. --Blisco 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, it may be simple to us Native-English speakers (as is London and Birmingham to me), but IPA is non-the-less useful in broadening the comprehensiveness of the article, and gives a universal alternative to the pronuciation of our city! On these grounds I'm quite happy for it to stay. 86.138.162.84 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you add IPA to every settlement in the English-speaking world by the same argument? That could get very silly. "New York City (pronounced [nju jɔrk sɪti])"? The English Wikipedia has to assume that its readers have a basic familiarity with English, including pronunciation. Bear in mind that (at a guess) >99% of English speakers have no knowledge of IPA, and >99% of those that do know how to pronounce Manchester. I'm all for including IPA where necessary, but I maintain that having it here will merely confuse the 99%, and bemuse most of the remaining 1%. --Blisco 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've just taken a look at the way Manchester is 'supposed' to be pronounced. It made me laugh, so hard, my ears bled and I 'embarrassed' myself. 80.192.242.187 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

I've moved the IPA to the etymology section. I think 86.138 makes a valid point that it broadens the comprehensiveness of the article, but it perhaps wasnt appropriate for it to be in the lead as in other articles. Jhamez84 14:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long

Manchester is currently a massive 86kb!!!! The recommended amount of material should add up to around 32 kb of text (i.e. excluding tables and images).

Manchester is a key article for the Greater Manchester WikiProject, which is designated to try and reach the Good Article standard. To do this, we need to do some rapid work to cut down the size per Wikipedia:Article series and Wikipedia:Article size.

I propose the following:

• Keep the lead as it is - it conforms with WP:LEAD and is fit for purpose.
• Create a Geography of Manchester (or Geography of Greater Manchester) article.
• Keep the history section as it is (it has a History of Manchester subpage).
• Remove the Food and drink section of the article - it is unsourced and is full of deadlinks.
• Create an Architecture of Manchester (or title to that effect) article and transfer some material there.
• Massively reduce the amount of text in the Transport section.
• Overhall the Culture section (too many lists and unreferenced remarks). Redirect to relivant Music and Sport daughter articles, or a Culture of Manchester article (see Culture of Sheffield as an example)
• Gay and lesbian section seems to be un-notable and wholly unreferenced - none-the-less probably more appropriate for a Culture of Manchester article.

And finally...

• Delink duplicate links to articles (this not only per the style guide but will reduce article size).

Comments or objections anyone? Jhamez84 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No comments have yet been posted here. I'll wait a little longer, though I'm presuming there are going to be no objections should these changes be implimented? Jhamez84 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to create a Transport in Manchester article consisting of the current Transport section with a new lead that can form a sounder (and better sourced) basis for a new transport section. Other then that, I think the plan sounds good. Andreww 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How much space would it save for someone to go through the article with a fine-toothed comb and remove everything that would apply to Greater Manchester, but not to Manchester? Off the top of my head, for instance, should the forthcoming BBC move to Salford be in the Manchester article? Matthew 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be a Geography of Greater Manchester article in a similar fashion to other counties which have their own geography article. David 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with creating a Culture of Manchester article... Needless to say it needs a lot of work. Transport in Greater Manchester might be more appropriate than just Manchester, as we largely have a county-wide system. We can put alot of the GM maps there too.

With regards to moving Greater Manchester material to the Greater Manchester article, I think a common sence approach is best. We should be strict on keeping Manchester material here because firstly the article size, but also it is meant to be an encyclopedia. Though things like the BBC Salford move could be mentioned in passing and with context.

A Geography of Greater Manchester article would be great! The Physical geography section of the Greater Manchester article may help as an idea for a stub. Jhamez84 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone intending to action the changes they suggested? Jhamez84 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)