Talk:Greater Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Greater Manchester has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater Manchester article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.


Contents

[edit] Places of interest

I've finished converting this section into prose, that's one less barrier to GA. It's not perfect and might be a bit too long, but I think that's for other people to decide. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! A vast improvement. One thing though, I think we may have to remove a couple of the images in this section per WP:IMAGE (specifically that they sandwich alot of text between them). I'm inclined for the "Excavations" and "Manchester Art Gallery" images to go (at least for now). Also, I'm mindful that in the forthcoming months that we (hopefully) improve this article, we should try to avoid a Manchester-bias, particularly with images. Of course the city has special status within the county, but I would hope it doesn't become a point for content forking from the main Manchester article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. We should try to include a representative sample of images from all around the county.
With regard to image placement, I've been led to believe that it's a no-no to have a left-aligned image directly underneath a section/subsection header. The reasoning being that separates the heading from its content. I may of course be completely mistaken, in which case please feel free to revert the change I just made to the Governance section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's only for 2nd level headings, so "===" rather than "==". Why I don't know, as it looks fine in my browser, but it must be to cater for other browsers. I'll pop the governance one back as it is fine in this instance -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation required

This, from the Transport section, needs to be sourced I think. "Manchester Airport, which is the fourth largest in the United Kingdom, serves the county with flights to more destinations than any other airport in the UK." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this in in a sec. This one can be used to confirm the 225 destinations claim, although it looks a bit less "official". Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's odd: I thought the "225 claim" was on there, but it wasn't! Never mind; I've added it now. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terraced houses

... in red-brick seem to be a recurring featured throughout the county, and I'm surprised this isn't already mentioned. There's a few nice shots at commons, including Image:Middleton, Durnford Street.jpg, Image:Chadderton Mill.jpg, Image:Fredrick Street, Werneth, Oldham.jpg. As there are already several images from that part of the county however, I'd be more inclined to go with Image:Church Street, Hyde, Greater Manchester.jpg or Image:Ancoats.jpg or something from Flickr like this, which could kill a few birds at once. I know a few other cities have this type of housing stock, but not an entire county. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to forget the stone-built terraces in many of the mill towns of course! I think the red brick is due to the large amount of clay which was deposited in the area at the end of the last ice age and the softness of the red sandstone in the lower reaches of the Irwell. If you look on the old maps there were brick fields all around Manchester and Salford. I imagine brick was cheaper and easier to use than stone also. Richerman (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The only space where another image could go would be in the settlements section, is that where you were thinking of putting one? I really like the Urban Splash street as some of the others look like simple generic "Northern" streets, built on the cheap after the war, although common they are pretty boring.
Also it looks like my plan is working with 63 edits to the article today (including mine). I think it's already GA standard, you may think we need more sources but we have 127 refs compared to another GA county such as Hampshire which has only 17! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky!..... 'Tis amazing we have so many refs compared with Hampshire. I've just expanded the History section with loads of really interesting factoids (well, interesting to me, and fairly unknown too!). I also agree we should go with the Urban Splash image - it's the best one and we can use it to elaborate on several phenomina such as the mill town history, decline, slum clearances and contemporary gentrification. I think this would be suitable for the Demography section. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to see the Picadilly Gardens image replaced with something from Heaton or Peel park - both less Manc-centric and both with slightly more interesting histories. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you really have to put that horrible, oversized, blurry, outdated, redundant ex-COA back in? It's ugly as sin and far too big, eurrgggghhhh makes me ill! Putting it in the governance section is misleading too even with the description as the county council is totally dead. If anywhere it belongs in the history section or preferably the bin! Why does it need to disgrace this article when it can sit happily on Greater Manchester County Council instead?
I agree about the Piccadilly Gardens image, it's not a great pic either as it was taken through a window with bird poop splattered down it so it obviously wasn't washed often. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And how about swapping one of the two pictures of Old Trafford for one of a different sport, say the velodrome or the Aquatic centre? And before you ask, I don't support any football team so I've no axe to grind! Richerman (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict!... I'll rescan the CofA (I have a colour print of it in a book) and make it a crisp PNG file. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I like your idea Richerman, sounds good to me. I've also just rescanned the GMC coat of arms to a really crisp version. It may or may not make people ill, but it is encyclopedic and notable enough to warrent inclusion here I think! I wouldn't mind it going into the Post-74 section, but would like to see it replaced with a shot of "Westminster house", the former HQ of the GMC. The GMC was the basic idea behind why the whole county exists afterall! -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a photo of Westminster House tomorrow if you promise to ditch the COA! I think the Old Trafford cricket ground should be dropped in favour for the velodrome, less cars on the image and it's a little bit different. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be comfortable in "ditching" the COA outright based on personal tastes and sensibilities. Wikipedia is not censored, even for us! I'd be fine with it being moved to the history section however. I actually think the rescan is of a fitting quality now too and improves the article. Every other county of England displays their arms, council or no-council. :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you not add it to the top of the infobox where the flag usually goes with a note under it stressing it is defunct? That way it will be smaller. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

"The ceremonial counties are increasingly being seen as the main geographic frames of reference within England." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Although we know it is true it is hard to find a reference for it and google is bringing up some foul sites e.g., some people really don't have anything better to do with their time! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Vaughan.com? Could it be Owain Vaughan, (self-styled) president of the Association of British Counties from Monmouthshire? Now where have I heard that name before?...
Anyway, I agree with Malleus, we need to amend this. We could say "as used by the Ordnance Survey/AA", which would imply the claim? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that was a "foul" site; it's quite informative, whether you share its pov or not. But if we're making a claim that ceremonial counties are increasingly being seen etc., then we ought to be able to back up that assertion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's foul in the sense that it is totally biased. It says that everyone was unhappy with the new counties. Whoever runs it just needs to let it go, the only difference we see is road signs and logos on local services. Anyway that does not concern us, I agree about the ordinance survey maps as it shows they are not just statistical. Google maps is terrible too, a search for Manchester takes you to Manchester, Lancashire :(. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
They've only recently changed that, probably when they implimented the "terrain" feature. It's been aligned to the postal counties, which is daft when they've been abolished for years. Uppermill of "Yorkshire" is once again in Lancashire too! Madness.
While I'm here, does anybody else think the lead section is a little thin, if not a bit weak? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
GA status:Lead fine
FA status:Lead needs work
We have easily got it to GA status already so any more improvements are working towards FA status imho. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd still keep going onwards and upwards for A and FA status. I wonder what WP:PR would've thrown-up? The automated system is always surprising useful. Also we have some references that don't make use of a cite template that we need to fix up I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's just wait for the GA status then we can go straight for a peer review and we will soon have it up to FA! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said at WT:GM, I think this article is close to GA, but I think there are still things to address. I'm not sure that the Redcliffe-Maud Report section is properly referenced, do the references at the end of the paragraph apply to all the paragraph? Also I think the demography section is very under developed. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nev1. The article isn't at GA yet, it needs quite a bit more work. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I also have a few worries about some parts, but at the rate of change, we could make it in time (GA reviews usually take a few weeks to happen). In comparison with Hampshire we've got it, but I'm not sure it meets our project's high standards. I've just upped the citation for the Redcliffe-Maud section which should help (though some statements aren't quite supported by my book - which is only a few pounds at Amazon btw!). I'm definately not happy with the lead too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I even found some stuff about "Botchdale" for us too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some refs in the sports section are mission publishers, dates, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The line has been removed but could this not be used for a reference to "The ceremonial counties are increasingly being seen as the main geographic frames of reference within England."? It does touch on modern importance of ceremonial counties quite well. I was also pleased to see on that site that the government has plans to give Greater Manchester and Tyne and Wear proper mayors, making the county administrative thus putting us on par with London, hopefully the boroughs could be renamed to Manchester Borough of Stockport etc. Although that is unlikely to happen any time soon with this increasingly useless government (Supercasino). └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they're planning something slightly different to London, creating a new tier of city regions - mainly to invigorate the economy of Northern England. There's stuff about this here and here. Certainly the Manchester congestion charge is a step towards this.
I should imagine my locals over the hill won't be happy about such proposals, unsurprisingly. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly old people with nothing better to do with their lives who start opposing any form of change which would modernise a region. I wish they would give us a London style mayor, someone who had as much passion as Ken and with enough power to throw their weight around a lot. AGMA want the congestion charge, most of it at least, and AGMA has no powers at all really and relies on co-operation. A nice Mayor of Manchester could force the good schemes like Ken does, especially in relation to public transport, and there would be no opposition from the Con Council because lets face it, we're labour through and through here so any mayor would be a labour one. The idea of a "city region" could turn out to be a right mess especially if some councils start giving it out like the "Birmingham, Coventry & Black country" proposals, what a stupid name. I hope our GM councils will realise the benefits from becoming Mancunian and adopting an international brand. Maybe, just maybe, we might get some form of a decent transport system then, the trams are OK but can be very limited especially when in street running mode and the buses well... they need nationalising, bloody Thatcher lol and there's me talking about moaning old people. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

This edit knocks the alignment out for me, making the image bigger than the rest of them, which looks a little odd. I understood that images should not have their sizes set, unless under very special circumstances.

I don't think Andrew wants the image in, but I think it's an important part of the article. What do others think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the size because it looks horrific when it is at 300px which is what I like to set in my preferences, I'm trying to comprimise here on something I don't like. It's not the COA I don't like but just the inclusion of it here, at least make it look decent. Try previewing it at 300px and you will see what I mean about how awful it looks! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It also shunted all the other images under it when it was 300px and was pushing everything right down the article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It still appears fine for me. Is it a technical problem? I'm just struggling what you mean by "horrific" and "decent", it really looks fine to me. Even if it was an ugly COA, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it being editted out on those grounds.
How about we swap round the positions of the COA and Westminster house images? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks horrific at 300px because it looks sort of grainy, blotchy and generally shabby. At 200px it looks much much nicer and clean. My opinion is that we don't need it on here but if you really think it is going to educate anybody then keep wherever it but don't change the size as it really will look awful. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you're looking at the new version ([1]) and not the old one ([2])? I uploaded a new version (which looks great to me), but you may still have the former version displaying because of caching. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what has gone wrong with firefox but a purge sorted it. Yes it looks better, still don't agree it should be on there in the governance section though! And it still pushes every other image in every section down. I wonder if the same problem with caching has happened to everyone else? I think it must be because you uploaded over the top of the old one. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion very puzzling. I'm using Firefox (v2.0.0.12) and everything looks fine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The quality issues were addressed with a purge. I just don't feel the COA has any place being in the Governance of Greater Manchester section, Governance of Greater Manchester County Council fine but not the modern county which is what this article is about. A more appropriate place would be the history section. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, for whatever it's worth I think the COA is in the right place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd really have to agree I'm afraid. I mean we use this style on other articles, like Stretford and Oldham. It looks great to me! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They both have their COA in the "Civic history" see the history i.e. no longer exists? Maybe the article's Governance section needs to be split in half then? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Why do I always get requested to do the long articles? :) Here goes...

  • "on 1 April 1974,[1] as a result" - comma not needed
  • I thought the standard method of describe area in the UK is metric (km^2 as opposed to square mile), but in the article the mile is used as the default. Am I wrong?
  • The EU wanted us to convert to metric but we managed to hold onto our miles! ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "at Castlefield in Manchester[8]" - the ref needs some punctuation under it; so move it to the end of the sentence
  • "Most of Greater Manchester lies within the ancient county boundaries of Lancashire; those areas south of the Mersey and Tame were in Cheshire. " - you change from present to past tense mid sentence
  • Last para of the Origins section only uses one source, so you can just dump it at the end of the para
  • "which despite its name included north east Cheshire as well" --> "which, despite its name, included north east Cheshire"
  • "but still including" - use "included" as you've used "excluded" prior
  • "although the new local authorities were already running following local elections in 1973." - ref?
  • Done. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Some noted historians of Manchester have claimed that..." - you're quoting one person (not some), so just say who
  • "as a geographic frame of reference.[17][18][19]" - IMO you only need one ref here; use #17 I think
  • This causes some controversy, so I have left all three refs in but merged them into a single footnote. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "a polycentric county[28]" - can you put the ref over the next comma?
  • "For the first 12 years after the county was created in 1974, the county had a two-tier system of local government, and the metropolitan borough councils shared power with the Greater Manchester County Council. " - refs for this and the rest of the para?
  • Done. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Below is a table outlining population totals of the area for every ten years since 1801. Pre-1974 statistics were gathered from local government areas that now comprise Greater Manchester." - this works better as a title for the table and a footnote, if necessary
  • "This is a chart of trend of regional gross value added of Greater Manchester at current basic prices published (pp.240–253) by Office for National Statistics with figures in millions of British Pounds Sterling (GB£)." - remove the external link and use it as a reference for the table a la all the other tables
  • Done. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The stadium has also acted as a music venue, hosting U2, Bon Jovi, and Oasis.[86][87] Old Trafford Cricket Ground, the home of Lancashire County Cricket Club, has also acted as a music venue for bands such as the Arctic Monkeys, Radiohead, and Foo Fighters." - remove the "also"s
  • removed the first "also"; I think the second one is OK. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Urbis is a "museum of the modern city"; it receives £1.5M a year from Manchester City Council and experienced its most successful year in 2006" - I don't see what its catchline has to do with the funding it receives, or with its income. Reword
  • Done. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 13:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The county is also home to the Red Rose Forest, which at 756 square kilometres (292 sq mi) is the second largest and most urban community forest in England.[128]" - merge this into another para or expand the para on community forests etc.
  • "best known for George Orwell’s book The Road to Wigan Pier" - book titles go in italics
  • Y Done all. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And leave me a note when you're done. Nice work on the collab, and good luck. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We've got quite a few references that need converting to one of the relevant Wikipedia:Citation templates. I'll try to do some of these this evening but would appreciate some help. It seems ref 4 and 19 are infact one and the same too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cor! Well done you lot and thanks to H20 for the appraisal. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erk!

The West Pennine Moors, as well as a number of coalfields (mainly sandstones and shales) lie in the west of the county. The rivers Mersey and Tame run through the county boundaries, both of which rise in the Pennines. Other rivers run through the county, including the Beal, the Douglas and the Irk.

This is a bit mangled: I'd fix it but I have to be elsewhere for a while (RL!). The Pennine moors are in the east; the Tame only just runs in, but the unmentioned Goyt and Etherow certainly do; the Mersey runs out. I don't know about the other three - I think the Irk is fully enclosed by the county, no?Mr Stephen (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(self correction) It seems the West Pennine Moors are indeed in the west - I must get out more. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Beal is within the Oldham and Rochdale boroughs entirely, and, I believe the Irk is wholly within Oldham, Rochdale and Manchester boroughs. Not sure about the Douglas. I agree the above paragraph needs fixing too! -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I see User:Joshii, who requested the peer review, has retired from Wikipedia. Is there still interest in a peer review or should I archive the request? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's still interest, please leave the request up. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the GM project as a whole has an interest in the peer review, not just Joshii. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks - I will get to it in a few days if no one else does first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Splendid! Thanks. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Students

I have removed

Greater Manchester is home to Europe's largest student population drawing students from across the world.[1] There are four universities in the county: Bolton, Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan, and Salford.

Malcolm Tight gives figures which, no matter how I read them, places Manchester & GM well down the list of 'most' students. "The (Re)Location of Higher Education in England (Revisited)", Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224, Volume 61, No. 3, July 2007, pp 250–265. As always, if you have a better reference, bring it on. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it not depend on what you compare it to? We have the largest and third largest university in the country here so the city must rank high. I can't see it being bigger than London because they have several universities but London is nothing like Greater Manchester so what are you comparing Greater Manchester to? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello mate, I thought ... no matter, nice to see you. Well, apparently Greater Manchester is thirteenth with 4% students in 2.5 million, whereas top of the list is Avon with 7.3% in just under a million. The city of Manchester might stand a fighting chance, but Canterbury is 70% students (in 45,000 admittedly), or Oxford is 28.8% (of 150,000). Mr Stephen (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But surely Avon no longer exists, meaning that the source isn't all that valuable? Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI Oxfordshire (6.8%) and Leicestershire (6.0%) come in second and third. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A google search for Manchester largest student population brings back lots of results including one for the Push uni guide for MMU saying along with Manchester and Salford uni Manchester has Europe's largest student population so that must be Greater Manchester rather than just the city. Your souce is going off proportion of the population being students (possibly including college and schools?) rather than total numbers which is what most the sites on google must be going off. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This does keep coming around, doesn't it? I'm off for some kip now, but I'll have another look at the paper in the morning. Mr Stephen (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't really see it. This BBC article (2005) suggests there are 88000 students in "Manchester", but the council say the 2001 census only counted "almost 46,500 full-time students residents in the city of Manchester" in a population of 392,819 (or 422,900). The BBC's numbers are less than Tight's numbers for GM (to be exact, they are 4.0% of 2,482,328, say 100,000). The West Midland's student count seems to exceed GM's with 5.5% of 2,555,592 (140,000). I'll certainly run with the Oxford road corridor being the largest education campus in Europe (see Manchester). Mr Stephen (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say the census is not the greatest measure partly because it was taken 7 years ago and because students don't live here all year so it could have been taken when the population was lower than usual. There is one source which says Birmingham now has the largest student population but it is obvious they are trying to sell office space in Birmingham so it is not WP:NPOV. The Uni of Manchester is the most subscribed university in the UK and the number of students rises year-on-year with the constant addition of new courses. City College Manchester has 25,000 students and MANCAT has 45,000 plans to merge would mean a 70,000 student college so that already beats the census along with 32,795 at MMU and 40,420 at Man Uni that makes 143,215 in those 4 alone. Salford Uni has 20,185, Bolton Uni has 8,540 bringing the total to 171,940 in those 6. There are many more colleges in the county, some of which are very large so how can any of the figures you found be true if I got that many from just 6 places? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read elsewhere that the timing of the census affects the student count; fair enough. Does MANCAT count as higher education? Anyway, this 2001 census datset lists the numbers (they are different, again), though I'm not sure about the difference between "People aged 16-74: Economically active: Full-time student" and "People aged 16-74: Economically inactive: Student". GM still comes below the West Midlands. If you're really confident that you can defend that snippet of information, then reinsert it by all means and let's move on to the rest of the review. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think it is a pretty important claim and is a good indicator of the importance of the county in economical terms. I hope you don't think I am just arguing with you, I just think it's a big claim with numerous sources. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No, of course I don't think anything of the sort. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The official figures for higher education are published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. The 2006-2007 ones are here [3]

Greater Manchester (Manchester Uni + MMU + RNCM + Salford Uni + Bolton Uni) has 101,165 students in higher education.

This is slightly more than West Yorkshire (Leeds Uni + Leeds Met + Bradford Uni + Huddersfield Uni + Leeds Trinity + Leeds College of Music = 97,430) but a lot less than the West Midlands (Aston Uni + Birmingham Uni + Birmingham City Uni + Birmingham College of Food + Coventry Uni + Newman + Warwick Uni + Wolverhampton = 140,980) and far less than London which has so many colleges and Unis I can't be bothered to list them all but comes in at 360,890.

These are the official figures and seem to match Mr Stephen's figures quite neatly.

JimmyGuano (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does that source not include the City College Manchester or MANCAT? They are both Higher Education, also the Birmingham College of Food is further education, not higher. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Because City College Manchester and MANCAT are Further Education Colleges that also teach courses from local universities - for example MANCAT's BSc in Psychology is actually a course of MMU [4]
Birmingham College of Food (now University College Birmingham) offers both Further and Higher Education courses - as with every other institution I've only included the Higher Education students in the figures above.
There's a map of all UK Universitites and Higher Education Colleges here - [5]
JimmyGuano (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like we're cpmparing apples and pears. Is the claim not that Manchester has the highest number of students in higher (i.e., university) level education, rather than higher education? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - that's what the figures from the HESA are, and they show the claim to be false. Further Education is something else entirely and includes quite a lot of Sixth Form colleges etc. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote is "is home to Europe's largest student population drawing students from across the world" so it is not claiming the highest number of higher education students. As the google search shows it is not a claim unique to wikipedia so I feel it should definatly be included. We are never going to be able to work out figures as I could start saying "what is London?" "is it fair to compare a region to a county, shouldn't it just be the city of London?" blah blah so I think it should stay. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, doesn't it now come down to how reliable the sources making that claim are considered to be? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The British Council says it as does the very respectable Inependent newspaper, Salford Uni says it, Visit Manchester say it, the MEN says it too. Thats just a select few of the most respected IMO. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Those sources don't even agree what the claim is though...
The British Councilsays "Things you may not know about Manchester - Largest student population" (no mention of Greater Manchester, no mention of Europe, no mention of exactly what it is the largest of)
the very respectable Inependent newspaper says "The city is also home to Europe's largest student population" no mention of Greater Manchester, it says it's talking about the city
Salford Uni says "Over 70,000 students choose to live in Manchester, making it the biggest student population in Europe." (which is about the right number for the higher education students in the City, but clearly isn't talking about HE+FE students in Greater Manchester which is far higher)
Visit Manchester says "With one of the largest student populations in Europe, the University has also spawned its own fair share of music legends" - it's clearly talking about the university itself and doesn't claim to actually be the largest anything.
... and the MEN is the MEN, famous for getting every fact spot on ;)
It looks like a classic myth to me, everybody repeats it, nobody even agrees exactly what it is, and the official figures (and HESA was created for no other purpose than to produce official statistics for Higher Education) clearly show it to be completely false.
Greater London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands (county) are all perfectly comparable on a like-for like basis - they're all ceremonial counties. As the subject of the article is itself a ceremonial county, comparing them would seem a perfactly sensible thing to do.
JimmyGuano (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the plausible claim here is that it is Manchester that has the/one of the highest student populations in England/Europe. [6]. Not Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this for the Greater Manchester article then:
"Greater Manchester has four universities: the University of Bolton, the University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University, and the University of Salford. Together with the Royal Northern College of Music these have a combined population of students in higher education of 101,165 - the third highest number in England behind Greater London (360,890) and the West Midlands (140,980) and the thirteenth highest per head of population."
citing the HESA stats for the first claim and Mr Stephen's journal article for the second one.
An accurate representation of a precisely-defined set of facts refenced to the most reliable and definitive available sources.
JimmyGuano (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that "is home to one of Europe's largest student population drawing students from across the world" would be better than listing all the poplations of different counties, this is about Greater Manchester. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But it clearly isn't even "home to one of Europe's largest student populations" - it's only the third largest even just in England. As you have demonstrated with your huge list of links, there is a lot of confusion and misinformation on this subject, so isn't this a good place for Wikipedia to present some well-referenced facts? JimmyGuano (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that, and your form of words, or something like it would be quite acceptable to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if you want to damage the quality of the article by adding excessive information then thats your prerogative. I'm getting bored. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think that's a consensus...
On a slightly separate note, does this really belong in the Demography section? Would it be better to have a separate Education section? Then the article could mention MANCAT etc too.
JimmyGuano (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm failing to understand how the quality of the article can possibly be damaged by adding the correct information. It appears to be unequivocally true that the original claim was incorrect, and applied to Manchester, not Greater Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
To answer the other question, I'd certainly be in favour of an Education section. I'm not bored in the slightest yet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up the new section :)

As far as "The majority of students in higher education are concentrated in Manchester itself, home to one of the largest student populations in Europe." is concerned, if there's a precise claim with accurate figures from an authoritative source (not a throwaway line in a student guide or city marketing brochure) then it should be included in the article, but looking at the HESA figures there seems little to support the claim that there is anything unusually large about Manchester's student population in either a UK or European context.

  • The City of Manchester (Manc Uni + MMU + RNCM) = 73,160
  • Glasgow (Glasgow + Glasgow Cal + Strathclyde + Glasgow SoArt + RSAMD) = 71,125
  • Birmingham (Birmingham Uni + BCU + Aston + Newman + Birmingham CoF) = 70,485
  • Leeds (Leeds Uni + Leeds Met + Leeds Trinity + Leeds CoM) = 64,090

So Manchester's student population isn't really amazingly massive compared to similar UK cities, and if you bear in mind that almost 6,000 of MMU's students are actually based 30 miles from Manchester in Crewe [7] then the student population of Manchester itself is probably a bit smaller than those of Glasgow and Birmingham.

Some European comparisons:

  • Paris had 323,861 students in higher education in 2005 [10]. That's Paris itself, not the Paris/Ile de France region, which had 600,527.
  • Even Bologna - quite a small city with only one university, has 53,161 undergraduates and 38,321 postgraduates [14] - 25% more students than Manchester.

JimmyGuano (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim on the Manchester page - "The University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University and the Royal Northern College of Music are grouped around Oxford Road on the southern side of the city centre, and form the largest city-centre group of higher education institutions in Europe." looks a bit more credible. I'm personally not convinced that Manchester University is any more "city centre" than La Sapienza in Rome (which is a few hundred yards from Rome's main railway station), but the claim cites Pevsner, which is a pretty credible source, so who am I to argue? Is that worth including in this article instead of the existing highly dubious one?
JimmyGuano (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The former UMIST campus of Manchester University is quite definately in the city centre, as is that MMU building opposite the BBC. There isn't any break in the educational establishments from there to the far side of Whitworth Park (the hall, rather than the park). City centre might well be pushing it a little, but inner city would be the more correct term I would have thought. Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If those are the words Pevsner uses then that's good enough for me (unless somebody can find a better source to contradict it). It's certainly better than the "largest student population in Europe" which doesn't seem to be even close to being true.
JimmyGuano (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(ce) :::The source says "Manchester has the largest urban higher-education precinct in Europe, ...". Mr Stephen (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew I'd seen it somewhere ... the council put the "Higher Education Precinct" in the city centre. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC) PS – sorry, see the map on page 20 Mr Stephen (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should go with the wording used in the source. Largest could well be area rather than number of students (La Sapienza is quite small in area despite its 150,000+ students - 1.7 sqm per student! [15]) JimmyGuano (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How does that look? JimmyGuano (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you copied the reference word-for-word. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's quite a precise claim and we need to get it right. Urban is not the same as city centre, largest precinct is not the same as largest population. We could move the Europe first if you're worried it's bordering on WP:COPYVIO? JimmyGuano (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Manchester - first mention?

I was just browsing, and I came across the following, one of several pre-1900 mentions

The Rev J A Macfayden said that as they had heard of a lesser and greater London, so there was a greater and lesser Manchester. The city stood on a comparatively small area, but what was understood to be Manchester was a very large place …

—The Congregational Union, Manchester Times, 16 October 16, 1880

Which disagrees with the claim in this article. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also found the term in the History of the County of Lancaster (1911) too!... (While the development of Greater Manchester in these respects was proceeding steadily the religious and political progress of the people was comparatively peaceful. The Methodist Revival soon affected Manchester, and John Wesley paid the town many visits between 1747 and 1790; "Greater%20Manchester").
The claim cited (from Frangopulo - 1977) is actually a little more amiguious than I first thought, but states (from page 226):

When was the term "Greater Manchester" first used? A few months before the outbreak of the First World War, a Manchester City Councillor read a paper to the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers entitled, "Greater Manchester: The Future of Municipal Government of Large Cities" (1914)....

It's a good book (I'd recommend it to all our project members) but seems to have missed a few early uses. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can just say that. Something like "The first mention of GM is given by Frangopulo as ... but the term was in use before then." and reference those two sources, with quotes. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towards FA

Another holiday nearly over. I hoped to have a go at this article (and others) a bite at a time, but the best-laid plans of mice and men ... We've had a peer review which is now archived, so discussion should carry on here. First, my summary of the outstanding suggestions at the PR, neutral I hope, is

  1. 'History' should avoide generalities but concentrate on things which brought GM together
    1. industry
    2. the M60 motorway
  2. Move the history of GMC from 'History' to 'Governance'
  3. Rewrite the part of the 'Governance' section covering the joint bodies (waste, GMPTE etc) to make it easier to read
  4. Get rid of WP:PEACOCK terms at
    1. Economy
    2. Sport
    3. Transport
  5. Explain the factors which have lead to Manchester's recent recovery
  6. Rename 'Places of Interest' to 'Culture', strip out the non-cultural stuff
  7. Improve 'Transport'

Some of these changes would be WP:BOLD, so can I ask for comments on the changes I have summarised above? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post. I'm with you all the way on this, although I'd be mindful of removing everything about the GMC from 'History' to 'Governance'; Greater Manchester was always about municipal unity and administrative convienience afterall, but I think I know where you're going with these changes. These sound good. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ta. I'm just a bit worried about striking out whole chunks of pre-industrial revolution history in both the 'History' and 'Places of Interest' sections. I suppose if the GMC History/governance sections are self-contained and easy to move about then we can decide later where they fit best. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at the peer review now, and I notice that one of the items mentioned is a merge of Greater Manchester with the Greater Manchester Urban Area. I don't know what others think of that, but I'd be opposed to such a merge. GMC is an administrative area with statutory boundaries, whilst the GMUA is the physical built-up area whose boundaries change from census to census. Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think they should be separate. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since Greater Manchester County Council was abolished in 1986...

Just over a decade after it was created, what role legal role does Greater Manchester actually have since local power is located with the unitary authories? In the intro the article alleges that Greater Manchester "continues to exist in law". In what sense? Do we have a reference for this claim, since the one provided only backs up a claim that sometimes some people use it as a "geographic frame of reference". Since the only designation is actually has today is "ceremonial", essentially a courtesy designation with no actual power, then the claim that it "exists in law" needs to be sourced, very strongly by official legislation or a high up government official. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would The Derbyshire and Greater Manchester (County Boundaries) Order 1991 be a start? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And Parliamentary representation, Lieutenancies Act 1997. The three references provided also back up this claim too... --Jza84 |  Talk  11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Jza, Greater Manchester is not a parliamentary constituency. There are "28 Parliamentary constituencies - 18 Borough constituencies and 10 County constituencies" within what some consider the geographical area of Greater Manchester, taking for example Rochdale (UK Parliament constituency). There is no "Greater Manchester mega MP" who has power over these or even one representing Greater Manchester, thus the entity is powerless. Also, in the modern age the Lieutenancies, etc are ceremonial and does not define a legal existence or power of an area since Lord Lieutenants "have no role in local government, nor are they responsible for promulgating local ordinances in the monarch's name", an award given to retired people. Perhaps you would be interested in reading Lady Thatcher's Local Government Act 1985. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Greater Manchester is not a parliamentary constituency" - never said it was, but it is used for constituencies - it's boroughs are not. I've just reverted your traditional-counties POV too from the lead. Please obtain a consensus here prior to restoration (you also need to secure that edit for the rest of the metropoltian counties) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You claimed Greater Manchester had parliamentary representation, it doesn't. Government in the modern day is very localised, so we have things like an MP for Rochdale (UK Parliament constituency) instead. Also I am reverting your edit which covered up the fact that it is a former administrative area. That is the most notable thing about it. It used to be a centre of power with a council, until the Greater Manchester County Council was abolished thanks to Margaret Thatcher and the Local Government Act 1985. As for the "traditional counties POV" attack, I'm not sure what the Local Government Act 1985 has to do with traditional counties, since Greater Manchester doesn't fall under that? As for the rest of the metropolitan articles, I'm not really interested in editing them. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)::::I don't think "Greater Manchester" as such ever had any legal powers. Greater Manchester Council, whose writ was contiguous with the county boundaries, certainly had plenty of power. About 70% of the powers of GM Council now rests with the county-wide authorities (I have a ref somewhere if you intend to follow it up), so in some ways the powers have just been split up but are still held along county lines. Greater Manchester exists with precisely delineated boundaries, and as a frame of reference for laws, as indicated in the Order I linked to above. What exactly are you getting at Yorkshirian? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
To make it clearer in the article, that it no longer has any power (the Greater Manchester County Council is one of the only notable things about it, providing the coat of arms you even see on this talk). This should be made as clear as possible. Certainly it should be mentioned within the opening sentence the most notable thing about it, in following with the Local Government Act 1985. I've added a source for it in the form of Regional Imperative: Regional Planning and Governance in Britain, Europe and the United States, Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So what is the Greater Manchester Police, the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive then. G-Man ? 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having those services are nothing to do with the county status - see West Mercia Police or Thames Valley Police for example. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm still not certain what Yorkshirian is driving at. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian might elaborate somewhat. Certainly I find it disagreeable that Greater Manchester is "targetted" here, rather than any other metropolitan county. To me, that screams volumes. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jza, please refrain from personal attacks and read WP:NPA. Comment on the edit not the editor. As for your claim that I'm "targetting" this subject which Lady Thatcher took all power away from in 1986, by inserting referenced information, is rather dubious. I don't personally have an interest in editing the other abolished powers and why must I? There is no Wikipedia rule that says I have to edit every former administrative area who's powers were abolished by Thatcher. Also removing sourced information, just because you have a bias stance against what it says, is a big no no. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The source isn't reliable - there's clearly a greater wealth and greater quality of material asserting, or even prooving the contrary "[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ons_geography/Gazetteer_v3.pdf The former council areas were not abolished and continue to be used for statistical purposes". That aside, your edit is against WP:PLACE, and the piping is at best substandard. Try to view this less as a "battle" that needs to be won, but more as a space to add real value to the internet - your edits are clearly damaging and destructive, and given the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian, would be best avoided all together. What do others think? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
--P.S. Even the Association of British Counties admit that "the county councils for the "metropolitan counties" were abolished by the Local Government Act 1985 although the "metropolitan counties" themselves were not abolished." ([16]!) I'm not sure what is to be gained by adding such an incorrect claim. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


May I suggest you read WP:V and WP:COI first. Apart from the reference from the book not reflecting your opinion, it would be interesting what rationale you're claiming it isn't a reliable source? Just because you dislike it, as you seem to dislike the Local Government Act 1985 does not mean that it is not reliable. Some use Greater Manchester for statistics, that is true, but that does not contradict the fact that it no longer has local power, due to the Local Government Act 1986. Are you denying this? If so on what basis.
Try to view this as less of an "attack" on the former administrative area and more an attempt to provide highly important and useful information that the reader needs to know. Using such words as "damaging" and "destructive" is clearly not an assumption of good faith on your part and is clearly untrue. Adding referenced information is in no way "destructive", quite the opposite. Also the WP:NPA philosophy of "comment on the edit not the editor" doesn't seem to have got through. Lets discuss the content please, not your opinion of me. Cheers! - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
PS - Jza, you seem to be incorrectly reading the referenced information I put in the article. I did not delete it being a "metropolitan county" and I do not have anything against that phrase being in the intro, which you seem to be suggesting. I simply added after that with a reference that it is a former administrative area. Both apply to this entity. Are you denying that, due to the Local Government Act 1985 its status is now a "former" administrative area? On what basis. Its power was abolished. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"I simply added after that with a reference that it is a former administrative area.".... "former administrative area" has no statutory definition - it's a made up term; a sythesis if you will! Greater Manchester clearly is an administrative area in that it has the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, as well as ten district councils. You're confusing the lack of a top-level county council with lack of administration altogether. Yorkshire is probably better described as a "former administrative area", where's your edit to that article's lead? Also, Greater Manchester isn't sentient - "Its power was abolished" is nonsensical - the county council was abolished, and I'd urge you to be mindful of that distinction. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion. If you were to go to the official website of the AGMA, instead of expressing your own personal opinion on its role, you would see that it says of itself;
"AGMA (the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) was formed after the abolition of the Greater Manchester Council in 1986. The 1985 Local Government Act devolved power to local areas but also recognised that there were some functions that needed to be co-ordinated at a metropolitan level. AGMA was formed to undertake these functions."[17]
You still seem to be confused on the ". Also interesting and fittingly, considering your insistance that Greater Manchester is a "legal entity" (WP:OR opinion which you refuse to source, such as on the Greater Manchester County Council article). The organisation you have just brought up as a means to counter the claim, describes itself as so, "AGMA is not a legally constituted body or a large organisation".[18] Interesting.
Please with references, present how "Greater Manchester's power was not abolished". This is the core argument and you're not providing anything to counter that it was. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can find, if you're interested and intend to take it up, a reference that states (from memory) "the political reality is that all key budgetary decisions are taken via the AGMA". The AGMA is, on paper, basically one man and his dog in an office in (IIRC) Wigan, but that's just the permanent staff. There are multiple sub-committees that quietly get on with the job of running a large fraction of GM business, and the leaders of the ten boroughs meet regularly under its auspices. The idea that there isn't a central powerful body is oversimplified. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is argument is all very odd. Greater Manchester is a county according to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). It is a county for the purposes of the Lieutenancies Act 1997 by virtue of its existence according to the 1972 act. This continued existence under the 1972 legislation is, as I understand it, its existence 'in law'. MRSC • Talk 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite, but until Yorkshirian comes clean about what he means and stops using ambiguous or nonsensical phrases, we won't get far. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deadlinks 30 May 08

I'm putting these here to save having to re-run the tool. Wayback is dead atm. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Y All fixed now (thanks Joshii). Mr Stephen (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)