Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Manchester: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Joshii (talk | contribs)
3,985 edits
→History section: new section
Nev1 (talk | contribs)
56,354 edits
Line 274: Line 274:


In order to minimise the table of contents does anybody else agree that the WWII and '96 IRA sections could be merged and expanded to become an "Industrial Decline" section. Then the history section would be ordered: Early History, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Decline then Urban Redevelopment. I think that might be better than it is currently as the IRA and WWII sections are both short paragraphs which are discouraged. Any thoughts on this? <sub>└</sub><sup>'''[[User:And-Rew|<font color="#0084C9">and-rew</font>]]'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>''[[User talk:And-Rew|<font color="#0084C9">talk</font>]]''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to minimise the table of contents does anybody else agree that the WWII and '96 IRA sections could be merged and expanded to become an "Industrial Decline" section. Then the history section would be ordered: Early History, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Decline then Urban Redevelopment. I think that might be better than it is currently as the IRA and WWII sections are both short paragraphs which are discouraged. Any thoughts on this? <sub>└</sub><sup>'''[[User:And-Rew|<font color="#0084C9">and-rew</font>]]'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>''[[User talk:And-Rew|<font color="#0084C9">talk</font>]]''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think that's correct, didn't British industry grow during WWII and decline afterwards due to greatly reduced need and investment (including Manchester)? In which case shoving the stuff about WWII into a section called "Industrial Decline" would be incorrect. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:29, 19 September 2007

Template:V0.5

Archives

  1. Box1 (including long-running debate on "second city" status)
  2. Box2 24 September 2005 - 27 October 2005
  3. Box3 28 October 2005 - 28 February 2007
  4. Box4 4 March 2007 - 31 May 2007
  5. Box5 June 2007 (Infobox Image and GA discussion)
  6. Box6 September 2007 (Vandalism debates and 2nd/3rd city "discussion")


From City of Manchester

"First industrial city"

With regards to the claim made in the lead section that Manchester was the world's first industrial city. I don't believe this is historically accurate. Manchester was certainly among the first industrial cities which emerged during the early industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, along with Birmingham and Sheffield and even Derby. If you read History of Birmingham or History of Sheffield you will see that they have histories of industry dating back centuries and industrialised at about the same time. I can't see that Manchester has any special claims to having beaten any of these.

I have therefore altered this claim from 'the first' to 'one of the first' several times but it keeps being added back. G-Man * 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a number of sources (one of which I added) which explicitly states the "first industrialised city". I've no real objections to "one of the first", though I'm conscious of not misappropriating the citation. I'd be interested to know what the criteria is used for "first industrialised city"; perhaps it means in terms of its architectural landscape, or economy, or "first fully industrialised city" (as opposed to partly industrialised which of course all settlements would have had some form or industry). A curious problem Jza84 12:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naah, Manchester really is regarded as the first industrial city. Go to google scholar and enter "first industrial city" and see what you get. Cotton & Ancoats seem to be the criteria, but I'm happy to be corrected. Mr Stephen 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I have a printed source, and Google scholar also seems to back the claim. I think G-Man's intentions were admirable and perfectly understandable, but I think we should rephrase the statement how it was. Of course every settlement would have had industry as soon as trade was invented, but I think Manchester was the first fully/truly industrialised city, in economy, landscape, demographics, and spirit. Jza84 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, look at this. G-Man * 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touchet! Hmmmm. An interesting counter claim, and quite a verifiable source - perhaps then we ought to use the phrase (as used for every other it seems) that it is often/sometimes decribed/credited/quoted as the first industrialised city? Objections? Jza84 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is here.
"Meeting here, by appointment, Mr. Bakewell, who being related to some gentlemen in the manufactory no time was lost; they had the goodness to shew me every thing I wished. The circumstance in the fabric which most excited my surprise was the small, or rather no use, that is made o water; in the town there are no mills; and the number in the vicinity, for the direct operations of the fabric, are inconsiderable; the number of little and distinct forges for works performed by a single hand, surprised me; I had conceived that machinery was carried much further in this fabric; they have some tools of beautiful invention, but which, to an inquisitive and reflecting mind, excites some degree of wonder that so many operations yet remain performed by the reiterated strokes of hand, given by a man in executing works that might apparently be abridged with the same case as others, seemingly more complex. I saw no machines comparable to a cotton mill or a stocking engine. The capital improvement wrought since I was here before is the canal to Oxford, Coventry, Wolverhampton, &.; the port, as it may be called. or double canal head in the town crouded with coal barges is a noble spectacle, with that prodigious animation, which the immense trade of this place could alone give. I looked around me with amazement at the change effected in twelve years; so great that this place may now probably be reckoned, with justice, the first manufacturing town in the world. From this port and these quays you may now go by water to Hull, Liverpool, Bristol, Oxford (130 miles), and London."
Leaving aside, for now, WP:UNDUE, do we interpret "first" as "earliest" or "foremost"? But I repeat, there are lots of references that Manchester was the first (earliest) industrial town. The difficulty I have always had is finding a suitably succinct, unambiguous, and accessible reference. For now, Hartwell (see the bibliography in the article) p13 should lay the general matter to rest with "SE Lancashire and Manchester became the first industrial econoomy and society in the world, but the precise reason [is unclear]" Mr Stephen 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Often credited as' sounds ok. G-Man T 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

May I suggest that the information in that section be placed into a table and that more information be added in terms of areas with high populations of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc. etc. - Erebus555 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It think it might be a good reference tool for the BNP, but I can't really see it being of any great value to anyone else. The 2001 Census has been online years so anyone can look up for themselves. The information Manchester City Council is tabulated by ward and despite notions that Manchester has ghettos with the exception of Newton Heath 85% Christian and Rusholme 45% Muslim, the distribution is very healthy. Mike33 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adds more weight to adding such infomation. It's also a requirement of WP:UKCITIES that religious composition is reported upon. Cheetham Hill and other such areas are cosmopolitan districts of Manchester which, should suitable citation be found, would surely dispell myths of Manchester's Ghettoism. Jza84 22:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, just for reference you can check out my spreadsheet (in html so spacing is a bit weird but based on 2001 ward boundaries) and city council religion 2001 census breakup (based on new ward boundaries) mine is OR and theirs is crown copyright so neither can be used as source.

Mike33 01:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to get some input from the Greater Manchester WikiProject too - I have set up blank tables at this talk page section. They need some input of figures there before we paste them into articles. I'll try to input the material you [Mike33] have gathered here! Jza84 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some trafford, stockport, bury, salford - but i've saved them all in html. they are numbers (people) and percentages per ward - most of the boundries have changed too. think I've got the official census returns on religion per borough but apart from manchester they are pre 2004. Mike33 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comparison table to this article using your data (thanks). For the metropolitan boroughs, we can swap the Manchester data there, and compare against Greater Manchester and England. For places like Moss Side we can do the same, putting Moss Side's demography in the first column, Manchester in the second, and England in the third. If you're happy with this approach we can roll it out on a few articles? Jza84 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

I've placed Unreferenced and Refimprove section boxes. The top half of the article is well covered with citations, further down large parts is Unreferenced or poorly references. JJC-IE 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many now consider Manchester to be the country’s second city

I have included a reference to an article in the Times , which includes the phrase "Many now consider Manchester to be the country’s second city:". I have done that to try and stop, or at least pause, the back-and-forth edits (varying between "some", "often", "many" etc) that were trying to quantify the opinion. We don't need a long list of examples. Can I ask anyone visiting the article to consider adding a comment, even if it's on just one section, at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Manchester and suggest how to improve the article? Mr Stephen 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DVD 0.5

The latest version of the DVD is now available, 4000+ child friendly good articles. The Manchester article is on there Schools DVD Manchester, and the editors haven't cut that much of it and included some bizarre sentences that I thought would have been weeded out - eg "See also The Salvation Army in Manchester". There take on the second city debate is "some citizens consider it to be the second city", which I don't recall ever forming part of the opening. It also includes the old section listing nightclubs and the gay village. Schools in Africa are going to love that! Mike33 - t@lk 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links section contains a link to the web page of the local Conservative Party - does this maintain neutrality? Surely it should either be removed or supplemented with links for the pages of at least the other two major parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.58.40 (talk) 12:46, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have removed it. Oldelpaso 12:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is starting to put on a bit of weight. WP:EL and WP:NOT tell us what sort of links we should have here, and some of them could do with weeding out. I propose a cull along the following lines, to avoid a WP:SPAMHOLE.

Mr Stephen 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Mr Stephen 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

The Climate of the British Isles including Manchester is known as a Maritime climate. It is a variety of temperate climate which is a category which encompasses several other climate types, for example Continental. Please read both articles on temperate and Maritime in full to establish this is fact. Summers are relatively cool as compared to most other climate types and winters are mild as can be seen from the temperature stats and on the Köppen climate classification description of a Temperate Maritime climate

Beetham Tower & the warehouse offices, Deansgate

The frontage in the foreground (onto Deansgate) is the longest Victorian frontage in the country, see Parkinson-Bailey, Manchester: An architectural history, pp 265, 325. A shot with more sunlight on the frontage and more pixels would be nice. Mr Stephen 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review in Progress

Hello,

I'm now reviewing this article for possible promotion to Good Article status. This is a lengthy article so it will take a little bit of time for me to compile the full critique of the article, compare it against the checklist, make suggestions, and make an decision as to whether this article should be promoted. I'll also be looking over your Peer Review. Cheers! Pursey Talk | Contribs 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Completed

Hello,

I've now completed my good article review of Manchester. Please find below my assessment of this article, and details of the criteria I assessed it against. A checklist has been provided for quick reference, and comments have been provided for a more in depth analysis.

I've also provided additional suggestions to further improve this article.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • There are few articles I've seen on Wikipedia which such a dedicated set of editors, who work continuously to calmly and openly discuss issues and rectify them in relation to the content in Manchester.
  • When I came up to the Stable criteria, I took into account everything listed on the talk page and the articles edit histories. I've made the judgement that the editors always come to a reasonable decision on changes and there is no real evidence of any edit warring, which is somewhat rare considering the semi-controversial nature of some of the content of this article, as well as an article on a subject such as a major city. You should be proud.
  • The use of images in this article is fantastic. All the images contain ALT Text, are captioned when possible, and follow the Images Guidelines to the letter. Thank you to those who assisted in making this possible.
  • Following your peer review, and clearly some heavy consulting of the Manual of Style, the article layout, lead, and overall readability is excellent. It appears weasel words were avoided and cleaned up following your peer review. The editors of this article don't seem to be opposed to taking onboard advice - a mark of a great contributor!
  • The editors on this article have worked incredibly hard to make sure this article was written from a Neutral Point of View. This is evident from the content of the article and the discussion on the talk page.
  • You have also worked hard to ensure a massive range of reliable and external references were provided to verify the content of this article. 89 references of that quality for an article like this is excellent.
  • I can find no evidence of any original research within this article.
  • I found a minor spelling error in the article. Just one, in the entire article. This was corrected by myself.
  • The article covers just about every conceivable topic about Manchester without containing any useless or unnecessary details.

As a result of my assessment of this article, I am promoting this article to Good Article status.

A massive congratulations to the editors of this article. The only other thing I feel I could suggest from here is that you check out thefeatured article criteria and work towards promotion to Featured Article status. Good luck, and I sincerely hope everyone involved in editing this article can also apply there excellent collaborative efforts on other articles on Wikipedia.

If I can assist in any other way, provide further information, answer any questions for you, drop me a line at my talk page. If you disagree with my review of this article, please feel free to take it to a good article review. Once again, congratulations. Pursey Talk | Contribs 15:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pursey! I was just thinking (coming back from a small break) that this article has massively improved in the last few weeks. Well done everyone who has contributed! - FA next! Jza84 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Indeed, I looked over a large chunks of previous versions, and it's just had so much attention and hard work put into it, I'm stunned. I have no doubt if everyone continues to work on this as they have, it'll eventually make FA Status. Pursey Talk | Contribs 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

The next step for this article is to bring it up to WP:FA standards now that my nomination for WP:GA status was accepted. I think that the article is currently laid out fine and has all the sections it needs so the main objective is to expand on the smaller sections and a bit of re-wording of the current article. I also think the article would benefit from an overhaul of all the citations to ensure they are all written the same way with the same citation templates. I also think we should ask for another peer review and hopefully this time will get one which is more specific to this article rather than the broad automated one we had before. I hope that lots of people will come to help improve this article further and more photographs would be very useful especially if they are more professional and could become featured pictures which would greatly help a future FA nomination. If anybody new wants to help improve this article go straight to WP:UKCITIES as it has lots of useful tips for what to include and what to avoid.
Also take a look at:

  1. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
  2. Wikipedia:Article development
  3. Wikipedia:The perfect article
  4. Wikipedia:Featured article advice
  5. User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA
  6. User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them
  7. User:AndyZ/Suggestions
  8. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a

└and-rew┘┌talk┐ 20:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that asking for a review is a good next step, but I think I'd opt for specifically asking for a copyedit instead/as well. As it stands, I think this article will most definitely fail on the usual 1a) objection, and that it needs more than a "bit of re-wording" to get through an FA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just while I'm still keeping an eye on this article... another peer review is probably a good idea. The reference overhaul is a great idea - bring it up to some uniform standard across the article. Pursey Talk | Contribs 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done all round, I think. As an editor, I must hold up my hands and admit to some poorly formatted refs. My excuse is that I put them in to get agreement on their suitability first and tidy them up later. I find that each cite template takes me about ten to fifteen minutes to complete (I don't know where the time goes either) so I don't want to knock hell out of the tendons on the back of my wrist if they are going to be removed. So, are we agreed that the refs that are in now should be kept and formatted, and that they should be formatted using the cite templates (mostly template:cite web and template:cite book I guess)? And what format do we want for multiple references to a single book? I'm happy with the notes/bibliography style at Johannes Kepler, where the numbered footnote contains (eg) Kidd, Manchester, p 1 (or do we prefer Kidd, p 1 ?) and the full reference - Kidd, Alan J. (1993). Manchester (Town and city histories). Manchester: Ryburn. ISBN 1-85331-016-6. - appears in a bibliography (we currently have it marked up as 'further reading'). Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 00:14, September 7, 2007 (UTC) oops! Mr Stephen
I prefer the approach taken for Dundee - that way you can click on the digit/number and it takes you to the reference with the full list of info, and also halts the problem of "reference or further reading" as you've discovered - but I could live with the Kepler style. I think consistency is the key regardless. Jza84 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer the Dundee style as well, but consistency is the thing I suppose, not my personal preference.
As an aside, I think it's extraordinary that even a cursory glance at that Dundee article shows up several breaches of WP:MOS, most obviously in the use of dashes. Breaches that might prevent it from being promoted to an FA, but don't cause it to be demoted from an FA. C'est la vie, nobody ever claimed that life was fair. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being slow here, but what part of the style used in the Dundee article would be applicable? We have (about) a dozen references to Kidd, a problem that Dundee doesn't have. Mr Stephen 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope nobody minded but I overhauled all of the references myself using the same template New York City has used which is a featured article. That is one less thing to do now. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't mind, and God knows how long it took you, but there's quite a lot still to do. In no particular order, with no claims to completeness, and absolutely not simply as 'knocking'
  • "Hartwell et al" was Hartwell, Clare (2004). Lancashire: Manchester and the South-East. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10583-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); "Hartwell" was Hartwell, Clare (2001). Pevsner Architectural Guides: Manchester. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-071131-7.; you seem to have assumed both were the second.
  • "Kidd" referred to the 1993 edition. I have no idea if the page numbers match up in the 2006 edition.
  • ISBNs have spaces or dashes in them. Check out User talk:SmackBot/archive. I know the New York article doesn't have them.
  • URLs in book cites are for links to online editions of the book, not adverts at the publishers.
  • News and web sites have both a "work" field (The Guardian, BBC Online, etc) and a "publisher" field (Guardian News and Media Limited, BBC). Yes, sometimes they are very similar; sometimes they are not, but both should be given. As far as possible, the full date of publication should be also given (ie 27 October 2000, not just 2000). It's dull stuff.
  • Strictly personally: I remain unconvinced that multiple full cites to one work looks good; also, you removed a number of quotes, especially from second city stuff - they went in to provide firm foundations to claims and a firm bulwark against mischief, and I hope against expectation that they won't be needed again.
Best regards, Mr Stephen 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will sort all those things out as soon as I get chance, thanks for pointing them all out. Glad to see some people taking an active interest in the article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

A new peer review request has been made here to help us get started on improving the article to WP:FA standard. I had to move the old peer review to here to make way for the new one. Anybody can add to the peer review request with anything they think would be constructive for the article. Thanks. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to bring the WikiProject Greater Manchester editors on board to make this push towards FA possible. Also, on another note, as Manchester has achieved GA, it would be nice to support this WP:MANC by also improving the Greater Manchester article, which is very much linked to this one. Jza84 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd best place to do business?

I note that the Manchester article currently states that Manchester is the 3rd best place to do business in the UK, based on one source. There are other sources that suggest that Manchester is the best city e.g [1].Is one source more definitive than another or is it reasonable to refer to both? I would appreciate some views before altering the article.GRB1972 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. That particular reference was introduced here as an update to this ref. Mr Stephen 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are both valid. I would put the 1st place one in the lead section, not because it is first place, because it is only focused on the UK rather than a Europe-wide one. The Europe one should be mentioned with the UK one in the Economy section with something like "In a survey focused on business in European cities Manchester was ranked 21st in Europe and 3rd in the UK". The UK one is probably more reliable as it had fewer cities to look at so could have more criteria to measure. The lead part could go something like "In a business location research project Manchester was ranked the best city in the UK to do business. Or maybe that is too much of a mouthful. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tha advice - I will amend as suggested.GRB1972 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Founded - 13th century

Why is the foundation date down as being the 13th century? Manchester's origins are Roman (1st century) and there has been an English settlement there since before the Normans (11th century). The town charter of 1301 is 14th century. So where does the 13th century date come from? I think it should be changed. David 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, but I'm curious as to what extent this approach of using town charters for founding dates is taken elsewhere on Wikipedia and the UK. Indeed, Liverpool celebrates its 800th birthday this year, which is based upon its town charter. Jza84 14:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we put 1st century - I take it that there has been continuous habitation since then? David 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there conclusive proof of the 1st century?? And does it constitute a "founding"?... Regardless I think the town charter is significant enough to be included in the infobox, but we should make it clearer that it this is the town charter date (and then also include the city status date). I'm just concerned that this is something that should be consistent for the rest of the UK. Jza84 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

I note that the population given is 441 000 and that Manchester is ranked 6th in the UK based on the mid-2005 estimates and that 2005 estimates are used for all of the populations of British cities. As the 2006 mid year estimates are now available[2] is it reasonable to change the Manchester figures or would I need to alter all the UK cities? The change in figures is significant as Manchester overtakes Liverpool as the most populous city in the North-west Thanks GRB1972 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for the prose in the Demography section (rather than the infobox data), I'd word it as you have just done so here! Jza84 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation suggestions

In our effort to achieve WP:FA, can I make the following suggestions about where I believe we need radically to "up" our level of citation:

  1. The "Transport" section is almost entirely unsourced.
  2. The "Nightlife" section is almost entirely unsourced.
  3. The first, third and forth paragraphs of the "Music and theatre" section are unsourced.
  4. The "Literature" section requires a citation template for two sources.
  5. The first paragraph of the "Sports" section is entirely unsourced.
  6. The bulk of the middle section of the "Media" section is unsourced.
  7. The "Twin cities and consulates" is entirely unsourced.

On another note, the use of conurbation in the statement "Manchester and its conurbation are home to a number of foreign consulates and commissions" seems to be un-necessary as they all appear to be within the City of Manchester. Also, that section's contents may benefit from being in a table rather than a list (and... the Manchester post town should be fully capatalised as MANCHESTER, officially!). Hope these help a little! Jza84 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'horses mouth' for twin cities is probably here. "Manchester has six Friendship Agreements with cities across the globe: Wuhan (China), St Petersburg (Russia), Chemnitz (Germany), Cordoba (Spain), Rehovot (Israel) and Bilwi (Nicaragua)." of which only Wuhan, St Petersburg and Chemnitz are active. Mr Stephen 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post script: a book recently appeared on Waterstones' shelves, by a local consul and called something like "Consular Manchester". It wasn't there last week, and I can't find it on Amazon. Leafing through it, apparently Manchester has a lot of consulates due to its size, history and distance from London. Anyway, if anyone can track that book down it would probably do for the ref. Mr Stephen 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is called Manchester Consuls, written by David Fox, ISBN 9781859361559, and looks to be a good history. But so far as verifying the current consulates in Manchester I'd have thought that the Manchester Consular Association's Web site would be authorative enough? I've added a reference for that anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link online [3] which gives details of all foreign consulates outside London. I am not sure if it is in date but the link has 050707 in which I think may refer to 5th July 2007 which is not too long ago. Some of the ones on this article are not on that pdf and there are lots which are not on here. Some addresses are different too. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list sems to be pretty consistent with the list given on the Manchester Consular Association's web site. The discrepancies are due to two things I think: some of the entries listed in the Manchester article aren't consulates – I'm thinking of trade commissions and honorary consuls; the second is that I think if it would be pushing things a bit far to include consulates that are in Stockport, or Wilmslow in a list of Manchester consulates, as the pdf does? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus:, yes, that's the one, here at Amazon. If anyone can get five minutes with a copy we should be able to generate 30-50 words on the subject; after all Wikipeida is not a mere list or directory. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be at he libraries yet :( Mr Stephen 11:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-do

To-do I just added the to-do list at the top of the talk page and I think it would be a great idea if people would add their suggestions to it Talk:Manchester/to do. Also try and be specific e.g. rather than just put "add citations", list the sections which need sources so we can strikeout when completed. I think the article is really coming along well now! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

In order to minimise the table of contents does anybody else agree that the WWII and '96 IRA sections could be merged and expanded to become an "Industrial Decline" section. Then the history section would be ordered: Early History, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Decline then Urban Redevelopment. I think that might be better than it is currently as the IRA and WWII sections are both short paragraphs which are discouraged. Any thoughts on this? └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct, didn't British industry grow during WWII and decline afterwards due to greatly reduced need and investment (including Manchester)? In which case shoving the stuff about WWII into a section called "Industrial Decline" would be incorrect. Nev1 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F158987762