Talk:Manchester/Archive 4

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)

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)

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 )"? 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)

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 Article series and 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)

How can this article be called "Too Long"? The London Article is 85kb and the Birmingham article is even bigger at 89kb. These are both classed as good articles. This makes no sense. Any help? 0Andrew0 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sankeys
Can anybody determine whether the subject of the "Sankeys" article is notable enough to have an encyclopaedia article? I've prodded it, and will be deleting it if nobody can turn it into something encyclopaedic. Joe D (t) 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to ascertain if it is notable. It does have references, and I'm inclined to think that if it was a little better written, it'd be considered notable.


 * I'm fairly sure that the site was a significant (how much I'm not entirely sure) warehouse for soap production during the 19th century - I think this may improve it's notablity if it could be somehow incorporated. Jhamez84 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing time
This great big article deserved some weeding out of minutiae and trivia from some text, among other things like list-whitespace ecomonizing, and removal of redundancies. There's much more to be done, folks.Piperdown 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length
I have cut down the article and created new articles. I also removed the too long tag as the length has been reduced to around that of similar articles e.g. Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool. There is still lots of work that needs to be done and the new pages needs to be improved. I added a Food and Drink in Manchester page and moved the text which was already here to there, not sure if it is really needed as the section does not cite sources but Food and Drink in Birmingham has managed to build itself up. XAndreWx 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Politics sections
The economics and politics sections are completely empty, with the exception of main article tags. These sections should at least have a summary of the sub-articles and not be left empty. - Erebus555 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester
It exists POLICE/SHERRIF/Births marriages deaths - everything is registered in (NON EXISTANT?) County of Greater Manchester. The county exists in legality. Its bizarre that u continually fight a revision war over its existence or area. I accept that the post office have never accepted it. but place like Humberside list births and death as yorks or lincs now. Mike33 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)