Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Notes and References
Of course, if the contents of this table are to be included in any article, and we are going to avoid tedious squabbles about some of the facts, each claim or item of information added to it needs to be cited and referenced. I suggest one actually does that as one enters information to it. I'll add an appropriate sub-section that will include the references. DDStretch   (talk)  14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I see a lot of information is being added, BUT I think we really DO need to be ruthless about citations and referencing here. If those items are not appropriately referenced, they SHOULD be removed. It is only what we should all be doing anyway, and so I think in this contraversial area of dispute, it is even more important that we do it.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite. Every single entry no matter how obvious should be referenced. We already have descrepencies - J. R. R. Tolkien is not from Birmingham just from a quick glance alone (nor is a visual artist). Alot of the content added by TharkunColl is unreferenced, unverifiable and highly objectionable thusfar. Jza84 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tolkien lived in B'ham from infancy to early adulthood. Why not have a look at his article? TharkunColl 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, I can see only one claim is referenced. Consequently, I will remove all unreferenced claims this evening. I justify this by the nature of this article, its controversial nature, along with WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:References. So, start adding them quickly. By the way, one cannot use Wikipedia as a verifiable source. So, you need to go to the article about J.R.R. Tolkein and add the source used to verify that claim, and add the period during which he lived in Birmingham along with the name. DDStretch   (talk)  14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a work in progress, a brain-storming session if you like, and is not the finished article. Consequently, any precipitous removal of items will be considered vandalism to other people's comments. TharkunColl 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * References are not required on talk pages; nothing should be removed. If and when this is moved to a live page )- which it's certainly not ready for, yet - then only referenced items should be moved. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett


 * I accept that they are not required, but that doesn't mean references should never be added. In this case, as I have stated in many places, my experience of doing this kind of thing many many times, both professionally and as just a "hobby" if you like, informs me that we would be well-advised to add them as we go along to make sure we don't lose track of any. Believe me, you think you won't lose any, but I can almost guarantee you will. This advice conforms with all advice given by academic advisors who supervise any kind of serious scholarly writing (which according to criterion 1a of the guidelines for Featured Article status, we need to reach towards.) We will also be able to resolve and questions as they arise if we do this. Finally, I don't know how others are approaching this job, but a sensible way to do so would be to check any items before one adds them. This means that one already has the references to hand, and so why not simply add them at the point at which the items are added to the table.   DDStretch    (talk)  16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But everyone who has ever written a properly referenced work will realise that unless references are added at the point of writing about them, it becomes very difficult to track them down. So, in that case, let us have a vote about when to remove them:  DDStretch    (talk)  15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what relevance telephone area codes have to this? For those who don't know the office of communication sets telephone dialling codes in alphabetical order using the larger cities (ex. London) for the 01*1 numbers with Birmingham being 2 as it comes first in the alphabet followed by Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool & Manchester. This needs to be removed as it’s just pointless. XAndreWx 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is not a good row to have in the table. But since some might say the particularly enthusiastic advocates are in the equivalent of a penis-length competition here, I guess anything might be used to increase one's attributes, even if it is easily deflated. DDStretch   (talk)  21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could the above table be any more biased? Whoever wasted their time producing it forgot to mention the Moors Murderers, the rainfall, the gun crime, the fact that the Hacienda shut down years ago, the fact that the Arndale centre is a dump, the fact that Cardiff an Glasgow have also held the Commonwealth games. The curry mile???? Stolen from Birmingham's balti triangle. Bolton Wanderers? Wigan athletic???? You're having a laugh. In fact, this article and so called discussion is so one sided and BAD it should just be deleted. Honestly it's that bad. You also need to include Joseph Chamberlain for Birmingham politics. And I just love the use of LUZ, whatever that is, nobody other than people on Wikipedia Manchester pages recognise it as any measure. Just delete this rubbish article!!!! It's embarassing!!! Also I don't like the use of sinebot to remove perfectly acceptable comments, signed or not. Wikipedia is turning into a joke, run by a cabal of biased editors.Cornisle (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote on when to remove unreferenced items
Everyone who has ever written a properly referenced work will realise that unless references are added at the point of writing about them, it becomes very difficult to track them down. Given taht the nature of this article is that references are needed for each item in the above table, I propose that all unreferenced items be removed unless they have their references added at the time the items are first added to the table. For items already added and unreferenced, I propose that some breathing space be given to allow those who added them time to track them doen and reference them appropriately. This breathing space shall be 1 day from midnight, 26 July 2007.


 * 1) Support: As proposer.
 * 2) Oppose: Sorry, but removal of other people's comments from talk pages is a form of vandalism (unless those comments are offensive, which they clearly aren't in this case). Remove them, and I'll put them back. I shall not be dictated to by your timetable. TharkunColl 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Comment: the editors adding items to the above list presumably do so after checking them first rather than adding them from memory or out of hope. At least, if they are doing this carefully, they should do so. So, at the point of adding them, they should have an appropriate reference or citation already to hand. To avoid losing these and to have a correct reference for items publically available so others can check them, it is therefore no extra work to immediately add the appropriate references in an appropriate manner at the time of adding the items.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Comment: As I said, interfering with other's comments on talk pages is vandalism. I'll simply reinsert them and if you persist, I'll report you. TharkunColl 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: In which case, what can we do with incorrect additions, such as Julie Walters who isn't from Birmingham, but Smethwick. Granted, it's right next door, but it is still incorrect according to her Wikipedia article. Fingerpuppet 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved her to W. Mids. (Manchester has people from G.M. in that section as well). I certainly don't object to constructive edits like that though. TharkunColl 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In which case, can we make it easier and all agree to Manchester and Birmingham only - no sneaky additions of the likes of Peter Kay or Lenny Henry, as the one isn't a Mancunian and the other isn't a Brummie? Fingerpuppet 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy with your suggestion - someone had already added Greater Manchester comedians to the Manchester column though. And while we're at it - wherever it may have been founded, Manchester United is not in Manchester. TharkunColl 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added some refs already. I've also corrected a spelling mistake for Neville Chamberlain. The reason for asking for references as they are added is to help weed out and discuss contentious issues such as those raised by the questioner immediately they are added. It is a constructive move to do that, despite what it may feel like for those who somehow feel aggrieved that i am suggesting we should do this. believe me, when you have had the experience I have of serious academic writing (of encyclopedias as well, as it happens) in many different contexts, it really is constructive to do the references as one is going along.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything that eventually goes in the article will have to be referenced, but there is no reason to remove them from a talk page or set arbitrary deadlines. TharkunColl 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I ask, then: What is stopping you from adding them as you go along?  DDStretch    (talk)  16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, this is a brain-storming session. As a local historian, everything I've added I already know. If I had to track down references before adding them, most of the items would be forgotten. TharkunColl 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, re: Manchester United) Not now, but it was founded there. Speaking of which, The Hawthorns hasn't been partially in Birmingham since 1966. Fingerpuppet 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure about that, but it is certainly right on the boundary. If Manchester is allowed to keep Man. U., then I see nothing wrong with keeping the Albion. TharkunColl 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Fingerpuppet 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely a better reason for keeping them both in is the name they have and the similar strong association they have with their respective place. That doesn't mean anything else could be included just for a so-called strong association, by the way.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: - references added here merely aids in improving a feature of the article. There's no bad faith here. Jza84 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

sort-of Support it will be more of a nightmare if we leave it till the end and have dozens of refs to find.Merkinsmum 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before, any interference with a person's comments on a talk page is a form of vandalism. If they are removed, I'll simply put them back. TharkunColl 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.:) I don't necessarily agree with removing, but think DD has a valid point that we should try and keep on top of the refs, to save making a lot of work for ourselves later.:)Merkinsmum 12:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think this table is fairly moot, and  voting is evil, but if it is to have any utility it must be fully referenced at all times. The notion that the entries in the table have the protection of signed messages on a talk page is incorrect. The guidelines are at WP:TALK, "New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article", and so the table is article material, not messages. Mr Stephen 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I must agree with Mr Stephen here. You're not taking a particularly diplomatic stance TharkunColl; have you not considered working a little more closely with your fellow editors?? Any unsourced material in an article may be removed at any time, and I'm here to improve the article, not own it to promote my civic pride. You have pasted the table here for people to add to as qualified by other people's actions - removal of material is quite permissable here. Jza84 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the comments from Mr Stephen and Jza84. In addition, I want to make the following comments: TharkunColl wrote a little above this: "As a local historian, everything I've added I already know. If I had to track down references before adding them, most of the items would be forgotten." This puzzles me. First, it puzzles me because the need to add them before checking them seems to suggest that this is some kind of race, which it is not. There is no looming deadline by which entries for the table should be added. Second, it puzzles me because if you already know them, how would they ever become forgotten (which you mentioned at the end of the quote) I am surprised that as a local historian, you do not work to the relevant widely accepted common standard amongst academics acting in a scholarly context. This is that no one should ever use their own self-proclaimed expertise as a guarantee of correctness, and that claimed facts should always, no matter when, be backed up by suitable and appropriate means of verification, of which self-proclamation that they are correct is not one such means. Now, I can provide fully-referenced verification for all the claims I made in making this comment if so desired, as it does fall completely within my own area of academic expertise which is generalizable over all academic disciplines. That's why I am so puzzled a local historian does not work to the standards. I will not be able to supply them for a while, since I am away on holiday for about two weeks from tomorrow, however. So, the people who seem to be expecting me to supply references for their own additions may just have to do some of the work they really should be doing themselves. DDStretch    (talk)  20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions about specific entries
I thought this might be a useful place to keep together questions about specific entries and their resolutions. I'll re-factor the discussion to include the ones raised so far.

J. R. R. Tolkein
J. R. R. Tolkien is not from Birmingham just from a quick glance alone (nor is a visual artist). Jza84 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tolkien lived in B'ham from infancy to early adulthood. Why not have a look at his article? TharkunColl 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikopedia cannot be used to verify facts. See WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References for this, and for more information about appropriate referencing.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For goodness' sake - the Tolkien article has references. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which specific ones verify this particular fact, then? That is the issue here, and it can be solved by the person who adds the material indicating it at the point of addition of that item to the table.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Biography at the Tolkien Society website . TharkunColl 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'[ll add it, but you could have easily done it yourself, you know...  DDStretch    (talk)  18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you've altered the time at which he began to live in Birmingham. At the time, Sarehole, which the family moved to, was actually not in Birmingham, but they moved to a place which was clearly at the time in Birmingham at some time in between the years as I added them. The convention on adding notable people on wikipedia, as far as I have known it, is to add people to the county 9and place) as it was at the time of the event. Technically, unless we know when they moved within the boundaries of Birmingham, we can't just say 1896. It doesn't effectively matter for the validity of having Tolkein in this list, but I have seen this kind of issue raised when articles are considered for improvement. I think it is best to be as accurate as possible, as if we are not, the quality of the table will be diminished. It may seem pedantic to people, but that is in the nature of writing an encyclopaedia that we must behave a little like that. I've left it, but be prepared for someone else to correct it.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a long-running conceit of Birmingham. Tolkien is generally described as having been primarily raised in Warwickshire; this is stated for example in Humphrey Carpenter's well-known biography. It's really a stretch to associate him primarily with Birmingham - Sarehole was most assuredly not part of the city when Tolkien lived there and the central link is the Birmingham Oratory which is tenuous for a direct association. MarkThomas 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He moved to Birmingham in 1900, and later attended King Edward's School, also in Birmingham. As for Carpenter, he is wrong. Sarehole was in Worcestershire, not Warwickshire (being transfered to B'ham in 1911). As for Tolkien having a Warwickshire connection, that is perfectly correct - B'ham was in Warwickshire until 1974. TharkunColl 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Tharkun, my mistake, I just checked my copy of Carpenter and he does actually say Worcestershire, so both he is right and yourself. However, where do you get your claim from that he "moved to Birmingham in 1900" please? MarkThomas 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The family moved from Sarehole in 1900, further into the city, and inside what was then the boundary. I think it was Edgbaston, but they moved around a bit. I'm sure it must be there in Carpenter. TharkunColl 17:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United and Birmingham City
(Manchester United) Not now, but it was founded there. Speaking of which, The Hawthorns hasn't been partially in Birmingham since 1966. Fingerpuppet 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure about that, but it is certainly right on the boundary. If Manchester is allowed to keep Man. U., then I see nothing wrong with keeping the Albion. TharkunColl 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Fingerpuppet 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely a better reason for keeping them both in is the name they have and the similar strong association they have with their respective place. That doesn't mean anything else could be included just for a so-called strong association, by the way. DDStretch   (talk)  16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that The Hawthorns is where West Bromwich Albion play, not Birmingham City. St. Andrews (where Birmingham City play) is well inside the city boundaries. Fingerpuppet
 * Good point, and one which I think further adds to the advisability of immediate referencing.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy Hattersley's Parliamentary Career
I can't find any obvious definitive reference, outside of the wikipedia article, for details of Roy Hattersley's parliamentary career. Can anyone find anything? We need that if he is to stay in. DDStretch   (talk)  16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? You mean whether he actually was there and prominent or not? The wikip article should have sources you can read, so you don't have to rely on it. Here's a bit to read on him, anyway. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/roy_hattersley/profile.html http://www.bps.org.uk/ac2007/soc_events/roy-hattersley.cfm and his column in the Guardian http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Archive/0,,-1020,00.htmlMerkinsmum 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We need it so that a verifiable source can be given for him. That is what is required for all these entries. tahnks for the links. I'll see which one is best to use. I don't see why seem to express incredulity by the three question marks. Asking for clarification on citable sources should not be an incredulous question. And, as it was not me who added the information and I'm not familiar with him, I wasn't sure where to look. That's why i asked.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK!. I've looked at the links you provided. None of them give details of his parliamentary career which ties him to Birmingham. So, those links will not be acceptable for wikipedia's criteria on verification. That is why we need to ask such questions, and as soon as possible.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * he says "I strongly favour homicidal fanatics being caught, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for long periods. So do most residents of Sparkbrook and Sparkhill, districts of Birmingham that I used to represent in parliament."etc. etc. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2005996,00.html ttp://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1454874,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1405079.stm just search Roy Hattersley Birmingham.Merkinsmum 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I must have missed that. Why don't you add it, then. You seem more familiar with the sources than I do for this reason, so it's better for you to add the reference.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Enoch Powell
Is his parliamentary career the fact that counts, or just his birth? (In other words, does "Birmingham" in this context also include Wolverhampton?)  DDStretch    (talk)  17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit knackered today but will tomorrow if one of the others doesn't feel lie it- not sure where it needs to go.:)Merkinsmum 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Enoch Powell was born in Birmingham. It doesn't really matter that he was an MP for elsewhere, and is probably more strongly associated with Wolverhampton as he was a Brummie by birth. Fingerpuppet 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I asked because I had added the MP information to give a bit of context. I removed it a bit ago.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

===David Lodge=== I've changed the category David Lodge is in. He should have been in the Writer's section. Although I can personally verify this information, it needs some acceptable source, which I will track down. DDStretch   (talk)  19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Sorted

Disputes about Writers and what then follows
I see that someone has objected to some writers in the Manchester entry because they came from Salford, and Salford is not Manchester. However, some entries that have not been challenged (so far) have been for things not technically in Birmingham at the time, or else in Wolverhampton. It matters little to me whichever criterion one uses, but there does need to be some consistency. So, what do we allow? Only the city of Manchester and, correspondingly, the city of Birmingham (in which case, the date for Tolkein's residence in Birmingham and the Enoch Powell's partliamentary career also need to be adjusted or removed.) Or are we allowing some greater regions. It does need to be agreed upon, you know. DDStretch   (talk)  21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would accept anywhere that has been at any time: within either Metropolitan Borough (eg Ringway in Manchester), within either Urban Sub-Area (eg Castle Bromwich within Birmingham), within either pre-1974 County Borough (so The Hawthorns counts as Birmingham), or within any post Reform Act 1832 Parliamentary Borough that contains either "Birmingham" or "Manchester" within the title.  That little lot should catch pretty much everywhere that can verifiably be called Manchester or Birmingham.  Additionally, I'd allow anything that verifiably self-identifies with either city - for example, Manchester United or the NEC (which describes itself as being in Birmingham, despite the fact that it's in Solihull MBC). Fingerpuppet 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(sorry, a correction to a mistake in referencing I was doing at the time seems to have mis-attributed the above message. I've now corrected it.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

The disputed entries are given below (refactoring to maintain the integrity of the table, and without removal of any information)


 * Walter Greenwood - Salford (Greater Manchester) (Unacceptable. Salford is not Manchester)
 * Shelagh Delaney - Salford (Greater Manchester) (Unacceptable. Salford is not Manchester)


 * Just the cities (which should be pretty obvious really, since the article is about the second city). The comedians need to be cleaned up as well. TharkunColl 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll re-edit the Tolkein entry and remove Enoch Powell's parliamentary career information, then. Doing that will maintain consistency.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech in Birmingham though, and was himself a Brummie. TharkunColl 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)#
 * Of course. I know that. I've only removed the parliamentary career info.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The county row needs completely removing as well. That is, unless the two cities contain a county, which I don't think they do... DDStretch   (talk)  21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And for exactly the same reason, the conurbations should go as well. TharkunColl 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro section
It strikes me that the intro section is quite long compared to the comparative length of the rest of the article (which should be quite a bit longer. Anyone else thing we should just summarise the controvery/args in the first bit (in a few lines/one paragraph, and stuff like the poll etc should be in the main body of the article (not saying it doesn't deserve to be there, just that the intro should be shorter as a whole.)  The overall length of the article at the mo is brill, nice and readable.Merkinsmum 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a shorter intro, and tinkered with section headings, I don't think I've altered the content.  Hope you all find it most aesthetically pleasing!:)Merkinsmum 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it reads much better now, but perhaps a reference needs to be added about the recent polls concerning Manchester's status. It would perhaps help maintain a neutral balance.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're in there, just moved a line or two down 2 form the section on 'polls'. The intro says manchester has recently been considered to be it.  But add a mention of the polls there too if you like, though that may start the brummie team adding stuff there too.:)Merkinsmum 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they would be justified in adding extra stuff just because a claim was cited - after all, it would be completely what is recommended by wikipedia about citing sources (and at the first mention as well.) I should add it there.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone gone mad?
Surely I can't be the only editor who can see what a phenomenal waste of time this whole discussion is. Can we please just merge the single paragraph of useful, relevant content from here back into Second City and have done with this monstrosity? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anything on wiki all that profound? It has more relevance maybe than 'list of mooses in popular culture' or a lot of the articles here.  Hey, if it makes people happy to work on this article- why not? It's argueably healthier than if we all turned to solvent abuse:)Merkinsmum 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems as valid a task as many articles on wikipedia. The table idea seemed to me to be a good way of keeping people who might otherwise be engaged in an endless edit war occupied. Whether drawing up this table is a lesser waste of time than the disruption caused by endless squabbles and edit-wars is an interesting issue. But, on the whole, I think doing this is better than edit-wars etc. I am also suggesting that editors need to realise that if they want to make something good out of an article like this, they need to put in an enormous amount of work on chasing up references, etc. So far, most seem to be ignoring or are attempting to justify ignoring the need for references to be also added at the same time as new "facts" are added, and I've been suckered into doing a most of what has already been referenced - despite the obligation being on the people who edited in the items to add the citations. Although we must assume good faith, it could be argued by others that this reflects a kind of sub-optimal attitude towards the ideals of building a well-referenced encyclopaedia, for reasons I have given in various places scattered across this page. I'm not criticising people here, just expressing my sadness that this key issue has not yet been grasped by many of the editors.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As an extra: In the course of sorting out some references for some of the claims, I've also corrected and added to the references of other articles on wikipedia, and so I think that shows this article, if for no other reason than this, has merit according to the aims of wikipedia.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No Nick, you're not. Mr Stephen 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is ridiculous and nothing but a conflicting bundle of cherry-picked POVs and references (which are in turn POVs themselves). Unless it limits itself to factual measurements, such as population, it has no place on Wikipedia and will always be disputed. And even those factual measurements will be conflicting, showing a number of cities as 'second'.   Frankly its a embarrassing joke, and I'm amazed it wasn't deleted ages ago. --Escape Orbit 13:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would help if people say where they stand on the issue. For example, Escape Orbit, are you of the view that it is irrefutable that Birmingham is second? If so, your opinion is incorrect - there is ample evidence that there is contention. We have been around this over and over - articles about leading contentions and disputes, provided they are notable and referenced, are absolutely fine on Wikipedia. We will not have this article deleted on the entirely false grounds that the issue is either unreal (it is real) or non-notable (it is notable). MarkThomas 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs
I found a good ref for my bit in the table. It contains the sentence "Birmingham is Britain's second City and its largest council landlord:)"

I MUST stress this...
In the article somebody keeps adding this source to the "point" about Manchester occasionally called third city (Britain's Second City Sandblasts Its Image - New York Times article on Manchester - note "Correction: December 3, 1995, Sunday") the article's correction refers to the SIZE of Greater Manchester NOT the claim of second city. Nobody is disputing that the WMC is more populous than the GMC. This source is misplaced and support the claim that Manchester is reported by media as the second city and as the article is from 1995 this shows that Manchester's claim to second city is not only post 1996 IRA. I would appreciate somebody adding a note under here who agrees that this source needs moving before I move it and get it reverted as has happened many times before. So "Britain's Second City Sandblasts Its Image" shows NYT believed Manchester to be second city back then, not second most populous as was corrected, but second most important. XAndreWx 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many other references that call Manchester the third city - just follow the links. TharkunColl 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never once is my entire post disputed that. The fact is that source is invalid and needs to be moved. XAndreWx 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it quite amusing that although this article was obviously created by a Manchester supporter, diligent research as a result has discovered a wealth of citations for Manchester being the third city. I call that a result. TharkunColl 00:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever happened to only being positive about city claims? This is an example of being negative about "the opposition".  Come on, everyone! Fingerpuppet 00:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite - however, Andre makes a valid point that that single source does not satisify the point in question, even if others do. It should be removed, but the other sources seem fine from a quick glance. Jza84 00:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Improve what we have
As someone not involved in the edit war, can I plead for some calm. It is quite apparent that the article can be improved significantly with some rewriting and facts that don't need any edit warring. A FEW SUGGESTIONS --
 * 1) Cultural factors are too POV to ever decide the question, so probably a waste of energy
 * 2) Those statistics we have are not presented clearly - how about a table of population sizes; a table of cities at different dates 1750, 1800, 1850 etc...
 * 3) The claims of Edinburgh and Glasgow are not given enough treatment
 * 4) Put the historical material earlier, and move the disputed current claims to the bottom.
 * 5) A paragraph has the phrase "In a recent survey commissioned by the BBC investigating the subject of the "'Second city' of England"..." -- since the article is about the second city of the UK, this would seem only marginally admissable to the case.

So let's tighten things up, get some genuine improvement and calm the fighting! --mervyn 08:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mervyn says:-"Put the historical material earlier, and move the disputed current claims to the bottom" --hmm maybe, but the Mancunian lot wouldn't like their claims near the bottom, I imagine.Merkinsmum 13:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Norwich
Changing the subject somewhat. I believe that from the middle ages until about the 18th century Norwich was actually the second largest city in England. It certainly deserves a mention methinks. G-Man ? 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * paragraph needs to be re-worded: how could the Act of Union affect Norwich's status as 'second-largest city in England'? Any larger cities in Scotland were still in Scotland post-Union, and not in England... leaving Norwich's status unaffected. Anglocentric confusion of UK/Britain/ England evident once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.49.0 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to compile a historical list. In Roman times, for example, Cirencester was the second city. TharkunColl 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's based on what criteria exactly? Jza84 10:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you are refering to Norwich or Cirencester. But if it's the latter then read Corinium Dobunnorum. G-Man  ? 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

L'attention s'il vous plaît.
One of the sources which apparently supports B'ham's claim that it is reported by "similar international news media" is this one:. I have looked through it and the only reference to second city is a comment submitted by a member of the public saying "Theis is the only place in Birmingham! I've been a regular for 5 or so years mainly because it is the venue of choice for hip hop and scratch legends to play at when in the 2nd city (Cash Money, Kentaro, Scratch Perverts). Need I say more? by: juddbus, 17 March 2005". Before I remove it can somebody else agree with me that this source is just stupid and/or spam before somebody starts reverting it again as I had already removed it once. Thank you! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I have just checked the other sources and it has one for a foreign language school located in B'ham. This does not validate the claim that it is regarded as second city by international news media as this source is without doubt not the news media. I think this link must also be spam and will be removing it as soon as somebody backs me up. Source here: Thanks again! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As nobody bothered to reply to my messages I removed the spam sources anyway. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Have added some new sources as I agree the ones above were a bit weak given the overwhelming strength of Birmingham's argument. This one in particular is very strong - it's an Australian news article from the weekend about the explosion in gun crime in Manchester that then continues to quote "...Britain's second city of Birmingham..." 

Decent references
These on-the-sly references, along the lines of "Anytown, Britain's second city", are not really going to get us anywhere. We could find several hundred if we wanted to, and it won't improve the encyclopedia. What we really need are references that tackle the subject of which is the second city head-on. I have already suggested this Guardian article. There is a leader in the Birmingham Post (2007) acknowledging Brum's "shaky" claim. There is an article in the Express (2002) about the several contenders. There is one in the FT (2007) expressing astonishment that Manchester could be considered "above" (for want of a phrase) Birmingham (ISTR it's called somehing like "The big balti must look to its laurels"), and there are others. I can dig them out if anyone thinks it's worthwhile, but at the moment I don't see this article getting far. Mr Stephen

I strongly disagree - these "on-the-sly references" as you call them are great source, as they demonstrate quite clearly the worldwide perception of the UK second city debate from an independent viewpoint. To have an article primarily written about Manchester within the last few days that then takes the time and trouble to specifically mention Birmingham as Britain's second city shows that the international media do not rate the claims of Manchester. It is almost non existant to see an article "Manchester, Britain's second city", as the journalist knows such a claim has little basis and would therefore undermine their journalistic credibility.

On the other hand there are numerous articles for "Manchester, Britain's third city" a claim that the journalist does appear to have confidence with. 79.73.208.82 22:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A useful addition to this article
A genuinely useful addition would be to have a list of historical second cities of Britain through the ages. We could start with the Romans, as there were no cities in Britain before that. The first on the list would therefore be Cirencester. We would have to check out the statistics, but I imagine the list would include York for a substantial part of the Middle Ages, and then Bristol. TharkunColl 08:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and probably end with Manchester. Funny how the second city changes from century to century. Your point is also flawed as the United Kingdom doesn't start until 1707, so many of those cities are the second city of England - there is a difference last time I checked. Jza84 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Last time I checked, Manchester was less than half the size of Birmingham. And the fact that the UK didn't start until 1707 is completely irrelevent, since estimated figures are available for Britain from Roman times. TharkunColl 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "you don't think so"? - You seriously don't think there is a difference between England and the UK? And, sorry, second city status is linked with city size since when exactly?... and by who?... You're not taking an objective view on this at all - I seem to remember that the City of London is one of the smallest cities in Europe. Also the 1707 Acts of Union is totally relevant; Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland do have their own history pre-union with England, and did/do have their own captials and second cities. This article is about the Second city of the UK; certainly not England, and not the Roman Empire! You're asserting both an anachronism and a flawed conjecture on city size equating to cultural prominance. Jza84 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be easy to find out what the second cities of England, Scotland, and Wales are. And also Britain as a whole. And also the Roman Empire for any given period, though why you should mention it is not at all clear to me. TharkunColl 23:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. As regards what makes the second city, I agree with a reference I have (somewhere) along the lines "the average Briton does not care much for local authority boundaries, but sees two bustling conurbations of two and a half million people". I also think that a history section would be useful.  Ideally, we would have separate articles for Roman Britain, Britain pre-UK, etc, but I think this article would be a good place to start.  In the unlikely event that any of the sections gets too big, we can split it off.  Mr Stephen 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not too far out I hope. Mr Stephen 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not too far out I hope. Mr Stephen 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In France
Just t'other day a local newspaper in France (Gironde 33) mentioned Birmingham and called it the 2nd City of England. (It actually called it the 2nd lieu (lit. place)). Sadly the paper is not on line. But that's Birmingham 1 Manchester 0 in this part of the world... Any takers from elsewhere in France or the EU? Marcus22 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In Bangladesh, papers refer to Manchester as the second city - though that may be due to the larger bangladeshi community found in Greater Manchester. Jza84 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suddenly find that I am anxious to know what they think in Manchester, Connecticut and Birmingham, Alabama. MarkThomas 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * mmmm Manchester/Oldham Bangladeshis roots tend to be Sylheti, like many of the Pakistanis are from Mirpur and Faisalabad/Lyalpur. I am not suggesting any of them are small towns, in fact they are all huge districts, but when letters, phone calls, football shirts etc come from Manchester, it possibly gives a disproportionate amount of attention to Manchester. Manchester becomes much bigger than London (think New York v Washington or Lahore/Karachi v Islamabad). Conversely London has the biggest Bangladeshi community but almost exclusively they are from the Dhaka district. On the Urdu Wikipedia do you think people have been tied up for the last 5 years debating Karachi v Lahore? Mik e 33 -  t @ lk  07:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.5
Wikipedia 0.5 is the for sale version of Wikipedia. It's the Septuagint of Wikipedia's important articles. 4000 articles went through a team of scholars (scholars not graduates) compared histories and references and came up with copy fit for schools. The DVD costs about £7, but a anyone can download the whole set of articles for free.

I didn't check Birmingham (no need and my northern cloth capped, smog ridden face my have gawped), but I did see the Manchester Article. I posted the link on talk Manchester and either they still think I'm popped or 2nd city is killing debate.

Buzz phrases - "The city, heralded as the " Capital of the North", is a centre of the arts, the media, higher education and commerce, and is considered by many of its citizens to be England's second city." and "The metropolitan borough has a population of 441,200, while the Greater Manchester Urban Area is home to 2,240,230 people, making it England's third largest conurbation after those of Greater London and the West Midlands." Mik e 33 - t @ lk  18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Note England's, not the UK's, as this article continues to mostly ignore the more obvious claims of Edinburgh & Glasgow at UK level within the ongoing petty Birmingham/Manchester English argument) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.37 (talk • contribs)  and extracted by Mr Stephen from the preceding comment.

Oh Dear
This is a largely non-factual article probably created due to some Mancunian constantly editting the UK or England pages to say that Manchester holds this make believe and unofficial status. If this article is worthy of existance, then practically anything should be worthy of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.175.133 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is now well sourced and it seems the comments you make stem from some personal grudge you have against the great city of Manchester. If anything this article is bias towards Birmingham as it does not give proper credit to Glasgow and Edinburgh's claims. I would advise you seek some professional help as it seems your opinion enthrals you to the extent you believe you have to air your views on Wikipedia to people who couldn't really care less what you think. Please refrain from attacking the tireless editors of the Manchester related articles whom strive for factual accuracy and balance on Wikipedia. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said! -  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing this article reflects is how divided the UK really is. There is no deep meaning in second or first city, as I thought it was just referring to size. Any other meanings for second city are based on opinion. One suggestion may be to remove all this talk of second and first city from the articles all together. --MrBobla 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MrBobla, this article is meaningless as it is far too subjective. Manchester has a higher profile than Birmingham (due probably to the airport and football team(s)) but this is not a basis for the title. Subjective opion (even in recent polls) is meaningless. If you want a consensus then just perform two searches in google and see how many hits you get (not scientific I know) - "Bimingham", "Second City" gives 160K, "Mancheser", "Second City" gives 90K hits (even with the current topics in the news).In all objective measurements (size, population, political importance, economic importance (GDP - Birmingham=71st in the world, Manchester=73rd)) Birmingham is higher than Manchester. I think it would be better if, rather than squabbling over a single title that can only be used for the marketing of ONE city, Manchester uses another one "Capital of the North", which it undoubtedly is. In this way we can promote both cities with equal pride. 82.37.45.106 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article still is written as if Birmingham & Manchester are the two leading claimants to the second city title, with all the other claimants (notably Edinburgh & Glasgow) reduced to mere footnotes. As it is I fear that it will continue to be treated with the derision it deserves outside of those two cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.37 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The only ever "official" second city
Is York, when the Romans came over and colonised Britain; they named two capitals; one was Eboracum (York), the other was Londinium (London). Then during the 1400s, 1500s and the 1600s the political Council of the North was housed there, until it was abolished. Deprived hellholes listed here like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham have never officially had such a status or anything to back up a "second city status". - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that these are "deprived hellholes"? Insulting three major cities is probably not the best way to go about achieving a consensus. That wasn't necessary. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think courteousness needs to be applied here, by Yorkshirian. Rudget . 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about Courteousness; however this article is about the second city of the United Kingdom. Whilst York was one of the capitals of the Roman colony of Britain, it does not make it the second city of the United Kingdom - Roman Britain and the United Kingdom are not interchangeable terms.Pyrotec (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this info is notable and interesting enough to warrent somekind of mention in the article, but certainly within the context just provided by Pyrotec. The info however doesn't negate any of the other verifiable material on other city claims, which I think may have been implied earlier. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means include it, we have mention of two or more claims for Second City of Empire; but it should be a definite statement that York was the second capital of the Roman colony of Britain. It does not negate any claims that Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, etc, etc, may have or make in respect of being the 2nd city of the UK.Pyrotec (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say, the full name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... "United Kingdom" isn't a country, its a slang or short-hand name used in reference to an actual country, which has a correct name. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, though I can't see anybody making a claim that this isn't so. The point made (as I understand) was that a principal settlement in ancient Britannia isn't necessarily going to be a principle settlement in the modern United Kingdom (which rightfully or wrongfully is the/a common name of the country). Two thousand years have passed (give or take a century) and settlement patterns and cultural significance of certain places is (of course) going to have radically changed. The info you have found, however, does seem to be interesting within this context however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This interesting discussion reminded me of something that I read recently and partially forgotten. The reference is White, Roger (2007). "The Lingering Death of the Roman Britain". In: Current Archaeology, Vol XVIII, (No. 7) (September/October 2007). Pages 11 - 18. In about AD 286, Britain was divided into four provinces: Maxima Caesariensis, with its capital at London; Flavia Caesariensis, with its capital at (possibly) Lincoln; Britannia Prima, with a capital of uncertain location but could be modern day Cirencester; and Britannia Secunda with its captial at York. It appears to me that York became the fourth provincial capital of the Roman province of Britain; no doubt I will be told by other editors if my interpretation is wrong.Pyrotec (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should retract my earlier "deprived hellholes" personalcomment. But I think this article is highly slanted to "oh, its definitely either Manchester or Birmingham." opinion when neither of those two cities has anything solid in the way of high level historic importance. This article offers this opinion up "according to some criteria such as population size, economic or commercial importance" which is weasel wording because of the according to some part and it has nothing to do with officiality, there is no current official set of guidelines to decide.

I mean the reason London is claimed to be #1 is its "capital city" status. However when it comes to historics and surely important factors in deciding this in regards to 2nd cities; London and York were joint-capitals of Britannia. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland. IMO this is more significant than inventing Coronation Street and Oasis.

This article even mentioned Dublin as a candidate in the opening when it isn't even in the same country as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! and hasn't been through all of the time Wikipedia existed. Its laughably bad. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My favourite is Glasgow, for both second city of UK and Second City of Empire - but that is personal bias.Pyrotec (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mine is Oldham - but for some reason I can't seem to get a consensus for its inclusion though. Perhaps WP:IAR should apply for me? ;) I'm joking incase you can't see the irony!!! I'd say to Yorkshirian that if you think you can improve the page, by all means be bold!...


 * I'm not advocating that the current article standard is good enough by any means. However, there is a wealth of material asserting that the claim (contemporaneously) is attributed to Manchester or Birmingham nearly every time. I don't doubt at all that there are other cities too with verifiable claims, but the wealth of material certainly isn't there by half!


 * If changing the article please be mindful it's a controversial article though and unsourced or problematic material will be mercilessly removed or rehashed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Romans never conquered "Britain"! Britain did not exist until the Treaty of Union in 1707 although England had been ruled by a Scottish King after Elizabeth the Virgin Queen died childless and left the throne to Mary Queen of Scots son James. This sort of article shows that most of the idiots posting on Wiki ( potentially the only common resource we all have!) do not know what they are talking about and are using this potentially great common medium for their own puerile advertising/PR means. It makes me sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.43.214 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In short, the Roman's gave the island its name (see Britannia) some two thousand years ago. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the Acts of Union 1707 - the name of that kingdom was derived from the island of the same name. The problem, and scare quotes, should be around "conquered", not Britain. --Jza84 | Talk  23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dublin?
How exactly can Dublin be mentioned here if the Republic of Ireland isn't even in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.221.165 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dublin was in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; it ceased to exist in 1927, becoming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Pyrotec (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not cease to exist. In 1922 it ceded some territory and five years later changed its name. It's still the same state though. ðarkun coll 10:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an argument on words; however, we do appear to have a common understanding that "it" refers to the Kingdom and not Dublin. I'm not sure that the people in the Republic of Ireland would agree that the state is the same.Pyrotec (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dublin was part of the UK from 1801 to 1922, and therefore has a perfect right to be considered its second city for any portion of that period. ðarkun coll 09:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Can someone find a citation that shows Dublin as the 2nd city of the UK? Most of the citations appear to point to Dublin being the 2nd most populous, which is not the same thing. Joyce's letters is a poor basis for this claim - can a proper reference be dug up please? --HighKing (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags?
Can anybody explain why the tags are in the lead still here? The article isn't actually that badly referenced. Unless there's a reason given why these really must be there, I plan to remove them. --Jza84 | Talk  23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason, they were added by people with an anti-Manchester bias saying there are peacock terms even though it is better referenced than many other articles. I support the removal but I am doubtful they will stay away. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've been bold and swapped out the tags for a hidden warning. Hopefully that will do the trick. --Jza84 | Talk  01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article
Wow! This article is brilliant, can we try and get it featured??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Glasgow
Glasgow's population was comparable with Birmingham's? Glasgow's population was larger than Birmingham's! I know it's history but honestly that's petty it's safe to say Birmingham is bigger than Glasgow now but how can at one time Europe's fourth largest city after London, Paris and Berlin comparable to Birmingham?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.184.98 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

City of London
I think this is misleading to those that don't know London. It refers to the "City of London" as having a tiny population, referencing the business district (Square Mile), which does indeed have a tiny population. However, someone living in Islington (an adjoining borough) would still be considered to be living in the city of London (note capitalisation), and therefore make up part of the population estimate of inner London.

In short, the title of City of London is somewhat of an anomaly and therefore adds little to this article - I propose its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.31.84 (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the reference to the City of London should be removed, firstly it is not just the "business district" it is "The City of London", a legal entity, most people understand that "London" referes to Greater London, with more specific references refering to the individual constituent parts, "The City" is widely known to be the official City of London and not the Greater London connurbation. I will link the reference to the City to that specific page and London to Greater London, but I don't see the need to remove the reference, that would just be dumbing down. MattUK (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick note
As this is an article pertaining to Britain, British English should be used. That includes the possessive of Leeds being Leeds's, with TWO s's. 2.25.111.144 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This Article Should be removed
It is opinionated clap-trap. This is obviously written by people from Manchester who are attempting to elevate their city as some sort of international city, which it is clearly not. Manchester IS NOT the second city of the UK not even the 3rd. To say so is laughable.

Yours is the laughable comment....OUR TEN component parts, in GREATER MANCHESTER, cling to each other like fillings to a magmet...IS VERY MUCH ONE CITY.....Has NOTHING to do with the population of MCR City alone,which is growing, and at least 100,000 more than quoted below......IS THE CONURBATION all the same with c2.6million.....Greater London has 30 component parts!!!!To have LONDON below with the others is therfore NOT comparing like with like!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.40.42 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Manchester is 9th in popn just above Leicester.

London 7,172,091 Birmingham 970,892 Glasgow 629,501 Liverpool 469,017 Leeds 443,247 Sheffield 439,866 Edinburgh 430,082 Bristol 420,556 Manchester 394,269 Leicester 330,574 Coventry 303,475 Kingston upon Hull 301,416

94.194.102.190 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really feel that strongly that there's a case for deleting the article, please feel free to nominate it via the usual channels (see WP:DELETE for more information). However I'd advise you to consider the following questions -
 * Regardless of how well or badly written the article is, does the subject meet our notability criteria and thus merit inclusion? My own view is yes, it does.
 * Is your own view 100% neutral and balanced? It's important that an article takes in all viewpoints and represents the facts in a neutral way. My own view is that this article probably needs some work, but doesn't do a bad job in that respect.
 * You seem to think the article concludes that Manchester is the second city. It certainly doesn't - it simply states that the subject is a matter of some controversy and presents the different viewpoints, without favouring one over the others. The article is not intended to be an essay, drawing any particular conclusion, but simply a statement of the facts. waggers (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm tending to agree. It is mostly selective POVs. An article entitled "UK Cities which have NEVER been touted as the Second City" might be more relevant. And shorter. ;) RodCrosby (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is full of Manchester this and Manchester that - on the basis of snap polls and POV to justify Manchester is second city. There is even a silly table at the top of this talk page with only Birmingham (the true second city and Manchester. Manchester in the past has NEVER been regarded as second city. It was a large cotton manufacturing town no more. It then added a small port to in a forlorn attempt to elevate itself. Adjacent commercial Liverpool with its massive port and international links was far more wealthy and global. HSBC did an intensive survey on the future of UK cities and identified 7 future super-cities. Manchester is not one of them. So cut out this nonsense that Manchester is second city. It is not, never has been or never will be.  The article should be deleted as it is childish partisan POV.188.223.112.102 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Manchester has never been regarded as second city". Then why have the British public voted for Manchester as the second city numerous times over the past decade or so in independent polls? Your argument is flawed and I sense some paranoia too. Finally, the most important point to understand is that the 'second city' is not an official status like a capital city. The 'title', if you want to call it that, is a matter of debate and opinion. If you can't take it then please don't contribute. Stevo1000 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article should be removed as it is mainly POV promoting one city. 188.223.115.91 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the article is biased on all accounts, but particularly to Manchester in sections, the very second sentence attempts to pit Greater Manchester as a city, and therefore immediately the second largest. 92.14.205.66 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Liverpool since the 1850s has been lager than Manchester: http://i.imgur.com/aINlp87.png Where do they get this ludicrous notion Manchester is second city? The article should be deleted. It comes across as juvenile 90.217.84.194 (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This 'Manchester as second city' stuff is nonsense. It's Birmingham. Manchester's barely a large town in comparison! Villa v Birminghma City's called the 'Second City derby' for a reason... Surveys that show people think it's Manchester just show mostly how little people in the south & London know of the north & midlands. It's been a concerted PR effort by them since the 90s, driven by the popularity of a few bands 20 years ago & some over-monied football teams. And now they manipulate Wikpedia! 151.224.102.18 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Restructured article
Manchester and Birmingham are not prime candidates. This section has been removed and merged into candidates in alphabetical order.94.193.167.214 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Silly article
This does not seem like an article worthy of an encyclopedia. An article about an nickname based on arbitrary criteria that can never be universally agreed upon? The very first line of this article underscores how silly it is. This should be deleted. 2602:306:CFEA:170:B137:282F:A873:EEA5 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you believe it should be deleted, then begin a discussion on Article for Deletion (AfD) and see if the consensus agrees with you. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Second city of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120818145619/http://www.birmingham.gov.uk:80/2011-census to http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/2011-census

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 one external links on Second city of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728100103/http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=2680 to http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=2680
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070402171109/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk:80/en/AboutGlasgow/History/The+Second+City.htm to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/AboutGlasgow/History/The+Second+City.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070814092312/http://www.tourismofindia.com:80/misc/kolkataraj.htm to http://www.tourismofindia.com/misc/kolkataraj.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070402171109/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk:80/en/AboutGlasgow/History/The+Second+City.htm to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/AboutGlasgow/History/The+Second+City.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070629223736/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk:80/en/AboutGlasgow/Factsheets/ to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/AboutGlasgow/Factsheets/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070703130648/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E3BE21DA-4D84-4CC4-9C02-2E526FDD9169/0/4population.pdf to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E3BE21DA-4D84-4CC4-9C02-2E526FDD9169/0/4population.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630024848/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk:80/en/Visitors/Architecture/Bridges/ to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Visitors/Architecture/Bridges
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227084144/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E3BE21DA-4D84-4CC4-9C02-2E526FDD9169/0/populationaug07.pdf to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E3BE21DA-4D84-4CC4-9C02-2E526FDD9169/0/populationaug07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120628101316/http://www.leeds.gov.uk:80/About_Leeds.aspx to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/About_Leeds.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629112307/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=240 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=240
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100216174846/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/finance/financetopics/recession/uk-recession-telegraph-tour/5544024/Liverpools-retail-therapy-pays-off.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/uk-recession-telegraph-tour/5544024/Liverpools-retail-therapy-pays-off.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Second city of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111126055204/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_transport/travel-trends-2010.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_transport/travel-trends-2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect
Tagged with multiple issues since April 2015, including personal opinion, overly long and a non-encyclopedic tone. Have redirected to Birmingham. TharkunColl (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an incredibly contentious thing to do. And I say that as someone that agrees the article isn't great. Birmingham is not the only answer per many of the sources provided and the wider context and historic perspective Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete as no more than a talking shop
With all due regard to Koncorde, (above), this page is pretty much summed up in the tags; “Personal reflection”, “opinion essay”, “rewrite lead section”, “excessive intricate detail”, “too long”; someone needs to call time on this unending talking shop about what is no more than an idea. This page is not about a “thing”, its a space where wiki-wayfarers can opine upon what's new in the wind on the subject - the views of any given city-dweller in the UK who does not live in London. This page has no encyclopedic value. There is in fact no such thing as the “Second city of the United Kingdom” - so why does this page even exist? For those who might want to retain this “pub chat”, consider a page titled “Budgerigars are nicer than canaries”. This page needs to be deleted so well intended reviewers need no longer have to step around it. (Disclosure; I've lived in the UK for 40 years - never heard of a "second city"). I note this nonsense was considered for deletion here, over nine years ago - can we now not finally ende this please? Mark  Dask  21:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, re-write it? The second city is a common enough theme historically, and there are any number of reliable sources about the subject in question (and reliable secondary sources discussing those sources, or opinions) plus a wider government and cultural stance. This article may be shit, and it may need re-writing, but that's very different to the laundry list of tags added to the beginning of the article by a drive-by editor (most of which pre-date significant re-writes by other editors).
 * Regarding your deletion of content, I have added an archive-bot to the page and it should tidy things up soon. Please be aware that when deleting the content from the top of the page you also removed all the banners and existing archive material. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a rewrite, this article needs deleting. 90% is pure opinion, mainly promoting Manchester. The article clearly was originated to promote Manchester, look at the first efforts. Wikipedia is not a civic advertising medium. 90.202.57.139 (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is 100% your opinion, mainly decrying Manchester, amirite? From what I can see, Birmingham gets most mentions as the generally considered. Any mention of Manchester is firmly couched in "public opinion poll" which indicates that it is far from some kind of cut and dry conclusion. All of which is sourced and referenced with reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the earlier versions of this article. It is clear it was saying Manchester is second city. It even had a table comparing Manchester with Birmingham. Manchester is about the same size as Liverpool and Leeds, with a similar economy. Manchester is no Munich or Barcelona. At no time in history was Manchester regarded as the 2nd city. That was Liverpool, Glasgow and Dublin. Then Birmingham increased in size to the clear 2nd city - if the UK has one. The whole article is POV nonsense and needs deleting. I assume you are from Manchester. Apart from deluded Mancunians, no one else regards dowdy Manchester as second city. I have been there a lot and it is the last place that should be regarded as a flagship for the UK. 90.202.57.139 (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm from St Helens, as my profile page indicates. I neither care what is or is not the second city, whereas you are evidently very interested in it not being Manchester. I am interested in making good wikipedia articles, you are interested in pushing your POV ahead of reliable sources. You may not agree with the polls. I may disagree with the polls. But the polls exist and are reliable, as are the other sources utilised. If you have more polls and information, please provide it so we can improve the article. Koncorde (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second city of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116131718/http://www.liv.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue30/liverpool800.html to http://www.liv.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue30/liverpool800.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210246/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/setloc-ks01.xls to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/setloc-ks01.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)