Talk:Manchester Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 9 October and 15 October 2007.

Contents

Is Manchester huge? I mean, I know it's big, but does it really have enough destinations/sites so spread out to warrent districts like Mexico City? As usual, the rule-of-thumb is if people would come to Manchester and sleep/eat/sight-see in just one district, otherwise it should all fit on one article. Thoughts? (WT-en) Majnoona

My main thought is that we need to deal with how to give neighborhood information if the city's not big enough to split out into district pages. --(WT-en) Evan 13:10, 24 Jan 2004 (EST)

The city is certainly large enough to warrent districts. If you include Greater Manchester in the article then there is a huge area to talk about. I think 'huge' overplays it 'large' would be better Altfish (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought that simple sub-sections on the main page would suffice. Why not add to the one page until there is so much content that it demands to be cut into sections? (WT-en) alasdair 28 Jan 2004

Yes. BTW, you should check out Project:using talk pages for some hints on easy ways to sign talk page posts. --(WT-en) Evan 13:03, 28 Jan 2004 (EST)

It's not a huge city and you are right. It's only a small city, 9th largest in the UK, not much larger than several towns in the UK.

Manchester is not even an international important city. No more than those on the Manchester_(disambiguation) page, therefore maybe we could throw the deafault direct to that. --(WT-en) Loadbang 19:10, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Greater Manchester is one of Europe's largest conurbations, and is much larger and more important than any other Manchester listed. Please do not use personal vendettas or dislikes to raise such issues, but try to keep to the facts. Cheers. (WT-en) WindHorse 21:50, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

What does it mean "UK's second city" ? Second largest ? Second most lovely ? or ... ? Seems meaningless as long as not specified. (WT-en) Wojsyl 19:29, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)

The second largest, most recognised, most popular and most diverse city.

It is not the "second" anything. This needs to be removed. Birmingham is classed as the "second city", and is widely known as this. By population Birmingham itself is over 1 million in population and the second largest. Manchester is just over 400k, England's fourth largest city. --(WT-en) Loadbang 18:37, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree Manchester NH is far better known so I'd agree this should really link direct to the disambiguation page 93.96.71.206 17:28, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

What's Manchester NH? I actually had to google it to find out. It has a regional airport with domestic flights and little in the way of attractions. This Manchester is a city who's suburbs are in fact large towns so although Manchester as a city municipality has 400000 people but what about Trafford, Thameside,etc all widely considered part of the city with a combined population of several hundred thousand but municipally seperate. --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 08:55, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

As a resident of Manchester UK I am in shock reading the above.Little wonder the USA is so unpopular around the world with statements like that. Sorry the world does not revolve around the US. Such arrogance. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 84.67.19.69 (talk • contribs)

Wow. I would find the irony of this comment amusing, if it didn't bring me back to some of the less pleasant aspects of my time living in London. The comment you are responding to was from an English user... --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:23, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Re above : so we are meant to believe that the above comment was from an English user ,are we? I think not.( Aug 1.)

The IP address for the contributor is registered in the UK. Furthermore, the contributor was continuously demoting Manchester while promoting Liverpool, which implies that the reason for antagonism was local UK rivalries. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it is a shame that someone from nearby Liverpool should see fit to make such comments about a neighbour. Together the two areas could do so much more (a lot is being done by some with a degree of vision ) to promote England's North West. The EU region of "North West England" has a population of over 7 million (ie Greater Manchester, Merseyside (centred on Liverpool), Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria) and is a real powerhouse within The UK.The area along the M62 motorway ,from Leeds/Bradford in West Yorkshire, through Greater Manchester and on west into Merseyside ,is one of the most urbanised areas in Europe and stretches some 80+ miles.In the Europe of 2008 there is surely no place for such petty rivalries.

I disagree with that last statement, Manchester NH is definitely not a better known city, and is a far-less prominent travel destination than the original. And from an outsider's perspective, who has been to the NH destination and not to the UK one, Manchester is definitely the second most obvious metropolitan destination for visitors to England, Birmingham not so much ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:42, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

From the contributions, it appears that the guy pushing the demotion of Manchester is an over zealous person from Liverpool. For some strange reason he seems to believe that by knocking Manchester he will somehow promote the image of his nearby hometown. The parochial attitude of some UK contributors begs belief. User: 202.144.137.206

Manchester NH is a far more important and significant place than Manchester UK - the US is a global superpower after all. I would agree with Manchester linking firstly to the disambiguation page, or just Manchester NH as this will better suit the majority93.96.71.206 07:06, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Based on this logic, then every village in the US should have precedence over any metropolis by the same name in other parts of the world just because the US is a super power. duh! In that case, then let's remove the French capital as the default for Paris and instead give the role to Paris, Texas... Manchester NH has a population of less than 200,000, and is not even well known in the US, let alone internationally. Greater Manchester has a population approaching 2.5 million, making it one of the largest conurbations in Europe. Using the logic that the city area has a population of only 400,000 is like trying to reduce Greater London's status because the City of London has only a population of less than 8,000 [1]. Please let's not waste any more time on this small town parochial nonsense. If you want to promote Liverpool, then please spend your energy more productively by contributing to the Liverpool article, not continuously knocking Manchester. User: 202.144.137.206

What utter parochial nonsense from the poster above. The city of Manchester UK has a population of approx 430,000,the 2.5 million figure is just a figment of their rather over active imagination. This article is about the CITY of Manchester, NOT the county!! 430,000 vs 200,000 is no great deal so in fairness to Manchester NH this page should link firstly to the disambiguation page.83.241.140.210 17:11, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

If Mr 93/83 was serious in this proposal, he would be wise to stop vandalizing this article. (And scaremongering about gun crime in Manchester seems really ridiculous to someone living on the South Side of Chicago...) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:41, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Manchester is well known for gun crime - not a great advert but easily substantiated by a quick search of 'Gunchester' on Google - 27,000 articles returned!!! To ignore this is highly parochial from the above user as it denies travellers valuable facts about this destination. The above user needs to stop vandalising this page and poshing his own POV agenda.83.241.140.210 04:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Thameside, Trafford etc are in fact part of the city they just have different councils hence the noticably low population number which is inaccurate. --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 08:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

With respect Tameside,Trafford etc ARE NOT part of the city, as such, but part of the conurbation. Sorry to split hairs, but when it comes to Manchester, I very much go with the argument above re Greater London. The area which best shows the madness of the local authority boundaries, here, is the inner city border between Manchester and Salford. It meanders down the middle of shopping streets and splits communities. However when many people are asked where they are from, most will say Manchester even if they live in Trafford, Tameside or where ever. Manchester is very much more a state of mind than a clearly defined area. The city centre is where many if not most people in the ten local authority areas shop, go to the theatre or cinema, club etc....and we all use Manchester Airport( owned by all ten local authorities in GM ) to escape the awful weather! All in all we need a more powerful Greater Manchester wide authority than The AGMA. (I accept our political aspirations will be of no interest to tourists but the psyche, in the city region, is that we are a big city with aspirations and a long, proud history.)

I always consider Trafford at least to be part of the City of Manchester (a suburb of) but Salford yes, the fact that people are saying Manchester is a small town because we can't count the population of Salford City Council is frankly ludicrous. --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 09:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes I agree. We can not buy into the "small town" argument.It is very much ONE large city. It is intersting many are now using the term "city region". Do not forget Greater London is made up of Westminster, The City and is it 32 boroughs? Greater Manchester is the 10 districts (cities of Manchester and Salford ,boroughs of Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford.) Interestingly about a third the size of Greater London.

Whether you are counting only those parts in the City of Manchester (under half a million people) or the conurbation as a whole (almost 3 million people) Manchester is a huge city and the places that tourists may want to visit require several pages - Picadilly, Northern Quarter, Salford, Salford Quays, Deansgate, University Corridor, Rusholme, Didsbury, Trafford, etc. They can't all just be bunged into the same article. The birth place of industry, the suffragette movement, the co-operative movement, the computer, the railways - all this makes it the kind of place that tourists will want to visit.--109.113.235.36 09:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm new around here and don't know all the rules, but I'd like to do a serious revamp of the Manchester article at some point. I do notice that a lot of information is duplicated in the Manchester/City Centre article. Do I have an argument for merging these two? This point has been partly discussed above, and I can understand the need for separate articles on Manchester/South Manchester and Manchester/Salford Quays among others, but I think the first place people will look for City Centre information is in the Manchester article itself. What do others think? -- (WT-en) Owl 14:11, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Since I've taken a big interest in the visitor attractions of Manchester in the ~5 years I've lived here, I'd like to do a big revamp of this article, as well as merging Manchester/City Centre into it. I've sketched the whole thing out [2] and I'll make the changes tomorrow. I'll try and keep all the text that's there at the moment except for some things under the "Drink" section which go into great detail about the student club scene in Manchester.

If anyone has any objections or comments about my revamp, you can discuss them with me here. -- (WT-en) Owl 11:33, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Hey, did you do all the Drink stuff? You're obviously far cooler than me! Good stuff. I've not looked at the page for about a year, and many of the descriptions seem to have become all "corporate" - so I've made them more useful. I've also altered the Stay Safe section, which read like a GMP press release. Finally, I've removed some obviously spammy (I think, do disagree) links to the MEN and Apollo. (WT-en) Alasdair 19 Oct 2005

Nope, I've not got onto that yet. My revamp of the "See" section (it's going to be huge) is still in progress - I'm going through them in order, so the bits above have been done. I will certainly incorporate your changes when I revamp those sections, though. -- (WT-en) Owl 15:50, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Ooops, sorry to all the contributors so far since I started this way back when. I've been really busy with other things in my life, but the "See" section is practically done, so I will try and merge that back into the main article in the next week or so, taking other people's changes into account. -- (WT-en) Owl 04:41, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)

OK, I've uploaded my changes to the "See" section... sorry it's taken so long. If you were a contributor and I've obliterated your work unfairly during this change, please let me know! I will get to work on the remaining sections as and when I have time to. -- (WT-en) Owl 04:19, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Hi 203.218.80.130,

I recently reverted your change from "Voyager" to "Pendolino", because the Pendolino is a special version of the Voyager train. See this page on the Virgin Trains website for more info. I did already mention Pendolino in the article before you changed it.

Sorry to be an arse. :) -- (WT-en) Owl 16:20, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)

No it isnt, they are made by different companies. --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 08:59, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Quite. The Voyagers (Class 220 or 221) were designed and manufactured by Bombardier Transportation (a Canadian company), built in Bruges, Belgium, and ordered and funded by HSBC Rail. The Pendolino (Class 390) on the other hand were designed and manufactured by Alstom (a French company), built in Birmingham and ordered and funded for Angel Trains. The only thing that they have in common is that they are (or were) leased to Virgin Trains.

Altfish (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)It should also be stated that a Pendolino is electrically powered and a Voyager is diesel powered, ie one needs overhead wires the other doesn't.Reply

There is no article for Greater Manchester - it is just a redirect - Why? The Manchester article claims:

In addition to Manchester, Greater Manchester contains the boroughs of Salford, Trafford, Stockport, Oldham and Tameside which are also discussed under the subject of 'Manchester', as well as Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Wigan. It is administered independently, but parts of it are often considered to be in their former counties, Lancashire and Cheshire.

Is this article really also covering Greater Manchester? To me it sounds like there is a separate region here, because the Manchester article doesn't really talk about the boroughs of Salford, Trafford, Stockport, Oldham and Tameside, nor about Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Wigan and explain their relationship to the central city.

At present there is already an article about Oldham which will be an orphan if unlinked. So there is obviously a need to discuss these places. There is just not enough information in the article to determine if these places are cities in a region or districts in a city. And I do not know the place well enough to make up my mind. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:30, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)

I'm not too familiar with the area, but as far as I understand, towns like Oldham, Stockport etc were once independent towns in the county of Lancashire. However, with a governmental reorganization of local authorities, these towns were incorporated into a new Greater Manchester. So, in answer to your question, these towns can be both defined as cities in the region of Greater Manchester or districts of that city (see Wikipedia - Greater Manchester for more info). However, there has probably been a reluctance to break these towns off into individual articles because they offer little of interest to visitors. They are mostly post-industrial towns. If you are asking for an opinion, then I'd list them as districts of Manchester, like Brooklyn or Queens in NY, and if and when info comes in, they can opened up as articles in their own right - just a suggestion. (WV-en) WindHorse 12 Jan 06

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of this article, WindHorse. The thing is, Manchester's not usually classed as part of Lancashire anymore, but as you say it's part of the new metropolitan county of "Greater Manchester" (Greater Manchester consisting of Bolton, Bury, Manchester itself, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan). I'll take the Greater Manchester article and make something of it - it shouldn't be a redirect, but instead information about those 10 cities/towns. It's ok to call them districts, that's also not uncommon for Greater Manchester. Hope that was some help to you? (WT-en) BarrY 06:38, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

Have a look at the article naming conventions and article templates before going too far. I see Greater Manchester as a region, with each of the cities you name as a (small) city. There are 2 ways to go. Either make all these places districts of Manchester, or make them separate cities. I would go for the separate cities idea, as districts are really meant for neighbourhoods, perhaps small suburbs or a beach, business centre, etc., inside a city rather than whole self-governing cities in a region. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:58, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

I agree entirely. They definately are towns and small cities of their own rights, I was just saying they're referred to as districts of Greater Manchester, but thinking in the terms of Wikivoyage, they would constitute here as small cities. Sorry for the confusion. (WT-en) BarrY 07:05, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

I'll be going to Salford for one month (doing a summer school at the university there). So if everyone agrees that's a good idea, I'll try to update it accordingly. (WT-en) Xillion 17:22, 2 July 2006 (EDT)

Ok, a follow-up. IMHO it's not worth creating a seperate article about Salford. Apart from a church (no idea which or what kind) and the university there is not really anything worth mentioning. -- (WT-en) Xillion 08:45, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

Sounds good. (WT-en) WindHorse 13 Jan 06

Sorry the Church in question IS Salford RC Cathedral, serving ALL of Greater Manchester's RC population, north of the River Mersey, and parts of Lancashire and West Yorkshire!!! Salford Quays, The Lowry Arts Centre, Worsley Village etc are all within the boundaries of Salford and WELL WORTH a mention surely? —The preceding comment was added by 81.77.220.138 (talk • contribs) .

How arrogant! In Salford you also find the old Manchester Docks area, which is now Salford Quays. There is a world famous Arts Centre there now (The Lowry Centre- a Millenium project and an award winning building in its own right!!!), with three theatre spaces,(including the LARGEST in Northern England), the works of Lowry and other exhibitions. Over the water is The Imperial War Museum, North, which is the only building, in the UK, designed by Daniel Libeskind, who designed the Jewish Museum in Berlin. Also at The Quays, from 2011, the BBC, at the MediaCityUK studios, is to house FIVE depts. A high percentage of national, day time tv output is to be broadcast from there. So there is more to Salford than OUR CATHEDRAL, or the "church", you mentioned!!!! Lacking a degree of tact, I fear? —The preceding comment was added by 95.149.182.156 (talk • contribs)

I just saw a note on Mapchester, a plan to beef up the coverage of Manchester in OpenStreetMap. Seems like a really good way to make Free Content maps! --(WT-en) Evan 12:24, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

I think it's time to reopen the big debate! Check out the See section, it's already been split up into districts there, so I'm thinking why don't we just go all out and split the city into the districts mentioned there... There's enough content in each section to get it started, and there are many places mentioned in the Drink section that deserve listings in the individual districts rather than just a passing mention in that section. Check out the Salford Quays page I was working on earlier on this year - the rest of the districts would easily have as much attractions.

Have we changed our stance on districts? Above, it seems to imply that because you couldn't sleep/eat/sight-see in just one district in Manchester then it should all stay in the one article, however I was looking around Project:Geographical_hierarchy#Districts and that seemed to imply that a district warrants having a district page depending on the content rather than the physical size. Which one is the correct definition?!

The districts listed under See are Piccadilly Gardens and around; Northern Quarter; Albert Square and around; Peter's Fields; Chinatown and The Village; St Ann's Square and around; Millennium Quarter; Deansgate & Spinningfields; Castlefield; Oxford Road corridor; Sportcity - I think most of these could warrant district pages... District sections already exist for Northern Quarter, The Quays and South Manchester.

I'd leave the drink section as it is, as I think that gives a good idea of what is on offer in the city, and maybe put links to the district pages that each bar is in. The See section would obviously be split up. What do people think? I won't plunge straight in on this one, because I can see that alot of people have spent alot of time and effort working on the page, and I dont want to go through and do all this if I dont have any support! (WT-en) Tsandell 15:01, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

I have expanded all of the article from the top down to "See". The other bits are mostly as they were before I started refactoring but hopefully they, too, will end up much bigger. Once I've done that it may well be time to split the long article into districts. I intentionally left The Quays and South Manchester out of my "See" section because they definitely deserve districts of their own. -- (WT-en) Owl 17:12, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Might 20 districts be a bit excessive? Of those 20, there's one redlink, one redirect to the main page, and seventeen at 'outline' status, with only one 'usable'. I think you've dispersed the useful information about the city over too many pages, making it more difficult for a traveler to use. I don't know the city well enough to tell you how to do it, but you might consider concentrating those twenty outlines into ~5 really good articles - you can always split them further if the guides get over-stuffed. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:03, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah its excessive! I had grand plans to split this up and put a lot of info in, but never quite got round to it. I've got a rough idea in my head for how to split the city up into less districts which I will get up here ASAP, then we can start to lose the endless districts. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 10:16, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Great! There's a wealth of good writing and good information already present. If you have any questions, hit up (WT-en) Peter Fitzgerald - this is his specialty. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

This is what I have in mind:

• green is Salford (technically not a district, but it's linked to in the districts list), this means Manchester/Salford Quays will need merging (it's under Manchester at the moment, but geographically and by this map, it is part of Salford area, although it is very different to Salford...)

• Light blue is Manchester/South, comprising of existing districts Manchester/Didsbury, Manchester/Hulme, Manchester/Moss Side, Manchester/Old Trafford, Manchester/South Manchester These merges have now been done and old pages redirected

• Purple is Manchester/Universities (or something along those lines) comprising of Manchester/Fallowfield, Manchester/Oxford Road corridor, Manchester/Rusholme Merged missing bits and redirected

• Orange is Manchester/North comprising of existing district Manchester/Sportcity Was already merged. Redirected Sportcity to North

• Dark blue is Manchester/East Central (or something better...) comprising of existing districts Manchester/Northern Quarter, Manchester/Chinatown, Manchester/The Village, Manchester/Piccadilly Gardens Merges checked, updated and old districts redirected

• Yellow is Manchester/North Central (or something better...) comprising of existing districts Manchester/Millennium Quarter, Manchester/Deansgate and Spinningfields, Manchester/Albert Square, Manchester/St Ann's Square Most of this was already merged, so just checked and done redirects

• Red is Manchester/West Central (or something better...) comprising of existing districts Manchester/Castlefield, Manchester/Peter's Fields Was already merged, so just checked and redirected.

There hasn't been any objections, so I'm going to plunge forward and redo the districts. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 10:08, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Hurrah! Wish I knew enough to help. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:33, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Another merge project that seems to have gathered cobwebs. I'll spend some time trying to do a bit of merging. Someone with a little more knowledge of the area (mine is sketchy) may want to follow me in and update/tidy/etc. (Just to add, to try and keep things tidy on here, I'll annotate with text in italics above as things happen.) (WT-en) Nrms 07:28, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Done/confirmed the merges suggested and done redirects for the old pages. I've also used this map and given the page a proper RegionList. Only thing that remains is The Quays and Salford... Not really sure what the best way to do this is given Salford is technically not part of Manchester, but is The Quays? (WT-en) Nrms 02:01, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

For future reference, these are the old districts:

• Albert Square and around - Central Library, Town Hall, cafes and restaurants
• Castlefield - centre of Manchester's canal network and Britain's first Urban Heritage site; home to The Museum of Science and Industry
• Chinatown - many Chinese restaurants and supermarkets
• Deansgate and Spinningfields - mile long perfectly straight road that is the spine of Manchester; Spinningfields is a brand-new commercial development and also home to the Manchester Evening News
• Didsbury - (Including West Didsbury) Leafy affluent suburb approx 4-5 miles south of the city centre, good pubs and great restaurants.
• Fallowfield - the heart of student living in Manchester
• Hulme - a suburb just south of the city centre that would serve as an ideal example of gentrification; has gone from crime-ridden, tower-blocked concrete jungle to new-build redevelopment over the past 15 years or so. Due to its proximity to Manchester University, is a popular living quarter for students
• Millennium Quarter - modern area redeveloped after the devastation of the IRA bomb in 1996
• Moss Side - an area with an unfortunate history, littered with gang and drug-related crime
• Northern Quarter - the alternative district of Manchester
• Old Trafford - district in the west of the city, adjacent to The Quays, and home of Manchester United
• Oxford Road corridor - home of the universities and many student haunts
• Peter's Fields - also known as the exhibition quarter of Manchester due to GMEX, with lots of bars, clubs and striking architecture
• Piccadilly Gardens - area located in central Manchester, with much of Manchester's shops and the central bus station plus a recently renovated landscape garden
• The Quays - the city's uber-fashionable redeveloped docks with award winning architecture and museums
• Rusholme - home of the Curry Mile
• South Manchester - Moss Side, Withington, Didsbury
• Sportcity - area of the city redeveloped to host the 2002 Commonwealth Games, and home of Manchester City FC
• St Ann's Square - centre of Manchester's shopping district
• The Village - area around Canal Street in central Manchester, home to one of the oldest gay communities in Europe

Some anonymous user said the Trafford Centre was getting a canal link! There's nothing about this in the MEN but if it's true could you please cite a source here and I'll put it back in. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Owl 17:12, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Altfish (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Never heard about such a scheme, so think it is unlikely. That said the Bridgewater Canal does pass within 400 metres of the Trafford Centre, so it would be possible to go by barge from the City Centre to the TC.Reply

Any recommendations? Mexican or Indian. Thanks. --User:(WT-en) Cook31400 13:08, 30 September 2006 (EDT)

After reading this article on the web I was excited to visit Manchester. However when I arrived I found a big dirty city with little open green space, and I did not find the overall that the people were very nice. Who writes these articles - they don't seem very impartial, only the good is mentioned. Plus it rained all day (which is mentioned!) - sorry won't be coming back here in a hurry, nor recommending others to go.

Sorry to hear about your experiences of Manchester. I've been saying to people for years that "Manchester is a great place to visit, it's just a shame about the locals". Before anybody takes me to task about that statement, I am one of those locals; I have lived and worked in Manchester all my life. I personally feel that the number of decent Mancunians is in the minority, a factor that contributes to the aggressive undercurrent that the city seems to have, so I'm not surprised in the slightest that overall you found the locals not to your liking. My (constructive) contribution to this article will be made in the very near future. (WT-en) Slipperman 12:40, 3 August 2007 (GMT)

• Please feel free to plunge forward and contribute to the Manchester articles! Where did you go in Manchester? Please add any further information on where you went - your contributions will be very valuable to people, even if it's a simple toning down of the touting! Generally, the people that contribute to Wikivoyage are just other travellers and tourists, so it is based on people's actual experiences - very rarely do people come on here to tout their own business, and if they do they soon get edited back. Any further issues, talk to me here-- (WT-en) Tim 16:35, 2 November 2006 (EST)

I visited Manchester and Liverpool recently with friends from Switzerland. Believe me praise indeed from swiss people. They loved Manchester; in particular the shopping both in the centre and at The Trafford Centre( they had seen nothing like it) and The Lowry at The Quays. We were very lucky and did have good weather. I have been in the rain and like with anywhere that puts a dampner on tourism. One of my friends had lived in the past in Toronto and she felt Manchester has a similar feel to the Toronto she knew in the 1970's. Think I understand where she is coming from as there is a real sense of renewal and optimism about with all the new developments. Hope not too many are put on ice with the recession. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 84.71.138.170 (talk • contribs)

The punctuation and grammar used in this article is appalling, particularly in the Get Out section. It badly needs to be fixed to increase the readability of this article.

Can someone that knows the city or that was working on the re-districtyfing please check the vfd and merge status on the old districts and report back at VFD. I don't want to simply delete if there are still information in there that needs merging --(WT-en) Nick 05:21, 29 February 2008 (EST)

These articles have now been deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Why have this heading? There are only TWO cities in Greater Manchester, namely Manchester and Salford. The others listed are either boroughs/towns or parts of boroughs (eg Sale is part of Trafford).In the UK they are not so free and easy with the use of the word city. Surely a better heading would be Towns/districts/boroughs within the Greater Manchester Conurbation?

• Yes, the term 'city' can be confusing, especially when referring to a village. However, it is a Wikivoyage convention to use the title 'city' to refer to a community of any size. The logic behind this is retain brevity and punch, and to avoid the clutter of using a host of terms, such as towns, districts, villages, boroughs and other titles in use throughout the planet. There is an official policy on this. I cannot locate it at the moment, but trust me that it exists. Hope that answers your question adequately. Cheers... (WT-en) WindHorse 12:41, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but find it a bit rich that someone is advocating not bothering to buy a metro ticket due to the very few, random ticket checks. There are indeed many conductors checking tickets, throughout the day, and "lost revenue" means we poor mugs who have to use this very crowded, expensive system, to get to work on time, face regular, above inflation price rises. Anyone failing to pay is hardly being a good guest in the city and, frankly not too welcome.

Altfish (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I've added the date of Rochdale Town Centre opening to Metrolink section.Reply

Thanks! --Nick ^talk 18:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why can't this page be edited? --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 08:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know—were you logged in? Anyway, it should not be a problem now, please take to it. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/ has a good open source map of Manchester city centre which could be used on Wikivoyage. 81.102.64.5 10:06, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

In the 'stay safe section' it sates that Longsight is close to Hulme. This however is not the case. Hulme in fact borders Mossside to the south. Longsight however is close to Rusholme, and somewhat near Ardwick and Sportcity.

Doesn't this paragraph deserve a little amendment?

The relevant sentence is:

• Longsight. This is a somewhat rundown residential area in the shadow of the city centre, which has as yet avoided the gentrification of nearby Hulme.

What does nearby mean, anyway? Is a couple of miles apart nearby? If you can improve the article, please plunge forward. --(WT-en) Inas 00:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)

There was some muddle and confusion which I think I have cleared up.

• Salford is a district of this article but was breadcrumbed to Greater Manchester. It was also confusingly listed as a get out destination from Manchester. It can't be as it is a district of the city.
• Stalybridge, Tameside and Trafford were all listed as towns in Greater Manchester but redirected back to this article (and therefore covered by this article). The redirects made sense, but the listing of them as separate towns did not. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:39, 4 January 2010 (EST)

I deleted the following statement: "Be aware though that anti-social behaviour is high. In 2010, 34% of residents polled considered it to be a problem, placing the city in the top 10 towns in the UK (and second outside of London)" as it is way too general to be of any interest to the traveler, and in my opinion the statistics are definitely irrelevant. Please explain in further detail what you want to say, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 19:35, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

If I'm visiting a city, where anti-social behaviour is a problem, then I'd like to know about it before I go, especially if it's the 2nd highest outside the capital?... —The preceding comment was added by 81.97.193.152 (talk • contribs)

I think the problem is that it's not very specific -- what constitutes anti-social behavior? Crime? General rudeness? Not holding doors open for people? The bare statistics don't do much to help a traveler. What would you do different knowing that Manchester is the second-most antisocial city in England? (WT-en) LtPowers 20:38, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

I'd consider not going there?... Anti-social behaviour is behaviour of others, carried out in such a way that it threatens/annoys/inconveniences other to such an extent that it is a problem. 34% of residents perceive this to be a problem. I'd want to know this before visiting a foreign country. Why not put the stats in and let people decide for themselves. —The preceding comment was added by 81.97.193.152 (talk • contribs)

Well there are any number of stats that we could put in the article; the question is whether this particular one is useful enough to bother with. And will it lead to putting such statistics in every article? "Birmingham is the fifteenth most anti-social city in England"? (WT-en) LtPowers 14:37, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Or is the question who are you to decide what stats people do or don't see? I think it relevant, and see no reason for it to be omitted? —The preceding comment was added by 81.97.193.152 (talk • contribs)

The list of cities from which you can fly into Manchester is getting a bit long. Any idea how to pare it down? (WT-en) LtPowers 14:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

Is the ATM conversion rate really a "scam"? Pretty much every reputable bank in the UK puts the sign about free withdrawals on their cash machines now. This is because of a tabloid furore about ATM charges a few years ago, so all the scam really amounts to is a bad conversion rate - same as you get at many ATM machines abroad. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.138.234 (talk • contribs)

Possibly worth a brief mention in United Kingdom#Buy, if it's not specific to Manchester. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

An ATM machine with a particularly bad conversion rate is maybe specific to Manchester Airport, I'd just object to the way this is being framed as a scam: i.e. the suggestion that the machine pretends to offer "free withdrawals" then lumps on a big conversion rate to scam tourists. The ATM will be free to withdraw money from if you're British, and that's the only reason the sticker is on the machine. It really has nothing to do with scamming tourists, it's just something that most British ATM machines have on them these days to assure British customers that they won't be charged for withdrawing money. —The preceding comment was added by 94.195.174.51 (talk • contribs)

I thought that the info about the Rafaels Bank ATM was a bit vitriolic and, therefore, have taken the liberty to edit it slightly. I have also moved it to the bottom of the section, as I do not think that it will be a visitor's primary concern. In any event, it is not a matter of safety, in the strictest sense. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ilikescider (talk • contribs)

Do we need a list of car parks for the airport? Most people reading this will doing so as potential arrivals, who might want to rent a car from the airport but will be unlikely to want to park there. I've plunged and removed it, but thought I'd better make a note of it here in case anyone disagrees. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind if I revert this until a full consensus is reached. It is true that we probably need a different way of presenting them instead of a big table, but I don't think we should remove mentions of airport car parks altogether, which can be helpful to travellers.

Also, you may want to take this up at the Liverpool, Glasgow, Dublin, Cardiff, Leeds and Luton articles to get a wider view. Cheers. --SU FC 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I cited this article in this discussion as to whether airports deserve their own articles. I think that because Manchester serves such a large number of towns and cities, it would benefit from a separate article to hold this information centrally. This is the same with many other UK airports and it seems a good idea to separate the airport information from that about the city/town, instead using the 'By Air' space on each page to link to the airport page and describe individual city-based interactions with the airport. How would people feel about creating a separate article for Manchester Airport? --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Currently working on a replacement page here: User:Nicholasjf21/Manchester_Airport --Nick (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you're doing a very good job. You could maybe use one of the pictures of the airport from this page, they make the place look rather appealing/interesting. -- SU FC 17:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! I will do - the pictures on this page are nice! --Nick (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Firstly, the Metrolink map desperately needs an update, I'll have a go myself, but if anyone else can find or tweak the current one, that would be great. Secondly, do we really believe that it is 'poor value'? I regularly take a bus 5 miles that costs £2.50 return, but when I took the Metrolink last Friday I was only charged £2.90 return for a journey between Piccadilly and MediaCity which, to my mind, constitutes decent value (either that or the bus company is really ripping me off!) Whilst trains are comparatively cheap, I think if you compare it with other such systems, the Metrolink comes off quite well. --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Altfish (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Metrolink extension to Rochdale Town Centre opened this morning, page updated to reflect that.Reply

Thanks! --Nick ^talk 10:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Altfish (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I know I'm a bit ahead of myself but I've added the new service to the Airport that opens on 3rd November 2014Reply

Altfish (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) There are big disruptions starting next week to Metrolink, I've put a statement together, how do you think it is best inserted? It'ii also need to go on any other pages that refer to Metrolink (e.g. Altrincham, Sale)Reply

St Peter’s Square tram stop will be closed for in excess of a year from Sunday 28 June 2015. For the initial 8-weeks no trams will run through the stop; trams either terminating at Deansgate-Castlefield or Cornbrook from the south and west or from the north and east running direct between Piccadilly and Victoria only. After the initial 8-weeks some trams will run through St Peter’s Square BUT NOT STOP. Bus replacement services and ‘walking routes’ have been set up and you are advised to check the TfGM website for details updates… http://www.metrolink.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx

Perhpas it could be put in some sort of warning box in the 'Get around' section? I'd welcome other ideas if anyone has them though! --Nick ^talk 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's what I thought would be best. It is pointless trying to keep it up to date during the works, x-reference to the TfGM website is best option.Altfish (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've implemented that now - do you think it looks ok? Nick ^talk 22:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks great, I'll copy it and drop it onto Altrincham and Sale's pages Altfish (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do we think this article is now worth promoting to guide status? --Nick (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Having spoken with Visit Manchester and had a look at the categories here myself, I think we could do well to redistribute some of this article's more central districts. Here's the plan:

• Manchester/The Quays would be fully integrated into the district system and would inherit content from both Salford and Manchester/South, meaning that the latter would no longer focus exclusively on Manchester United's stadium.

• I would rename Manchester/West Central to Manchester/Castlefield - Petersfield.

• I would create Manchester/Spinningfields - Albert Square covering the central area between the Irwell and Mosley Street, split from Manchester/North Central

• I would rename the remaining Manchester/North Central to Manchester/Victoria - Shopping District and would move the Northern Quarter into this category.

• I would rename the remainder of Manchester/East Central to Manchester/Piccadilly - East Centre.

If you've got any ideas or thoughts about this suggestion, please let me know! I'd also be keen to hear your thoughts about Sportcity as I'm not sure it quite fits with the rest of Manchester/North. --Nick ^talk 16:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nick I'd have no problems with your suggestion and certainly prefer the names. Which ever names/divisions are chosen someone won't like them or have a 'better' idea. In my opinion the areas should reflect areas that are likely to be visited in a day or half-day. I think this has got to be considered from the visitor's point of view and not get hung up about if it is in Trafford, Salford, Manchester or even Cheshire. So long as the entry can be reached easily (and quickly) from central Manchester it could be included. I think Sports City has to be included although currently it is not as popular destination as Old Trafford. Mike Altfish (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mike!

Thanks for your thoughts! I think you're right about serving the visitor - some of the articles about places in Greater Manchester are still very hung up about 'unitary authorities' and the like. I'll change the names shortly as well!

Thanks,

Nick ^talk 21:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Something seems off about the format of the four hyphenated district names. The space-hyphen-space format looks very odd to me and while I'm certain we have hyphenated combo articles elsewhere, I don't think we typically put those spaces. Might I suggest we either lose the spaces or change them to use "and" (e.g. "Manchester/Piccadilly and East Center")? Texugo (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I put the spaces in simply because, at the time, I thought they looked better. By contrast, London hyphenates without spaces. I'm not really determined to have the district names either way, so do what you think looks best. --Nick ^talk 23:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Typographically, they should be en-dashes, whether spaced or unspaced. Our usual convention is unspaced hyphens (see San Francisco, for instance). The spaced hyphen is very unusual. LtPowers (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I've gone against an unwritten convention, then please feel free to make the appropriate changes. I'm not necessarily wedded to the current format. --Nick ^talk 10:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've changed them to match those at San Francisco. Texugo (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Nick ^talk 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know there's a new system on the way and everything will change, but, at the moment, what do you DO with your ticket when you board the tram? Validate it in a machine, show it to the driver, punch a hole in it, wave it over your head and do a little dance? Nothing? I don't think this is in the article and might be useful to visitors - well, me actually! Can some kind and knowledgeable person please add this information? Thanks! Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Altfish (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Sentenced added which should address this, let me know what you think.Reply

That's great, many thanks - not only for improving the article but for clueing me up on my next visit! Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Should this be fixed in your opinion? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Before we start a long list of these, be aware that Wikivoyage does not always strictly follow government boundaries. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In fact, there have been cases where we took the official government boundaries and threw them out the window when it made more sense from a traveler's perspective. Los Angeles was a notable example of this. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's any city where we haven't changed at least some small detail from the official boundaries, because they may not always be logical to a visitor. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In this specific case though, the editorial decisions seems to be very confusing for the travelers, because (1) large portions of the city do not appear to belong to the city in our map (instead of having the more boring parts of the city be hidden, we could have resolved that by having those sections greyed out like in the regions map of Cairo), while (2) the Manchester Wikivoyagve regions map includes a completely different city - Salford - and presents it as if it was part of the city of Manchester (why only adding that city and not add other cities from the Greater Manchester area as well?). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking, this discussion belongs on Talk:Manchester, but just to address the second point very quickly, it looks like an argument was made when establishing Manchester's current district system that Salford, despite being technically a separate city, is very closely linked to Manchester and that, from a traveler's perspective, it would be preferable that it be linked from the main Manchester page for ease of finding (see Talk:Manchester#Redefining districts). Personally, I don't know anything about Manchester, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but that's the discussion that will have to be revisited if you want to change the current districts layout. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

As a local resident, the local tourism board treats Salford and other areas as being part of a greater (little 'g') Manchester, despite their technical independence. The centres of both cities essentially run into each other, and it would unhelpful to users to split them up. --Nick ^talk 01:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Manchester" is or used to be a byword for a certain type of capitalism... Does the article sufficiently address this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Crookesmoor: Firstly, welcome back fellow alumnus, after a bit of an absence :-)

Your move of what was the Manchester/Victoria-Shopping District article to Manchester/North Centre seems reasonable, and for that reason I'm going to leave it as is just now, but please know that this should not have been done without prior discussion, either here or at the district talk page. The existing district structure is the product of many years' discussion by different Wikivoyagers, as you can see on this very talk page, so should not be changed by just one person.

Please explain the reason(s) for the move here, so that other members of the community can have the chance to weigh in, in order to come to a consensus. Can you also let us know if the district map will need updating? While this is not a huge problem, it will require someone with both graphics skills and knowledge of the geography.

Looking forward to hearing from you.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: While pub brawls in Manchester and Liverpool are a fact of life (anyone doubting this need only Google "pub fight Manchester / Liverpool" - several recent stories in both the MEN and Echo), I'm not sure you're quite right in drawing the link with football. None of the news articles I've seen mention football as an issue, rather they talk about the role of drugs and alcohol.

Unless you have some recent stories about fights that were reported as being caused by football rivalries, and it's possible you do as I know you're focussing on footie across lots of Wikivoyage at the moment, I would prefer a rewording of your warning into something more generic: large pub brawls do happen, and have happened recently, but that they're a relatively uncommon occurrence. Travellers should be aware of their surroundings, especially among groups of rowdy and intoxicated men.

I would keep the caution about wearing the "wrong" shirt at the wrong place and time, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: Any thoughts on this? The first time I pinged you, I messed up by misspelling your username, so you likely didn't get notified.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't notified by your ping, but sure, I'm happy with what you suggested. I know that football passions run high at times, and it is certainly possible that brawls can happen when you throw alcohol into the mix, though I haven't seen many such incidents featured in the news. These are just things I've heard from English people I've met. But in any case, my understanding is that Man Utd vs Liverpool is nowhere near as intense as the likes of Real Madrid vs Barcelona or Celtic vs Rangers (though take this with a pinch of salt, as the person who told me this is from Glasgow and a Celtic fan), so perhaps pub brawls will be more common with those other games. The dog2 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

My anecdotal observation of other English people is that a lot of them try to make their home area sound rougher / edgier / more street / more working class than they really are, so your English mates or whatever could very well be exaggerating (though your comment about the Glaswegian suggests that you're aware of this already, and that it's not a purely English phenomenon). Yet knowing Liverpool well enough, I'd certainly proceed with caution in some pubs at certain times, and don't see why Manchester should be any different in this regard. In fact, I wouldn't go into a pub on a match day at all, because football doesn't do it for me, and being among that sort of crowd even less so. So it is possible I have a blind spot when it comes to football-related pub violence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've no objection to how you want to adjust it. But on a side note, since you are familiar with Liverpool, have you actually encountered cases where someone gets assaulted by random people in the street for wearing a Manchester United shirt?

As for intensity of rivalries, what I have observed at least on TV is that Man Utd vs Liverpool looks less intimidating either Celtic vs Rangers in Scotland or Real Madrid vs Barcelona in Spain; or for that matter, AS Roma vs Lazio in Italy, Olympiacos vs Panathinaikos in Greece or Fenerbahçe vs Galatasaray in Turkey. In all those other rivalries I've mentioned, I've always see flares being lit among the spectators, which you don't see at English football matches, and in fact, in the case of Turkey, I've even seen the fans of the losing team charging onto the pitch to assault the players from the winning team at the end of the match. The dog2 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, never. Which is another reason to tone down the text. We're several decades past they "heyday" of hooliganism. Plus, unfounded allegations of football violence are particularly sensitive in Liverpool since the w:Hillsborough disaster.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is about the outer ring of small towns not the city, but I wasn't sure if the Talk page there would get noticed. Several “cities” of Greater Manchester are outlying districts / neighbourhoods that don’t stand alone as destinations. Their attractions are just often just stretches of canal and unremarkable parks, while their accommodation is yet another of the many Premier Inns encircling the city. I propose the following redirects / mergers:

Littleborough is a village 3 miles from Rochdale, and its main attraction is already listed there – the canal ascending through locks to disappear into a tunnel.

Sale is a commuter burb that could fold into Altrincham 3 miles away.

Marple, Cheadle and Hyde are burbs that could fold into Stockport.

Horwich is a burb of Bolton, the football stadium and nearby hills (eg Rivington Pike) are already described elsewhere.

Ashton-under-Lyne is just a burb near Stockport, though it’s an alternative home for Hyde.

Views? Grahamsands (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This isn't how mergers work. You don't just redirect one page to another. You have to move the content of the article being redirected into the target article, or no-one will see the content anymore. See Wikivoyage:How to merge two pages. Ground Zero (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so Ground Zero your objection is to the process of merging. I’m not hearing voices against the proposal to merge these particular destinations, still time to do so.

The “how to” page states "Try to integrate the content well, so the merge target does not read awkwardly post-merge."

And what it doesn’t state is ttcf because it doesn’t need to, that principle is core to everything we do.

So one interpretation is that the entire source content should be cut and pasted, however irrelevant to the final product, then whittled down on the target page – probably radically, since the source page was unWVworthy. Is there a technical reason behind this, eg to do with traceability or attribution?

What I’ve sought to do is first develop relevant content on the target page. For Littleborough and Marple this only amounted to a paragraph – there’s a canal you can walk or boat along. That’s all there is to do there. There’s no need to go into those villages to reach the canal, so a brief reference under get in / get around will do, not details of buses and trains that you wouldn’t take. There’s a pub next to the canal and a pizzeria along the lane; that’s pretty much all the traveller wants to know. If we were writing the target page from scratch and the source page didn’t exist, how much detail would we seek to put in?

The “how to” page then implies (but doesn’t state) that everything at source is deleted except the redirect itself. Doesn’t that make life harder if, as here, the redirect is challenged?

I’m perfectly content to follow the above interpretation, but am puzzled, and the final product may not look much different to the target pages as they stand. Grahamsands (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Marple (England) has 4 See and Do listings. Normally all or most of these would be copied to the destination page. You can be more selective about Sleep and Eat. I also would expect the target of the merge to be another city article, not a region. I would only merge into a region if the old article had one sentence or less worth keeping. Stockport is probably a better article to merge into than Greater Manchester. Finally Marple (England) should be left with just the redirect line, which should redirect to the article that has most of the old content, as all the other text will have been moved or deleted. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)I've no problem with what you're doing, but that partly derives from being reassured by your answer to Ground Zero's comment, which shows he was right to make the point.

Just one thing I want to address from your answer: there is no traceability / attribution-based reason to slavishly cut and paste entire articles into the target page, because redirected pages' histories are still visible to the public (unlike pages which are "deleted", which has a different meaning on a wiki), with all contributors credited. All you need to remember to do is credit the source page in your edit summary when moving the content. Either that, or you can put a prominent note in the talk page, leaving a link to the redirected page's history.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, Alasdair, Marple would be redirected to Stockport, under Graham's plan.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I was distracted and looked down a line to see Greater Manchester (not normally an issue as the redirect would have taken me to the right place, but I was looking at an old version of the page). Whilst the See and Do content is still mentioned in a single Marple listing, the detail is missing. AlasdairW (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that the merge should be proposed on the talk page of the article that you are planning to merge. This can just be a short note pointing to the discussion here. AlasdairW (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know little about the Manchester area, so normally I would defer to the expertise of people who do, but in the case of Marple you are proposing to merge an article that provides detailed get in information and has listings under most headings. It even has a place to sleep. I think this qualifies as an article. It's not a very interesting place, but people don't read Wikivoyage only to find information for tourism purposes. The information could be useful for someobe visiting for business or family reasons. Littleborough also has listings under most headings, including a sleep listing, although they need to be better developed as they are mostly just names. Lack of detail in listings isn't a reason to merge. Becsuse I don't know the area, I wouldn't oppose proper mergers that preserve most of the content if you're sure that this is the most useful way of presenting information to readers. I think your redirects showed that you were missing the point of mergers. Ground Zero (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

So the discussion is about what ends up on the target page and what gets dropped, the process of getting there isn’t an issue – good, that’s much easier to accommodate. You might all want to consider if any rewording of the “how to merge” page is indicated – it might do with more about the editorial judgements involved.

Let's continue the discussion here, as the outcome affects a slew of small places ringing the city. Let me walk you through the first example, Littleborough.

Why come here? See = Summit Tunnel and Blackstone Edge; Do = nil; End of.

Summit Tunnel is just the entrance to a railway tunnel. Who goes anyplace to look at the entrance to a railway tunnel? You can’t walk into it, seriously you can’t. Does anyone dissent from my decision not to migrate it?

Blackstone Edge is the scarp of the Pennines and forms part of the Pennine Way. So yes definitely keep, but you walk along it rather than stand and look at it. Thus it’s “Do” and is covered by an expanded Pennine Way para under Rochdale and Oldham and Greater Manchester. (And ditto, whenever I get round to it, for the Yorkshire towns on the other slope.) Seem sufficient?

Sleep = Moorcock Inn, with website but no other info; and that’s all.

The main road winds out of the village up the moor, and a mile uphill is this place, a pub with rooms. After another mile or so there’s another pub on the boundary with Yorkshire, then the road descends towards Halifax. So the Moorcock is not particularly convenient for the village, still less for that wondrous tunnel, you’d do better to stay in Rochdale and travel. The only basis I could see for retaining it is for an overnight stop on the Pennine Way. But that page doesn’t cover any accommodation and doesn’t even mention the village. Reasonable not to migrate?

Eat = nine places with next to no info (though four have websites), Drink = 14 likewise (with seven). Several are remote or closed - this is poor stuff to migrate. Perhaps you might stroll along the canal (Littleborough is one of its many access points) and appreciate knowing about pubs where you could get a meal – so I’ve mentioned a couple under Rochdale. Sufficient? We can always add to that page.

As for transport, that’s covered in Rochdale Get in / Get Around.

Sorry to have belaboured all this, but the re-directs were the product of sublime thought, so I need to know if it withstands challenge. Grahamsands (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Grahamsands: you seem to be stuck on this idea that Wikivoyage is only a guide for interesting places that tourists will want to visit. Wikivoyage does not take that limited view. Wikivoyage is for business travellers, people who live nearby who may wonder what's in the place, or for people visiting friends and family. There are lots of reasons to travel beyond tourism. Please see Wikivoyage:What is an article?. In particular, it says under "What does not get its own article?": "Tiny or sparsely populated villages and hamlets that have no cultural or natural attractions, or hospitality venues." This does not apply to Littleborough as there are hospitality venues (regardless of whether the article has details for them: they exist). The solution to listings without details is to add details. If you're dealing with an article that has a bunch of detailed listings and others without details, it's fine to remove the name-only listings. But in this case, the names and websites would be better than nothing for someone who ends up in the village for whatever reason. Ground Zero (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I support merging the suburbs with the town or district they are a part of. Sydney had this issue a few years ago. Apart from districts of the Greater Sydney area, there were around 10 articles on suburbs, some famous and some not-so famous. Yes they technically satisfied WV:WIAA (it has a hotel and a restaurant, and one attraction - usually a beach) but so would a hundred suburbs in Sydney so a line had to be drawn. Some of the prominent suburbs still remain but the minor ones have been merged successfully with the respective district. Gizza ^(roam) 02:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't oppose a merger necessarily, I just don't want to see detailed listings and other content blown away because the village isn't "interesting". Let's keep the content in the merger. Ground Zero (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero, I fully value the multiple readerships that you mention. For Rochdale, and indeed all the Greater Manchester area outside the city, these will likely be the main audience rather than tourists. The thing that I am stuck on is: How many of them would like to see the entrance to a railway tunnel? Grahamsands (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Railway fans. I visited the Isles of Scilly a couple of years ago. A beautiful place. About half the visitors we met were twitchers. That's a lot of twitchers. There's nowt so queer as folk. Ground Zero (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep the railway tunnel listing, but merge Littleborough into Rochdale.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Railway fans can see the tunnel by taking a train that goes through it, so it could become a mention in Get in (in either Littleborough or Rochdale). Alternatively there is a network of footpaths which follows most of the route of the tunnel, so a fan could walk over it and look at the ventillation shafts, and it could be kept as a listing. I think that the Moorcock Inn is worth keeping, it is the sort of small cheaper hotel that I would seek out. The drink listings could be trimmed even if the article is kept. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agree. By train you just flash from daylight to darkness in the tunnel and back to daylight, but it's been added to See with an explainer. Moorcock Inn is added as a possible stopover on the Pennine Way, and Waterside noted as a nice restaurant. I added a third pub but none of them have websites so all that needed said was their location and that they were open daily. Feels like we've resolved this one? I plan to wait 24 hours then REDIRECT unless there's further views. ( -> DONE - redirected on 8 Feb)

One down, six more candidates for redirection. I began the discussion here to ensure a forum, but this page will become unwieldy if that continues. So let us now discuss each candidate on its own Talk page and just record the consensus back here, where it remains visible if the outcome is to redirect. Let's do so consecutively not concurrently to avoid cross-postings. Leave Marple aside for the moment and consider Cheadle (target Stockport), because nothing has yet been done there. There's obviously stuff worth migrating but for me it doesn't stand as a destination. Let us, like a promenade production of Macbeth, adjourn there to consider its fate. Grahamsands (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cheadle was redirected to Stockport - the discussion has been copied to that discussion page.

Next proposal is to merge Hyde into Ashton-under-Lyne - with discussion on the latter (ie target) page as that town's scope could be expanded. Grahamsands (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The scope of "Ashton" was expanded to become Tameside, which takes in several small places including Hyde, and Hyde was redirected there.

Next proposal is to merge Sale into Altrincham, with discussion on the Sale (source) page. As one contributor Altfish lives nearby we can get a local reality check. Grahamsands (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Outcome: Sale was left as it is. It's not the most interesting place but it's substantial enough, and neither Altrincham nor Stretford make a natural home for it.

Next proposal is to merge Horwich into Bolton, with discussion on the Horwich (source) page. Grahamsands (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Horwich was redirected to Bolton and the discussion copied to that discussion page.

My final proposal, coming full circle, is to redirect Marple (England) into Stockport, with discussion on the latter page. Grahamsands (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No support for that one so Marple is left as it is. And that concludes this cycle of changes. Grahamsands (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Tidy.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Given the deteriorating safety situation in Piccadilly Gardens I have added advice with regard to the drug and gang problems currently blighting the area. While I am sure it is not something the city wants to advertise to tourists, so many people will have to come through the area that they need to know what to expect. I use wikivoyage regularly when I travel all over the world, and I would hope that a local resident would try to keep me safe if their city - we need to do that in ours. Once the city council do something to change the area we can update the section accordingly. Mwmonk (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that, and welcome to Wikivoyage. It's great to hear that you have made use of us in your travels.:)

I was last in Manchester a couple of years ago, and Piccadilly Gardens were already worse then than I remembered them. I witnessed the GMP chasing and tackling someone to the ground over by the bus shelters. If you're saying the situation has worsened since then, a warning is definitely warranted. (Then again, almost everything about life in Britain has worsened over the past decade, so quelle bloody surprise)

Just one thing to note, we don't use Wikipedia-style inline citations in Wikivoyage. If the accuracy of content you're adding has the potential to be doubted by somebody else, you can always show your source in your edit summary, or on the article's talk page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that’s fine. The area is ultra busy day and night, but it is best to be cautious here at the moment. There is a worsening ‘spice’ problem among the homeless community that is being fed by local drug gangs, and as the homeless get pushed out of recently gentrified areas around the city centre they end up here. The daft thing is, on a summer evening Piccadilly Gardens can be a very pleasant place when there are thousands of people around, as it’s surrounded by bars and is literally slap bang in the centre of all the nightlife areas of the city centre. But as you say, there is always likely to be some sort of anti social behaviour going on at almost any time. Mwmonk (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ThunderingTyphoons!, The dog2, Mwmonk: Is this edit necessary? How likely is it that the 1958 Munich Air Disaster will come up in conversation? Is this another example of filling up an article with obscure stuff so that it becomes less useful as a travel guide? Ground Zero (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

At first glance, it looks unnecessary to me. It's common sense that a disaster where people were killed is something that should be approached with respect and sensitivity. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it's that sensitive among 21st century Mancunians, and not appropriate for 'Stay safe'. Not to seem cold, but the victims of the disaster would most likely all be dead by now had they not died then.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I mean, I agree that it's a long time ago, but how old were the victims? Someone who was in their 20s then would probably be in their 80s now, which is hardly unimaginable, and if there were any children on that flight, they could be in their 60s or 70s today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

According to w:Munich air disaster, of those that survived the flight, only Bobby Charlton is still alive. I don't see the need to mention the disaster. I think that somebody stumbling into a conversation about the disaster would be be unlikely to say anything wrong. If there are current consequences of it (like an annual memorial service), then these could be stated in Understand. AlasdairW (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. I've removed it . Ground Zero (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sorry, I didn't get the ping for some reason. But from what I've heard, Liverpool fans would often use the Munich Air Disaster as a taunt when their team plays Man Utd, and likewise, Man Utd fans use the Hillsborough Disaster as a taunt. That's why I thought this would be a sore spot for people. The dog2 (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hello, the w:Munich air disaster is still a hugely emotional and complex issue , with many people using it as the basis of taunts aimed at Man Utd and their fans. While I agree that a casual visitor is incredibly unlikely to generate any reaction if talking about it in a general sense anywhere in the north of England, anyone attending a football match in any context (whether at the ground or in a pub/fan zone) should steer clear of raising it at all. Man Utd supporters may view any mention of the events at Munich - and even any mention of the word - as a slur against them and their club, and could become violent, especially if you purport to be a fan of a rival team. Now what on Earth you would be doing mixing with fans of Man Utd while outwardly expressing support for Man City, Liverpool or Leeds is another question, and it is highly likely to cause you trouble regardless of what you say, but even mentioning Munich if you do find yourself in such a situation would definitely invite anger.

There have been a number of "Munich chants" and songs aimed at Man Utd fans for more than 50 years by rival supporters, and while you will never hear them being chanted on mass at a ground anymore (unless you are at Elland Road to watch Leeds!), calling Man Utd "Munich bastards" is still common parlance among rivals, so as I say, even mentioning the word will likely cause concern anywhere involving football. Because of this I would recommend that some type of "don't be stupid, stay safe" warning would be relevant. While football grounds are generally sanitised places these days, the environs around the stadiums, and especially in pubs full of inebriated young men, can still be dangerous places. Mwmonk (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply