Talk:Greater Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.	United Kingdom Portal
This article has been rated "B" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs: An increase in images, maps, photographs (both modern and historic), satelite images etc. Overhall, expand, or even create history, geography (both physical and administrative), and economics, demographics sections. Cite sources and up the level of references. Find sources outlining various definitions of Greater Manchester (is it one city or not? - citation/commentary).

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Greater Manchester WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive guide to places in Greater Manchester. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother projects; UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject.	Greater Manchester Portal
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find suggestions on how to improve related articles. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

Contents 1 Definitions 2 The name 3 User Category 4 Sports Section 5 Lead Section 6 Geography section 7 History section

[edit] Definitions

Please add suggestions at Talk:City_of_Manchester#Definitions about which Manchester-related articles we should have and what each of them should contain. Cormaggio ^@ 00:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the text of this definition. I believe GM as a county only ever existed while there was a county council. The county council was created and the county council was abolished. There remains are an area which is referred to as Greater Manchester but it's not a county in an administrative sense and it is not recognised in any way by the Government Office for the North West. Surely any reference to GM as being a 'county' is misleading?

Also doesn't there need to be a clear definition of what the GM conurbation is and shouldn't the definition highlight how that differs from any area which might be recognised for statistical collection purposes - which is where GM might exist as an administrative convenience rather than a legal entity. Cosmopolitancats 13:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of what the GM conurbation is. It's the Greater Manchester Urban Area, defined by the ONS. Fingerpuppet 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county (they just happen to no longer have county councils) and a ceremonial/geographic county by virtue of the Lieutenancies Act 1997. It is a county therefore in two ways. David 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite evidence for the former definition. The Lieutenancies Acts surely only relates to the ceremonial function. Middlesex is a county but I believe Wikipedia is treating that as history. The more important area for the purposes of wikipedia is the GM conurbation as defined for statistical purposes - see Finerpuppet's comment. Cosmopolitancats 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Having had another look at this I am completely at a loss as to why there are two Greater Manchester pages in wikipedia when one of them is perfectly capable of being subsumed into the other. The ceremonial aspect of the county is of very minor importance compared to the geographical framework used for the collection of important and informative statistics - which is the area covered by the metropolitan boroughs. I would suggest that the two articles are combined to avoid confusion and that the aspect which should take the lead is the urban conurbation and geog. framework relating to the ONS. The ceremonial aspects can be dealt with adequately in a sub-section. Cosmopolitancats 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two articles (both this and the GMUA) because a) they deal with different divisions of land, with different purposes and origins, b) to avoid confusion between the two, and c) to maintain national consistency with every other county/Urban area article on Wikipedia (e.g. Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and Wigan Urban Area). The Government Office for the North West website you cited earlier (if you re-read carefully) outlines administrative authorities (i.e. councils - people/organisations!), not divisions of land (hense why Merseyside is also not on that list). All of this is explained within the text of the Wikipedia articles themselves with references. The ONS GMUA does not correlate at all with any of the metropolitan boroughs or even any borough/county system (historic, administrative, shire, metro, postal or ceremonial!); it is a completely different system of geography. 86.138.162.84 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The GMUA is a conurbation, a continuous built up area. Greater Manchester Metropolitan County is an administrative area. The two are not the same, despite the similarity in name. Whilst I agree that there is no actual administration done at the GMC level, there are still bodies that cover the GMC area, such as the GM Police amongst many others. See also West Midlands conurbation and West Midlands (county) for another pairing - similar name, similar location but very different in terms of what they are. Fingerpuppet 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name

There is an article in The Times of April 30, 1971, "Regional notebook" section by John Chartres, which gleefully mocks the "Selnec" name, quoting the Lord Mayor of Manchester as saying "who wants to call himself a Selneckian?"

Also Chartres notes

"Even in here in the egalitarian north-west there is a teeny weeny bit of snobbishness over addresses. Not many will admit it openly, but dwellers in the such lush places south of Manchester as Altrincham, Bowdon, Hale and Wilmslow have set a certain store by their Cheshire addresses and do not always blurt out to people they meet on holiday that they live in the suburbs of Manchester."

He then in the second-to-last paragraph proposes using the name "Greater Manchester". 82.35.9.122 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The SELNEC reference is very old and belongs in the history section Cosmopolitancats 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Category

At last, in an effort to bring us inline with other parts of the country, there is now a new user category to help connect Wikipedians from across the Greater Manchester county with each other.

This will be invaluable should there be a push or project which requires collaboration on a Greater Manchester related article in the future. Those who are interested, please see Category:Wikipedians in Greater Manchester and follow the instructions as appropriate. Many thanks, Jhamez84 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Section

I've removed:

Some will say that the ONLY team in Manchester is Manchester City F.C., this is due to the fact that local rivals Manchester United F.C. ply their trade in the borough of Trafford.

although some County fans might take offence with calling them a 'Manchester team' after self styling themselves as 'The Pride Of Cheshire'. Bury and Rochdale, although still situated within the parameters of Greater Manchester are considered more as Lancashire teams, as with Wigan and Bolton in The Premiership.

Greater Manchester could be considered as one of Britain's most successful sporting counties.

To me, they're Weasel words I'm afraid. If any can be attributed to a source, then stick it back in. I've expanded the sports section the include other sports, and thrown in a brief note about the state of that particular sport at the moment, so hopefully it all balances out! Lawful Hippo 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

Sorry, but I really don't understand why there's a sentence at the start of this article about the County of Greater Manchester that refers to the Greater Manchester Urban Area. Whilst there can be no argument about the EU statement itself, the user concerned appears to be using it to refer to the county, when using the word "conurbation". They are not co-terminus and indeed refer to two totally separate concepts - one being a continuous built up area, and the other being an administrative area. I notice that the same user has removed that reference to the more relevant Greater Manchester Urban Area page, and claimed Wikipedia:Verifiability (which it clearly is), Wikipedia:No original research (which it clearly isn't) and Wikipedia:Lead section.

The last named currently reads "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

Now, I know I'm relatively new around here, but it rather seems to me that adding a paragraph in the lead section of an article regarding an administrative area that refers to a similarly named but non-coterminus conurbation or city-region is not appropriate as an overview of that article, if you see what I'm getting at. Fingerpuppet 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think (given a few poorly worded articles) this is a misunderstanding - the Greater Manchester Urban Area does not necessarily mean the urban sprawl that is the Manchester/Greater Manchester conurbation - the GMUA is actually an area defined by the Office of National Statistics.

The paragraph (which was sourced and thus should not have been edited out per policy), was raising that though neither the county or the U.A. have city status in the UK, the conurbation still constitutes a large singluar city region in global/international terms.

That said, the paragraph, though raises a useful conjecture for users, wasn't really suitable for the lead, and it has been moved down to an appropriate section. I trust this elaborates somewhat, though would add for any user new or established, that it is best to make contact with fellow contributors for justification if one finds a contribution objectionable, as working together to reword statements often improves article content. Jhamez84 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the GMUA is undoubtedly defined by the ONS, I was under the distinct impression [1] that the ONS actually look at the continuous urban area to within (I think) 50 metres. I'll take this over to Greater Manchester Urban Area, where this more naturally lies Fingerpuppet 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography section

This section needs to be expanded and needs work (sorry left out signature) Cosmopolitancats 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

This section has got far too little about the history of the area (sorry left out signatur)e Cosmopolitancats 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Post 1974 section get rated as a stub? I don't think it needs expanding - it was a council which lasted for 12 years. The focus should be on the present day rather than history (eg are we going to go back and rate the Poor Law Unions and the old County Boroughs as a stub as well? They held sway in the area for longer than the GMC )- which is neglected at present. Cosmopolitancats 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes today. The justification for this is that most of your edits were inaccurate and damaging to the integrity of the text. E.G. Metropolitan counties still exist, and legally so (reference here). Metropolitan boroughs are also districts, and legally so (reference here). Your edits appeared to show the contrary, removing referenced content.

Also, Greater Manchester is the legally bestowed name of an official, verifiable division of land - the metropoltian county. The conurbation that encompasses Manchester actually does not have an official name, and thus is open to interpretation as to what it includes and the extent of its boundaries. Therefore Greater Manchester is not verifiably a conurbation in encyclopedic terms.

Please do not edit that Greater Manchester only existed for 12 years - only the county council was abolished, not the county boundaries. This is explained in the text and is fully referenced. It is also against the consensus formualted by users in the British counties Naming conventions. 86.138.162.84 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are incorrect about the conurbation. It is officially defined as the Greater Manchester Urban Area and has defined boundaries. The GMUA is quite verifiable as a conurbation. However, as the GM Urban Area has differing boundaries from the GM County (for example Wigan is part of the county but outside the GMUA, whereas Wilmslow is outside the county but inside the GMUA) the comments regarding conurbation-wide services are false. Fingerpuppet 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. You elaborate on the point I was intending to make - This article is about the metropolitan county which is not the Urban Area or a conurbation. Though I would add that the GMUA is a division of land used and determinied by ONS, and not strictly a legal/official entity bestowed upon the conurbation for universal usage beyond ONS literature. Greater Manchester (without Urban Area suffix) is not encyclopedically verifiable as a conurbation and is very POV. 86.138.162.84 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The bit I don't understand is if we are only talking about a county which only exists for ceremonial reasons then why does it have such a large entry - which concerns itself with matters wholly unrelated to its ceremonial status? (I haven't looked at the other met counties and don't know if they are the same or not) The thing which is fundamentally different about all metropolitan counties when compared to the non-met counties is that the latter continue to have councils and a role in English local government (the mets do not) and have a layer of councils which form part of them (ie the District Councils) and the Mets do not. The Metropolitan Boroughs in all met counties are all unitary authorities (having responsibility for all functions other than emergency services) and are all wholly independent of any met county.

It's a bit like talking about the Duchy of Lancashire and rather than the County of Lancashire. (I'm not sure if this is the best analogy but I'm sure you'll get the drift)Cosmopolitancats 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, public transport is also responsibillity of a county-wide body (GMPTE). And so is transport policy http://www.gmltp.co.uk/. G-Man * 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - point taken. In which case IMO this article needs to highlight MUCH more clearly in the front-end summary that this particular definition of GM (as opposed to Urban Area) relates to:

• all those functions which operate across the Greater Manchester conurbation for reasons of scale economy but which use the 10 City/Metropolitan Borough Council areas as their geographical frame of reference. the important feature of Greater Manchester insofar as it relates to public service functions is that it operates on am essentially co-operative basis - without the benefit of a co-ordinating metropolitan council (because the only county which exists is ceremonial only!)
• a ceremonial county

(ie reduce the history data and increase the present day profile in the summary)

The relationship between the MBCs and the relevant authorities for each relevant function might then be spelt out in a bit more detail (given the way historical matters currently swamp this article) So, for example, re Travel: the ten City and Metropolitan Borough Councils are the local highway and transport planning authorities for their areas and they have to work in partnership with the GMPTA in order to bring some coherence to travel within and across the conurbation. And the plan LTP1 was produced by staff from the constituent authorities working together on a temporary basis, and LTP2, together with monitoring and review, is co-ordinated by a permanent team, the Greater Manchester Joint Transport Team (GMJTT), seconded from those authorities. (see website for all this info - the point is it's essetially 10 authorities working ona co-operative basis).

Can we also make much clearer which bit of GM is used for which stats. So far as I am aware (ie last time I looked), most of the important stats (eg employment/unemployment) are not counted at a GM level at all. They are counted at a City/MBC level. The stats people have to find a way of grouping stats and they do it in different ways for different stats. Grouping the 10 City/MBCs together on a page does not mean there is a GM total. Bottom line - the primary unit within GM which operates the bulk of public service functions in an autonomous way is the MBC/City - not GM. They then agree to co-operate at a GM level to deliver the remaining functions. I keep getting an impression from the the article (maybe because of the strong historical flavour?) that the MBCs are somehow subordinate units when in fact they very largely run the show. Maybe because this is not spelt out upfront in the summary?

Bottom line re History: Might the whole Redcliffe Maud section and some of the other historical info thing be moved to a History sub-page so that a debate which is 35 years old does not swamp the article? It takes an awfully long time to get to the present day and the current definition of Greater Manchester.

Sorry I did no understand previously about the two separate pages for GM. The lack of clear referencing between the pages makes it very confusing. I've not changed anything this time - just suggested where I think improvements should be made to reflect properly the current modern profile of GM. However happy to draft a revised front-end if people agree with what's proposed above. Cosmopolitancats 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, The Greater Manchester police, fire service and PTE are statutary, i.e legally required to exist. They are not the result of voluntary co-operation. The local transport plan is I believe also effectively statutary, as LTPs are required to cover the same areas as Passenger Transport Executives for obvious reasons. Secondly the Local Government Act 1985 did not abolish GM as a leagal entity. Just abolished its council and redistributed its functions between the districts and Joint-boards. It is still recognised as an existing entity. G-Man * 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to these proposals - per all the reference material. We have two seperate GM articles becuase, as stated before by another user, "The ONS GMUA does not correlate at all with any of the metropolitan boroughs or even any borough/county system (historic, administrative, shire, metro, postal or ceremonial!); it is a completely different system of geography." Your proposals would undermine this point, annexing Wigan and other settlements out of Greater Manchester, and placing Cheshire territory (such as Wilmslow) into GM.

I suggest you read The Gazetter of Old and New Geographies of the United Kingdom. The fact metropolitan counties don't have an upper tier council has no impact upon its county status. I'm presuming you intend to make these changes to Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear etc, saying they are nothing but ceremonial conurbations!? Counties of England have a complex history, hence complex openings, just take a look at Lancashire or Yorkshire. Jhamez84 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the link Jhamez84 gave, the following section, titled "Metropolitan district councils" appears in the "The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (2005) and Prepared by the Office for National Statistics, London: TSO (ISBN 0 11 621738 3)[2]: "The six metropolitan county areas in England – Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear,West Midlands and West Yorkshire – have 36 district councils but no county councils." (page 9) I think this very clearly implies that the metropolitan counties still exist, and it is an official document written by an office of the UK government. I would also be interested in what those people who deny the metropolitian counties still exist say about the existence of Berkshire: a county that has no county council, it having been completely divided up, on 1st April 1998, into unitary authorities.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--But Berkshire sounds so much more poetic and it was lucky enough to be a postal county, so it must still exist! ;) Jhamez84 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have several texts which clearly state the county councils were abolished, not the counties, such as HMSO, Aspects of Britain: Local Government, (1996) and Jones, B. et al, Politics UK, (2004). Furthermore, when they became lieutenancy/ceremonial counties in the Lieutenancies Act 1997, they were already counted in 2c of the schedule and did not need to be listed as groups of unitary authorities i.e they existed prior to the 1997 Act as metropolitan counties. As regards the history, I think its fine as it is. The only reason to move it off is if the article gets very long, I don't think its really at that stage just yet. Everyone will come to the article for a different need or purpose so sometimes there are sections we're not really interested in. MRSC • Talk 06:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But then there's a school of thought that only the old Administrative Counties were abolished in 1974, not the Counties themselves, hence somehow, say, Rochdale manages to exist within both Lancashire and Greater Manchester at the same time. Isn't all this rather fun?

Fundamentally, the GM County exists as an Administrative County (even though no actual administration is done at that level), and as a Ceremonial County. Unitary Authorities are defined differently (as Administrative Counties in their own right - hence technically "County of Blackburn with Darwen and so on), even though functionally they're pretty much identical to Metropolitan Boroughs. Fingerpuppet 12:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)