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? 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. --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 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? alasdair 28 Jan 2004
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. --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. 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. 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. --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 188.8.131.52 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. --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 unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (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... --PeterTalk 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. 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 ;) --PeterTalk 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: 220.127.116.11
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 majority18.104.22.168 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 . 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: 22.214.171.124
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.126.96.36.199 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...) --PeterTalk 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.188.8.131.52 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. --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. --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.--184.108.40.206 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? -- 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  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. -- 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. 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- Owl 04:19, 25 February 2006 (EST)
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. :) -- Owl 16:20, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)
No it isnt, they are made by different companies. --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.
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. -- 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. 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? 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. -- 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 Wikitravel, they would constitute here as small cities. Sorry for the confusion. 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. 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. -- Xillion 08:45, 9 August 2006 (EDT)
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 220.127.116.11 (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 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
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 Wikitravel: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! 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. -- 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. 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. -- 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 Peter Fitzgerald - this is his specialty. 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...)
There hasn't been any objections, so I'm going to plunge forward and redo the districts. -- Tim (writeme!) 10:08, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
Hurrah! Wish I knew enough to help. 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.) 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? Nrms 02:01, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
For future reference, these are the old districts:
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
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. -- Owl 17:12, 9 June 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. 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 Wikitravel 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-- 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 unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
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 --Nick 05:21, 29 February 2008 (EST)
These articles have now been deleted --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 Wikitravel 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... 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.
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. --Inas 00:25, 11 February 2009 (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, --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 126.96.36.199 (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? 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 188.8.131.52 (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"? 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 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
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 18.104.22.168 (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 Ilikescider (talk • contribs)
Manchester: people moving to Manchester from southern england
Is it factually correct that people from London/Kent/Surrey/Essex at al are moving to Manchester in their droves???? Really? Try asking someone from Tunbridge Wells, Weybridge, Maidenhead or Braintree "fancing moving up north to Manchester or Liverpool?" and I'd suspect the answer would be a certain no! This is no put down of Manchester, which, I agree is a vibrant (if rather unsightly) city, but it is rather disingenuous to suggest the south east of England is locating northwards on a massive scale!