Talk:Salford/Archive 1

Merger

I am considering merging this page with the page entitled "City of Salford" as I think the existence of the two pages is confusing and a combined page under the heading Salford that explains the difference between the metropolitan borough and districts within would be more appropriate. My intention is then to expand the page with further information similiar to that for Manchester (old rivalries between the twin cities never dies!) which has a single page. Any observations?

The City of Salford is the metropolitan borough and contains the towns of Salford and others. Therefore do not merge please!! David 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, no. With respect David, that's complete rubbish! This article (correctly) starts Salford is a city in Greater Manchester, England. Since 1974 the city is coterminous with the area of the metropolitan borough. City of Salford should be merged with this article. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The articles should clearly not be merged for the reasons stated at the top of this page, as per David. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, "the reasons stated at the top of this page" clearly belong in the history section. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that calling Salford a "city" is problematic, but I disagree strongly that a merger is the solution - the approach taken has widespread use on Wikipedia, and for good reason IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what should be consigned to history is the notion that since 1974 Salford has been a city? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The situation prevailing in North of England articles is absurd, counter-intuitive and without legal basis. Prior to 1974 Salford comprised the area described in this article, since that time it has incorporated the wider area of the metropolitan borough. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true - "Salford" didn't "expand" to incorporate the additional areas. A new metropolitan district was established, which happend to have the name of Salford (I can get the refs if you want to go down that route). Eccles has just as much claim to expansion as Salford. That said, this seems to be the local convention for geographic demarcation in the North. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is some absurdity in this discussion, I agree. I rather doubt, for instance, whether the residents of Worsley consider themselves to be living in the city of Salford as opposed to the borough of City of Salford, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

--P.S. (& edit conflict) this "northern absurdity" is probably due to the nature of Metropolitan counties and their boroughs - the vast majority of which lie in the north. Oldham and the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham are totally different areas; the same applies to Salford. ONS even provides different sets of statistics for these areas. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the end of the day Jza84, no doubt you and Malleus are going to have your way. I don't intend to make the change, I just want to add my voice to those who do not agree with you on this contentious issue. Chrisieboy (talk)

Well, we will "have our way" because we write according to source material, not personal perspective. It's a winning formula on Wikipedia - trust me. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did at one point not too long ago suggest merging Salford and City of Salford myself, until I was reminded of the perfectly reasonable thinking behind the split. I really don't see anything contentious at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Jza84, I think it is your personal perspective and preference. What source material are you referring to in particular? The city council seems to refer to the entire metopolitan borough as Salford. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

... as an abbeviation of City of Salford perhaps, rather than a synonym for it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not interested in another lackluster timewasting storm in a teacup. I think it's clear this discussion is intended to stimulate another fight, and is now counterproductive. Status quo remains without consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that original research or just rubbish Malleus? I'll ask again, what is the source material? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not us who seek a change - it's you. You need to bring something to the table first. Also, I wonder how Trafford, Rochdale, Bury and Oldham MBCs refer to their districts???? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research or rubbish? Are those the only choices? One of the principles I live by is best summed up by a Yiddish proverb: "When offered two choices, always take the third." Jza84, unsurprisingly, the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford describes itself simply as Trafford on its web site here. Amazing, isn't it, that they would abbreviate their full title in that egregious way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you two patrol the encyclopedia as a couple? Anyway, (hopefully) third time lucky! What source material? Chrisieboy (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Salford is a "city and metropolitan borough in the west-central part of the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, historic county of Lancashire, England. It lies immediately west of the city of Manchester." It is a great sadness to me when a commercial publication is more authoritative than our project and contributors seem determined to keep it that way. Surely readers look to an encyclopedia for clarification and if the city council mean one thing by Salford and WP means another, that is cause for confusion. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stooping a low as to make a personal attack over a non-existent problem? Yikes. Seriously though, that screams volumes about your intentions and persona here. You raise a good question non-the-less however: what source material do you have Chrisieboy for the change you seek? I'll return once you bring something to the table other than your repeatedly combattative personal attacks. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record Jza84, I don't believe I have made any "repeatedly combattative personal attacks" and I don't think it is fair of you to say that I have. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record Chrisieboy, I too have found your attitude to be offensive. But what is worse, I find your inexplicable refual to accept that Salford is a name given to both a city and a metropolitan borough – which do not occupy the same area of land and which it is therefore perfectly sensible to have separate articles on – to be an offence against common sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, do you not see the irony in your last post? Perhaps you find repeatedly asking the same question (in the hope of getting an answer you obviously don't want to give) offensive; I'm sorry I have to! In all honesty, given your track record, I think it's a bit of a cheek coming from you, but anyway...if you seriously find me offensive, perhaps you should wrap yourself up in cotton wool or better still, just reconsider your involvement with this website.

Jza84, I expect better from an admin. You seem to completely overlook Malleus' behaviour, even to defend it, while accusing me (inappropriately) of trolling and making personal attacks. I do not share your view that this is a "storm in a teacup," but if you are not interested why participate? I presume you don't have any ownership issues with Greater Manchester articles.

Chrisieboy (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticks and stones as far as I'm concerned Chrisieboy; your opinion of me is of no interest whatsoever. I will, however, share my opinion of you all the same, best summed up by this essay: don't feed the trolls. Enjoy talking to yourself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That Rugby guy...

William Webb Ellis was born in Salford, wasn't he? His legacy is probably more living that most of the other ones mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.22.26 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish community

The page makes no mention of the very large Jewish population in Salford (mainly around Broom Lane). Any ideas? JFW | T@lk 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The town vs city debate. Again

City of Salford

I think having two entries for Salford and 'City of Salford' is somewhat confusing. The notion of a historical Salford, within what is now Salford, is highly debatable.

---

The "town of Salford" is in fact a city!!!

I agree that having two entries is confusing and would personally prefer just one. I have no idea what "the notion of a historical Salford within what is now Salford is highly debatable" means. Salford has a long and interesting history (irrespective of present day boundaries) and the story should be told.

Please read the articles: the first line of each gives you a hint. David has already explained the situation very clearly. The JPS 09:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I'll give you another hint - there is no "town" called Salford. The status of city was conferred on Salford in 1926 and from that date the "town" ceased to exist. Get it?????

---

There are a number of inaccuracies in this article, for example:

The road referred to as "the Crescent" is actually called "Crescent",

"The Lowry Centre" is called "The Lowry",

The "Lowry Outlet" is called "The Lowry Outlet Mall".

I'm far more willing to trust someone who has bothered to create an account and profile (i.e. David); especially when they are studying town planning! Unless you have a source for your claims, then I'm sure more experienced editors would have made any correction by now.

The benefit of the wiki is that you yourself can correct minor inaccuracies. The JPS 20:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Maybe it wouldn't be beyond someone studying town planning to look in the Manchester A-Z and to visit websites such as http://www.thelowry.com and http://www.lowryoutletmall.com. There is no mystery to research, you know!

I also don't need you to "trust" me - I have lived and or worked in the city for 30 years and although I don't consider myself an expert on Salford I have picked up a fair amount of knowledge over the years.

ah, the good old University of Life! The JPS 09:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the good old Manchester A-Z and the websites of the venues mentioned - it really isn't rocket science - try to keep up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.74.33 (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Why is Christopher Eccleston listed under the "Resident" section when he was "Born in" Salford? Having said that he does still have a house in Salford.

Documentary evidence

I've just removed the following from the history section:

According to Documentary in the UK, in 1970's Salford's council estates are constantly patroled by Police due to high rate of crime and drug abuse. Much were blamed on Margaret Thatcher, an ex-PM of UK

As well as being not particularly clear, no source is given for this - even the name of the particular documentary would help, although even that is not sufficient under WP:V. If anyone wants to have a go at finding sources to support a similar claim, feel free. Aquilina 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

this particularly rubbish as MT only managed to be in charge for a few months in the 70s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobo67 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Population figures

In the opening paragraph it says "the metropolitan borough had a population of..." What is "the metropolitan borough"? Is it Greater Manchester, or is there a Metropolitan Borough of Salford?

There is no "Metropolitan Borough of Salford". Salford is a city!

A Complete Mess!

At the moment, there are images over text- can somebody with the knowhow reorganise the page a little please? I'm not normally an asker, i'm a doer, but this is beyond my current wiki editing knowledge. Many thanks. The globetrotter 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral picture

The caption of the picture of the RC cathedral staes that this one of 2 cathedrals in Salford where is the other one surely you mean 2 cathedrals in Greater Manchester Penrithguy 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Old Town

I've lived here for 49 years, never heard it called that once, either by locals or visitors. Yes everyone knows the song, but as for it being a popular nickname - sorry, not true. If you can't come up with cited evidence, it'll have to go

StaceyGrove (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here. Certainly a citation is needed here - good call. On another note, if you're a local, have you considered joining us at WikiProject Greater Manchester? You've certainly got the eye for detail and right approach that is always welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference was given later in the article, so I've restored this and moved the citation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the reference befort deciding that it was "irrelevant"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I half remembered that I may have seen that reference elsewhere, my first thought was Engels, but I can't put my hands on a copy, yet. I would also have re-instated the quote, if I'd found it. I remember Salford in the early 1970s, it was not all "Salford Quays" in those days.Pyrotec (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has some fine pictures, but doesn't assert that the song title was adopted as a nickname (in fact Dublin and Rijeka-Fiume have both been referred to as as 'dirty old town'. Again, I have no axe to grind here, but a nickname for a place implies an acceptance of the name by the people who live there (think Big Apple The Smoke or Brum By all means we should refer to quotations in popular culture, and I am happy that the song is mentioned as should the Engles quotation, which I also seem to remember (frantic leafing through book) Salford is mentioned in the section headed GREAT TOWNS

"If we cross the Irwell to Salford, we find on a peninsula formed by the river a town of eighty thousand inhabitants, which, properly speaking, is one large working-men's quarter, penetrated by a single wide avenue. Salford, once more important than Manchester, was then the leading town of the surrounding district to which it still gives its name, Salford Hundred. Hence it is that an old and therefore very unwholesome, dirty, and ruinous locality is to be found here, lying opposite the Old Church of Manchester, and in as bad a condition as the Old Town on the other side of the Irwell." - (Condition of the Working Class in England, by Engels, 1845)

Maybe we should work this into the article. :) StaceyGrove (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference that you hastily deleted - without checking - provided the reference that you had asked for. It is disappointing that you have opted to delete verifiable information simply because you consider it to be "derogatory". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Having initially worried that this was unsourced, now that it is a verifiable statement I'd be inclined to keep a note of it. Whether it is appropriate to include it in the lead, or as a nickname etc I guess is something we could hope to achieve some sort of consensus with. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Even Salford City Council recognise that "dirty old town" is a nickname for Salford, as in this newsletter. Can you guess what the background music to the free DVD they were offering is? :-) I'm not going to get into a revert war over this, but removing information because one person considers it "derogatory" is unacceptable. I've lived in Manchester for a good part of my life, but I've never heard anyone refer to it as "Cottonopolis", a nickname which is in the Manchester article's lead. Similarly, I lived in London for 12 years, but I never heard anyone call it "the smoke". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

the document says nothing of the sort. And as for 'deleting verifiable information' the facts are still there, the article still mentions Ewan Mcolls song. I just removed the assertion, that the song title is a nickname as there really is no satisfactory way of proving it.StaceyGrove (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the following for now:

"Dirty Old Town was written by Ewan MacColl in 1956. The song refers to Salford"

This seems to reduce the claim to its bare-minimum now (per the material/recommendations at WP:NPOV). If we can find a source using the word "nickname" I guess we can overcome that when we find it? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This was already in the article. :) StaceyGrove (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I missed this, it being placed further down the article. I was hoping Mallues could provide input here too with his thoughts. Are we all happy with it being in that section of the article? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(unident) This discusion is arse-about-face, if you'll pardon my French. Salford acquired the nickname because of McColl's song, he wasn't reporting a prior nickname. The later section simply says that Ewan McColl wrote a song called Dirty Old Town. Not the same thing at all. The requirement for "proof" is not one that I'm familiar either; I thought the requirement was for verifiability? I have already given a perfectly good reference for the nickname which has now twice been deleted. So no, I do not agree with the claim simply being hidden away because one editor considers it to be derogatory. I am though prepared to compromise to the extent of not having that claim made in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to a form or wording in the Culture section like: "Salford is the subject of a number of folk songs, including Dirty Old Town written by native Ewan MacColl, which gave the city its nickname. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll end up doing whatever you choose because I'm not that bothered. Verifiability is not simply googling and linking, if this were the case then anything could be true.

Black is white (reference NEW YORK TIMES http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C05E6DA133AE033A25754C0A9619C94689FD7CF&oref=slogin)

It was my own experience (which i understand is not important, but it is all i have) that i have never heard anyone use the term that led me to ask around and further research, I couldn't find a credible source (which doesn't reference the song) of the song title being used as a nickname by even a small percentage of the population. just because someone refers to the song in relation to the city doesn't make it a nickname, if anything, a nickname should transcend it's source, like the Big Apple or The Big Easy By the way, using a book as a reference which is a collection of references itself is also not good research, this circular referencing means that Wikipedia is as prone to bolstering urban myths as any other 'authority' and is cheapened when someone finds something stated as a fact that doesn't square with their experience. I'm bored now - please do what you like.StaceyGrove (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I keep referring you to a proper, verifiable source that you keep ignoring. Why not take the time to read it? It may help with your low boredom threshold. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling finding the original source used in the edit history. Was it an online source or a printed one? If it was print, is there any chance of a quote? I would urge User:StaceyGrove to double check the policy on verification over truth. If a reliable source states a claim, it is usually suitable for inclusion here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference was to Cooper's book, Salford: An Illustrated History. I'll try to put together a form of words that I hope will calm down this storm in a teacup. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep the storm raging a little longer ;), a book by Glynis Cooper is certainly going to meet the reliable source criteria; she's written about ten hardback books about the Greater Manchester area. It's a honourable publisher too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The majority of Salford residents are Manchester United fans

I have disagreed with the above edit made on a couple of occasions now by Talk:82.21.40.244, and I have undone it. That editor clearly disagrees with my view, and appears to believe that it is an important fact about sport in Salford, and so deserves to be included.[1] My view is that it is unencyclopedic and irrelevant, not least because Manchester United is not in Salford.

A wider range of views may help to defuse this situation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why it's important. It isn't even very notable: people from Greater Manchester supporting a Mancunian team? Surely not! Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was to be included at all, it should certainly be toned down and form nothing but a single statement, including that it was reported in a single source. Other than that, I think we're all agreed this isn't really the sort of info one would expect in an encyclopedic entry on Salford. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

this is nonsence. it may be true that the majority residents who support a team, support united, but to say that the majority of residents support united when most have no particular intrest in football is inacurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobo67 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting source

From the Mayor of Salford. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And another :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This and this are also useful (I'll come back to these and use them don't worry) :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And another! - We'll easily get a GA from this! hehehe! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And this. I'll try and stop there. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

...Just one more :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I've just removed the following text:

• The city's coat of arms shows three curved blue lines, representing the ford in the river, surrounded by sallow leaves. The ford was about where Victoria Bridge is today. (from Cooper, Salford: An Illustrated History, p. 7).

Looking at the coat of arms, as well as refering to civicheraldry.co.uk, this doesn't seem to add up. I can't see the three curved blue lines or the sallow leaves. I've removed this provisionally until someone can elaborate. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference wasn't to support the claim about the coat of arms, just the location of the ford. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh! That explains it. I'll pop that bit back in and leave out the COAs bit. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Start Class?

I don't consider this to be worthy of a "Start" classification - I'd now rate it "B Class". Possibly with some work on improving the {refimprovesection} problem-sections and some stability, we could start to think about trying for GA classification.Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too! I have a few books on the way to me, so these, coupled with some of the sources I've found above, should hopefully help us put together a really great article! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who contributes very very little to the article, I've upgraded it to a B rating. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Twin cities (geographical proximity)

On the Twin cities (geographical proximity) article, Salford is given as an example. Is this verifiable, and if so, does it warrent inclusion somewhere (perhaps Geography) in this article? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "only thing" that divides the two cities is the River Irwell; the boundary goes down the middle.Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

this is misleading, its quite possible to travel from one to the other with out crossing the river, from broughton to cheetham hill.

so there are many things which divided the cities, one being the traffic lights on waterloo rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobo67 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

hanky park

the article says hanky park was a fictitious,being a creation of WG It may not have exsisted on any map, but was a wide spread name for the area around Hankinson street. The name was an ironic referance to a very small area of grassed verge with ran down Hankinson street. being the only grassed area for some distance. The has been carried forward by the use of the name Hankinson way,

My sources are impecable being my 76 yo mother who lived there.

the name was in use upto the late 60 which i remember myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobo67 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Jobo67,

It's early days for you (I notice you're a brand new user - Welcome!), so it's probably best if I link a few pages to help you get into the Wikipedia way of doing things! Please visit our pages WP:CITE and WP:V regarding the addition of material to pages and how to go about them. These should help you somewhat. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

notable people

can we not do better than the smiths on a day out to salford

off the top of my head this section should include

Albert Finney, Robert Powel, Ben Kingsley, Jewel ( the scientist), Christopher Eccelston, Harold Riley, the woman who wrote taste of honey,

and what connection did ms Pankhurst have with salford, did she get off the bus at the wrong stop

Theres a list on the wall at Peel park

NB lowery never lived in salford. he moved from swinton before 1975 and K M was not a revolutionary, just an author

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.73 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC) 

Great suggestions, now we just need to cite our sources so our readers can verify the material. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)