This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am considering merging this page with the page entitled "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?

That sounds like a smart idea. I am not familiar with the place, and was confused with the Salford article starting "Salford ... is a city in". Yet this article is titled "City of Salford". So, it's all pretty confusing to anybody who's not familiar with the place. -- rob 23:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a difference - the City of Salford is a metropolitan borough with City status, while Salford is a town within that metropolitan borough. Therefore please do not merge!! David 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

David, please note that there is no "town" called Salford. I don't know how familiar you are with Salford but it became a city in 1926 and that is when the "town" ceased to exist.

Salford is comprised of 5 districts not 7- Swinton and Pendlebury is one district as is Irlam and Cadishead.

• merge - There is a difference, and it can be thoroughly covered on one page. Hughcharlesparker 23:38:40, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• keep seperate - The articles deal with two different areas, but with similar names.... a simillar confusion exists with the town of Oldham and the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham... and again with the town of Rochdale and the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale. Whilst these areas may sound simillar, they actually deal with very different (wider/smaller) areas and have seperate legal status. Jhamez84 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite right - the borough of Salford extends way out into the Lancashire countryside! Therefore - keep seperate! David 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't!!! Lancashire is Lancashire, Salford is Salford. Salford is not in Lancashire!

Yes it is. David 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect - you've got some reading to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.93.134 ( talk) 22:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

At last, let us put to bed the old Salford and Manchester are in Lancashire! They are in what WAS Lancashire, true, but it ends there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.33 ( talk) 10:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Image:Arms-salford-city.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The GA Review has been archived and can be accessed here. Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Although all were above the averages for England, Salford's crime rate was lower than Manchester's". I can't really see the relevance of comparing Salford and Manchester's crime figures just because they happen to be next to each other. Why is it of any more interest than a comparison with Bolton or Bury or anywhere else in the county? I would think that where Salford's figures rank within the the Greater Manchester county would be more relevant. Richerman ( talk) 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Salford is nowhere near as important as Manchester. We should be comparing like for like e.g. Manchester to Birmingham and Salford to Coventry. Greater Manchester average would be better than Coventry though. ^┌ _Joshii^┐_└ ^chat_┘ 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I chose to compare figures with Manchester because they were easiest to hand and Manchester is of course geographically the closest city; I don't think the website used provides information for anything other than boroughs, however a comparison to Greater Manchester would be ideal. Maybe stats.gov will have something, I'll look into it. Nev1 ( talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was driving through Salford on my way to work this morning and, looking at the large scale regeneration of housing stock that's going on, thought there should be a section on this in the article. I was thinking particularly about Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for Communities see: [1], Chimney Pot Park in Langworthy see [2] and the remodelling of Lower Broughton see: [3]. Maybe I should get some pictures of the work in progress. Richerman ( talk) 08:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the Ward profile reference links are now dead. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The info on Westminster constituencies is ALL wrong NOW. Only Broughton and Kersal (NOT Blackfriars, as put in the article!) are now in the cross boundary Blackley and Broughton constituency. The rest of the city is made up of two constituencies now.

I have been advised by Mr Stephen to discuss the issue with my link here. It seems several people keep deleting my link. My website is a poetry website and I write about living in the Salford area. Surely people deserve an authentic portrayal of what it's like on a day to day basis in Salford. I have had no real feedback and it just seems like people are editing my link out of sheer spite. Floatintheirwell ( talk) 13:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Floatintheirwell

It's being deleted because it fails Wikipedia's policy on external links: WP:EL. Just had a quick glance and these are some of the links to be avoided:

• Links mainly intended to promote a website
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.
• Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
• Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
• ...in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

By your own admission, you are adding links to a site you own or maintain (conflict of interest), and the content is only vaguely related to the subject of the article (a local government district in Greater Manchester), you (no offence) fail the notability criteria.

Please don't take it personally, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. There's a lot more Internet out there! Lozleader ( talk) 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict):Apart from the WP:COI issues arising, I think the site fails on WP:ELNO #11 & 13. Also the site currently has very little content, relevant or otherwise. If it is one persons output there may be questions about WP:NPOV not that the author isn't acting in good faith but by their very nature, poems are subjective and personal. NtheP ( talk) 14:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The two posts above say it all - they are the reasons why I have deleted the link a number of times. It's not suitable for an encyclopaedia as the poems just give your own personal view of the area. And a friendly word of advice - calling another editor a "cretin" will get you blocked see wp:npa. Richerman ( talk) 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can the following be changed please:

Ian Stewart is no longer an MP for Salford, as his Eccles constituency was abolished and merged into Hazel Blears and Barbara Keeley's seats.

Roger Lightup is no longer the Mayor. The current Mayor of Salford is Councillor Eric Burgoyne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.23.35 ( talk) 13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently the two articles on Salford in Greater Manchester say that /ˈsɔːlfərd/ is the main settlement in /ˈsɒlfəd/. English pronunciation being what it is, this still is a bit hard to swallow. According to Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary the pronunciation is a mixture of both: /ˈsɔːlfəd/. I see there that Salfords is pronounced /ˈsælfədz/. Nice. Afasmit ( talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In keeping with the history sections of European cities bombed in WWII, should there not be a link to the Salford subsection in Manchester Blitz ?

Are there teens in Salford who do not know that the city suffered under aerial bombardment of civilian areas in WW II ? This likely immoral warfare strategy in of such historical importance that not to mention or provide the link strikes me as an over-sight worthy of correction.

Will an editor consider adding at least one short sentence with the link?

What is more baffling to me is that the Manchester Blitz article links to Salford,_Greater_Manchester and not this article.

G. Robert Shiplett 12:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence, with a reference. No doubt Salford's local library has much information about this. Unfortunately I live too far away to visit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason the Manchester Blitz article links to Salford, Greater Manchester rather than here is because this article is about a metropolitan borough that was created in 1974. That's not to say Salford wasn't a city during the war, as city status was granted to County Borough of Salford in 1926, but it would be anachronistic to link here. Nev1 ( talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the coordinates in the article's infobox are (partially) displayed twice?— DocWatson42 ( talk) 02:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind—it's been fixed.— DocWatson42 ( talk) 01:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)