Talk:Salford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSalford has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Salford status[edit]

Is Salford a city, district or town? Seems to have different meanings. RailwayJG (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1926 Salford was a town after that it was a city, now it is a city and City of Salford, often shortened to Salford, is a metropolitan borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.29.10 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salford is an official city not a district of its own borough[edit]

I noticed again Salford was changed to district in one edit from city. Yet Salford has had city status since 1926 both the city and it's surrounding borough. I don't see why ever so often editors resort to changing it to district when Salford is the main centre and a city. Like Manchester, Milton Keynes, Doncaster, Leeds, Bradford and York?

It has the city in name and Salford is the main settlement of a city borough for which the settlement is also a city. If editors have issues with city being used a discussion really needs to be had. Not just every few months city to district and district back to city and so forth. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley the borough is the city. City status attaches to a corporate body. Salford the settlement has no corporate body; Salford the borough does (Salford City Council); therefore, the city is the borough of Salford.
Sometimes, when a city is merged into a larger district, there is a subcommittee of the council called the charter trustees which is granted the city status. (For example, Durham no longer has its own council, so there are charter trustees on the county council.) Rochester forgot to do this and is therefore the only town ever to lose its city status.
But there are no charter trustees in Salford: the city status was just transferred to the borough. Marnanel (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again debating Salford city status which never ends[edit]

Salford is again being subject to edit warring over being a city. It is a city within its own district. Let's use Lancaster for an example, Lancaster is a city and so is it's district. Same with Leeds in its own district and Peterborough is within its own district.

Like Manchester, Salford is the only other city in the Greater Manchester county and nothing in writing proves it's just a district. Salford is mentioned as a city and the same goes for the two sources provided. Nothing mentions Eccles or Swinton in these two and speaks only about Salford. Which was a county borough prior to City of Salford and was a city before the borough was formed. It being a city in 1926 and from 1974, the borough also becoming a city.

This has been debated a few times and it keeps being which makes no sense.

If the following editors would be willing to contribute to it I'd appreciate it:

@Keith D:, @Rcsprinter123:, @Crouch, Swale:, @PamD:, @Murgatroyd49: and @John Maynard Friedman: DragonofBatley (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last two disputes are really only with one editor, that seems to be a sockpuppet evading a block of their previous account (User:Openshack) if these edits confirm a connection, a new account redirecting blocked account to new one. Salford is commonly described as a city. DankJae 10:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For avoidance of doubt...
There are two types of city in the UK. There are city settlements, which you might call "traditional cities", where a settlement has long been recognised as a city usually due to the presence of a cathedral or university. And then there are city districts, where the monarch has officially declared that a local council district has city status.
This means there are four combinations:
Notice also that the convention is to have a Wikipedia article both on the settlement AND the district, so it is important to know which is which.
Salford (the settlement) is a city settlement. It is within a local government district which has city status, the City of Salford. So BOTH are cities, but this article is about the settlement and not the district. WaggersTALK 11:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers but Rochester lost city status in 1998:
" Rochester is missing from the government's list of cities: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/list-of-cities/list-of-cities-html
* the City of Rochester Society, which was named in 1967, is campaigning to get city status back: https://city-of-rochester.org.uk/features/rochester-city-status/
  • we list Rochester as a town, not a city: Rochester
Rochester is a former city. It was a city between 1211 and 1998. It isn't now. If it had appointed charter trustees, it still would be. Marnanel (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It" doesn't exist - there's no Rochester local authority to appoint charter trustees. There's a difference between official status, and popular understanding of what a city is. Rochester is generally understood to be a city, despite the local authority it's in not having the official status, and that's precisely the point I was making. WaggersTALK 08:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers If there was a Rochester local authority, there would be no need for charter trustees. Charter trustees should be appointed as part of the successor body (Medway, in this instance).
I think you're going to need to come up with some sort of reliable source for the assertion that Rochester is "generally understood" to be a city, in any way that doesn't also apply to, say, Oldham or Reading or Guildford. Marnanel (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one? WaggersTALK 10:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(And the fact the local football club is Rochester City - same applies to Guildford, which is also a cathedral city despite the local authority not having city status) WaggersTALK 10:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DragonofBatley, the status of Salford (in both forms) is well and truly settled and the edits are just wp:disruption. Please report that "new" editor to WP:ANI as a probable sock-puppet of a blocked editor. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can describe the settlement as a city per the Collins ref. Describing it as a town is just going to confuse people. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale What was the Collins ref? Marnanel (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marnanel: See Special:Diff/925170763. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Marnanel (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of City of Salford into Salford[edit]

The article contains no civil parishes and was formed around 1974. It previously was made up of five districts and Salford but the article does not have any parishes and the towns/villages are just suburbs of Salford which is the city. I find having two city articles is counter intuitive and given Manchester is one article despite taking over certain areas after 1972 as well. The city is one article and Salford should be just one. Both are cities and to confuse the readers with two articles.

Leads to readers assuming Swinton and Eccles are the city centre. Let us also use Stoke on Trent as another example. Six towns but one article for the wider city. Each settlement has an article but only one city article. This should be the same for Salford and that is having this article merged into Salford and having Swinton Pendlebury Walkden and Eccles added as areas when they are even if many disagree. They form the city and are part of it. So there is no town or parish councils that have protected these settlements town statuses. Thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This appears to be thoroughly covered above, but for the avoidance of doubt, City of Salford is perfectly clear in the lead where it begins The City of Salford is a metropolitan borough in Greater Manchester, England. The borough is named after its main settlement, Salford. This is in line with other articles on locations that are eponymously named settlements and metropolitan boroughs. The argument for merge appears to be confused, and does not explain why civil parishes should be required, nor why the date of creation of the metropolitan borough is relevant. Disagree that readers would assume Swinton and Eccles are the city centre - and in any case, that would be a matter of care to be taken with article content and not a reason to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy:, let us go a bit south and mention both Birmingham and Wolverhampton. These cities have a town in each (Sutton Coldfield (which has a town council) and Bilston (which is unparished)) but there is no seperate article for both cities and unlike the City of Salford article. There is no seperate city and settlement article. Both articles are for the settlement and metropolitan borough.
The reason the article could be called into question is because. Sutton Coldfield is a royal town and has a council that manages its local services. But Bilston does not and is managed by Wolverhampton city council. Civil parishes are relevant primarily because it is used to showcase the further coverage of a city. (Take City of Lancaster as opposed to City of Manchester). Lancaster city council has civil parishes for Carnforth Morecambe and other villages while Lancaster and Heysham are unparished. Cadishead for example, a village of the city has no parish council but Horwich a town in Bolton has a town council and is parished.
Civil parishes are best used to offer readers additional areas that the city covers. I could bombard the reply with examples but trying to keep it local to the region Salford is in. Another example is Chester (one city article and has no civil parishes) and as mentioned above Lancaster is both a city article and settlement. But Manchester is one for both city and settlement. No borough article for Manchester nor one for Derby just to name a couple.
I'll ping @Crouch, Swale: and @Eopsid: as these editors have been involved as well in discussions like this
DragonofBatley (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going further south, we see an alternative precedent:
We could also go east:
Or west:
Or north:
Clearly, an argument based on the precedent of other UK districts with namesake towns doesn't hold, given there is no precedent. It therefore ought to be determined based on the length of the articles and the extent to which their topics overlap. At the moment, 'Salford' is being deemed the historic centre of the government district and places like Eccles are considered outside the place Salford but within the district Salford. Therefore, the argument is whether a place Salford that is geographically distinct from the district Salford exists. Reliable, though dated, sources confirm this: https://web.archive.org/web/20090205014453/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/greater_manchester_urban_area.asp. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think DragonOfBatley's argument is that it doesnt follow the guidelines set out at WP:UKDISTRICTS and is inconsistent with other articles. Eopsid (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also Oppose (weakly) but I'm unsure how you can have multiple unparished areas if the whole area is unparished. I thought by the fact they are unparished means they dont have formal boundaries. I oppose because Salford Metropolitan borough is more like City of Westminster where we have articles for both the borough and the "area". I understand DragonOfBatley's frustration that this isn't consistent with the Birmingham, Manchester and Wolverhampton articles which like Salford are metropolitan boroughs but we only have one article. Things have been done on a case by case basis for these instead of following WP:UKDISTRICTS exactly. My reason for opposition is that both these articles are currently "good" articles and we'd have to be very careful with a merger to not result in downgrading. Eopsid (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eopsid: Unparished areas are normally defined by the pre 1974 urban districts that didn't have a successor parish[1]. Salford district contains the unparished areas of Salford, Eccles, Swinton and Pendlebury, Irlam and Worsley. Those like Hastings that didn't have any boundary changes in 1974 (or only minor ones) and haven't had any parishes formed since are a single unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Stoke-on-Trent that district was formed in 1910 not 1974 so Stoke-on-Trent is still a single unparished area. We still have an article on the original Stoke-upon-Trent centre while the Stoke-on-Trent article mainly appears to deal with the post 1910 meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Why do we give the pronunciation as /ˈsɒlfərd/ and not /ˈsɒlfəd/? Salford isn't rhotic. Marnanel (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC) (edit to fix autocorrect)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salford&oldid=1210183962"