Talk:Manchester docks

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

I'm not convinced about the accuracy of this article. The lock linking the Ship Canal and Bridgwater Canal is quite definitely still there, and to the best of my knowledge none of the docks have been filled. Only in the Quays have some areas been separated off for water purification reasons.

I think this article could do with some revision, or rewriting and incorporating into the main Salford Quays article.

Update: Sorry, after some further research I can confirm that at Pomona, Dock 1 has been filled, Dock 2 has been partially filled (reduced length), Dock 3 remains as it was and Dock 4 has been filled. I can't confirm any details on Dock 5, other than it is on the 1896 map of the area.

Roobarb! (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Salford Docks → Manchester Docks — Although the docks were indeed based in Salford, they were operated by the Port of Manchester and named the Manchester Docks. This can be seen on the map shown in the article itself, and in [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=29577922&postcount=222 pictures] from the time. I believe it is therefore appropriate to rename this article to refer to the location primarily as Manchester Docks. Roobarb! (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The common name has been Salford Docks for most of its life. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  A name in common usage does not necessarily mean that it is the correct one, and I personally rarely hear the old docks referred to as 'Salford Docks'. Salford Quays (as it is today), yes - but always 'Manchester Docks' for their previous usage. A look at the [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=29577922&postcount=222 first and fifth pictures] from the thread I linked to above shows references to Manchester Docks - including it being printed above the entrance, which you can still make out to this day. Roobarb! (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like there were both Manchester Docks and Salford Docks and not just alternative names, as a search of Google Books finds several examples of this. Maybe the article title should include both. snigbrook (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  I think the dual references are rather in deference to Salford being the place that the docks were, rather than referring to a separate set of Docks. Roobarb! (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment On the face of it I'm prepared to support this, but I'll await further comment before jumping off the fence. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The docks and the canal were paid for by Manchester taxpayers, and were operated by the Port of Manchester. Salford was never a port, and so I agree with Roobarb. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Not quite true Malleus. The verified version at Manchester Ship Canal is that Manchester ratepayers paid a portion of the cost and received 11 of the 21 seats on Manchester Ship Canal Company in return. In addition to the City Council, there were 39,000 other shareholders (see Greater Manchester County Record Office : The Shareholders' Records of the Manchester Ship Canal Company). Skinsmoke (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  You mean of course unverified, as there's a request for citation there; I hadn't yet got around to rewriting that bit. Manchester Corporation put up £5 million, the bulk of the cost, compared to Salford's zero. The point remains though that there was never a Port of Salford. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  PS. Official maps published by the Port of Manchester call the area Manchester Docks. There is no mention of Salford Docks. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• The larger problem here is the lack of references. The name of the article is inconsequential to the fact that there's a serious lack of verifiable information in this article (and, not coincidentally, is the root cause of the name conflict). Improve the article first, then we can talk about a name change. Until then, the article should just remain where it is.
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  I have in front of me an offical 1902 map of the Port of Manchester which shows the whole area, including what we would today call Salford Quays, as Manchester Docks. It isn't a choice between improving the referencing and getting the name right, the name should be right. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  References are how we know that the name is correct... otherwise, these exercises just devolve into a "he said - she said", who do I trust more interpersonal debate (See WP:V). A map is an excellent references to add to the article anyway, so I don't see what the issue is.
  — V = I * R (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  Have you actually looked at the article? There's already a map in it, clearly labelling the docks as Manchester Docks, with neither hide nor hair of these mythical Salford Docks. So let's at least get the name of this article right. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  You mean the one that has "SALFORD" written in big bold letters across the center of it? Regardless, you guys wanted a WP:3O and I provided mine. I have no interest in being insulted because of that so congratulations, you "win", and I'll shut up now.
  — V = I * R (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, I mean that the one that has Manchester Docks written on it. Do you have a map showing Salford Docks? No? Didn't think so. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  PS. Nobody has disputed that many of the Manchester Docks were in Salford, but they were called Manchester Docks. That name is even still visible on a building close to one of the entrances to the old docks, in Salford. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Updates: I've changed the start of this article to more accurately reflect the naming of the area - and it's all referenced. :) Certainly Salford Docks was a term used to refer to the docks at Salford, while Pomona Docks was used to refer to the Trafford / Manchester docks past the Trafford Road swing bridge. But collectively the Salford and Pomona docks were two parts of one thing: Manchester Docks. I'm proposing that the two sections should remain usefully differentiated in the article, as the fate of Pomona and Salford docks have been noticeably different over the past decade or two, but it's clear to me that the article itself is misnamed. Hopefully people will agree. Roobarb! (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Withdrawn my opposition following explanations and recent changes to make it clear about Salford/Pomona. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nice work getting the references up to standards.
  — V = I * R (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester docks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327122642/http://www.salford.gov.uk/milestones_v2.pdf to http://www.salford.gov.uk/milestones_v2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchester docks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120222114/http://users.breathe.com/g8hxe/pomona_docks.htm to http://users.breathe.com/g8hxe/pomona_docks.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607110502/http://www.eyeonmanchester.com/a-walk-through-pomona-forgotten-corner-of-manchester/ to http://www.eyeonmanchester.com/a-walk-through-pomona-forgotten-corner-of-manchester/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)