Talk:Salford Quays

Golden Tulip

The Golden Tulip is no longer part of the Quays group partnership. The parnership has a website (http://www.thequays.org.uk/) which I feel would be a useful addition to this article.

The Golden Tulip is back in the Quays group marketing partnership - I know as I'm a member of that group.

1) Whoever you are, sign your comments by appending a string of four tildes ~

Thanks - but I don't need your advice on signing my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.93.134 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

2) Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. --Orange Mike 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More

The article as it currently stands deals with the Quays in it's modern redeveloped form... wouldn't it be appropriate to include it's origins (the huge engineering task), history (as an inland port), disuse (its deterioration and disuse following economic changes), and then finally it's modern status?

I'm sure it would be! The Quays aren't just a shopping complex built ten years ago! Jhamez84 11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - Be bold. -- Solipsist 12:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Having looked back (that was my previous account), I was intending somebody else to do this as I do not know the area! Jza84 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Having just come across this article I had exactly the same initial reaction. Salfords Quays wasn't always a yuppy shopping/business enclave. It was a seriously large commercial dock that had a major influence on Manchester's development. And the article makes no mention at all of the the fact that Salford Quays is also a substantial residential area. This article doesn't even begin to do credit to the place. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely - this article is missing a lot. I don't have a lot of time, but know the area quite well and plan on updating some of the content to better reflect it as soon as I can. As I see it, it's missing history, information on most of the major landmarks and any references to the residential developments. Guess it can be my first wikipedia project... ;o) Roobarb! 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum North

Just wondering about the move of the IWMN detail from the Salford Quays to the Trafford Park pages... Should there not be IWMN content on the Quays pages? I feel that there should, as although I agree that the museum is certainly in Trafford Park, it describes and publicises itself as a Quays landmark. I think it would be an odd omission from the Salford Quays pages if it were not mentioned at all. :o/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobarb! (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning is that this an article about Salford Quays, not the Quays. The article says that the two terms are interchangeable, but I don't believe that they are; there were obviously quays on both the Manchester and Salford sides of the canal. Maybe there's scope for a "Quays" article? I'm not sure. But I certainly can't see the justification for including things that can be seen from Salford Quays, or are close to Salford Quays, as landmarks of Salford Quays. What do you think? Why do you think the IWMN ought to be included as one of Salford Quays' landmarks, as opposed to one of Trafford Park's landmarks? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Very true - the distinction is also made in http://thequays.org.uk/ - it refers to The Quays as the combination of Salford Quays, Trafford Wharf and Old Trafford. I think it's important to have some way of tying the pieces together, so perhaps it would be more accurate to have a short 'The Quays' page, which can be referred to by each of the three articles and replace the notion that 'The Quays' is necessarily always just a contraction of 'Salford Quays'. It would improve the accuracy and tie the individual articles together in the same way as they are geographically. Sound any good? --Roobarb! 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't read the website very well - it states "Quays partnership. The Quays is a joint tourism initiative between Salford City Council and Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council supported by private sector partners The Lowry, Imperial War Museum North, Lancashire County Cricket Club, The Lowry Outlet Mall, the Golden Tuilp and Mersey Ferries working in partnership with Marketing Manchester." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.93.134 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea, but could it be kept focused, without including everything on the canal front in Salford Quays, Old Trafford, Trafford Park ... how far back from the canal front would it go? What about Manchester United's ground for instance? I definitely agree though that a distinction between Salford Quays and the Quays needs to be made. And probably a short article on the Quays could do that; there are now road signs pointing to the Quays after all.

I guess what I'm saying is that I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. I think the criterion I'd use is this: does The Quays (as opposed to Salford Quays) feature on any map? Or is it just a branding exercise? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Salford Docks vs Manchester Docks

I've noticed that in this article, the docks previously on the site of Salford Quays are referred to as 'Salford Docks', which I don't think is correct. If you look at maps and photographs from the time, particularly ones of the main dock entrance, they are quite clearly labelled 'Manchester Docks'.

For example, see [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=29577922&postcount=222 this post].

Does anyone have any problem with this being corrected? Roobarb! (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. It was, after all, called the Port of Manchester, not the Port of Salford. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely - I'll tweak this when I next get chance; the Salford Docks article could probably also do with some tweaking. Strangely, the Port of Salford is actually coming into existence now... Roobarb! (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Salford Quays. 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314005144/http://www.salford.gov.uk/wsc-water.htm to http://www.salford.gov.uk/wsc-water.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608021117/http://www.thelowry.com/aboutthelowry/default.html to http://www.thelowry.com/aboutthelowry/default.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011110722/http://salford.gov.uk/mediacityuk.htm to http://www.salford.gov.uk/mediacityuk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928105321/http://www.broadwaymalyan.com/projects/architecture/residential/nv-buildings-manchester.cfm to http://www.broadwaymalyan.com/projects/architecture/residential/nv-buildings-manchester.cfm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)